- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 9th Circuit rules Cops can force you to use fingerprint to unlock phone
Posted on 4/19/24 at 5:22 pm to imjustafatkid
Posted on 4/19/24 at 5:22 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
Ridiculous. They should at least be required to obtain a warrant first.
The contents of the phone are still protected by the 4th Amendment, so a warrant would still be required, although it appears that in this case he waived his 4th Amendment rights as a condition of his parole for a prior offense.
This post was edited on 4/19/24 at 5:26 pm
0
Posted on 4/19/24 at 6:16 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Interesting if this changes anyone's opinion of the ruling.
Why would it?
Posted on 4/19/24 at 6:41 pm to SlowFlowPro
You.
Are.
Stupid.
Are.
Stupid.
Posted on 4/19/24 at 7:02 pm to AubieinNC2009
This has more to do with Self-Incrimination vs Privacy. The privacy argument is inherently weaker than the other. However, this should be overturned by SCOTUS…maybe they’ll even extend privacy rights based on this blatant usurpation of the Constitution.
Posted on 4/19/24 at 7:04 pm to Strannix
quote:
Why would it?
There are select crimes that certain posters don't believe in constitutional rights and have made it known lately.
Like 2A rights for non-citizens or assylum seekers here without a visa
Posted on 4/19/24 at 7:05 pm to IndianPower
quote:
You.
Are.
Stupid.
Ok pal
Posted on 4/19/24 at 7:05 pm to BayouBengal21
quote:
maybe they’ll even extend privacy rights based on this blatant usurpation of the Constitution.
How so if it was agreed upon as a condition of his parole? It sounds like the guy is arguing semantics of thumbprint vs. password.
Posted on 4/19/24 at 7:49 pm to AubieinNC2009
I can understand if they have a warrant. That’s like unlocking your door or safe.
But this is supposed to be ok without a warrant?
But this is supposed to be ok without a warrant?
Posted on 4/19/24 at 8:22 pm to SixthAndBarone
quote:
But this is supposed to be ok without a warrant?
Parolees don't have the same rights as normal citizens. You can be ordered to your P.O.'s office once a month against your will, drug tested against your will, and apparently be searched against your will. The remedies are to either #1: don't do anything that would land you in prison OR #2: if you find yourself in prison, don't agree to the terms of parole. Technically, parole is just supervised release. You're still legally a prisoner.
Posted on 4/20/24 at 12:11 am to AubieinNC2009
quote:
Big loss for right of privacy
No such thing
Posted on 4/20/24 at 1:29 am to BigBinBR
100% this is a back door to use on other things also
Posted on 4/20/24 at 6:31 am to AubieinNC2009
I don’t use fingerprint access on my phone.
Posted on 4/20/24 at 9:14 am to imjustafatkid
quote:It is a two-step process.
They should at least be required to obtain a warrant first.
First, is law enforcement entitled to see the contents of your phone? That is a Fourth Amendment issue.
Second, if so, are you required to “assist” them in gaining access TO your phone. That is a Fifth Amendment issue.
Because this appeal relates to a parolee, only issue two was in play in this case.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News