- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
Suspects can refuse to provide phone passcodes to police, court rules::Phone-unlocking case law is “total mess,” may be ripe for Supreme Court review.
You must log in or # to comment.
Thought this was already established precedent.
Nope, each state is doing its own thing and the 5th ammendment is being trampled in a few of them. Biometrics and passwords are being forced and this is an amazing ruling for 5A advocates like myself.
SC needs to rule on it, but preferably not THIS supreme court
But biometrics have never been covered by the 5th amendment. Police collect facial photos and fingerprints and have done so for years. On top of that any DNA you unknowing leave at a police station can be used as evidence (strand of hair, spit on the rim of a water glass). I would never recommend commiting a crime but if you do and have evidence of it on your phone don’t use biometrics.
Forcing someone to press on their phone to unlock it via fingerprunt is a lot different than just collecting data.
IMO, forced/coerced biometrics to unlock a device SHOULD be covered by 5A
Exactly. If the hair I leave behind or my spit on the rim of a glass can unlock my phone, that sucks but those are public things I’ve left behind. Unless I leave my fingers behind on the officers desk, forcing me to unlock my phone with them should be should be a violation of my rights.
deleted by creator
You’re right. I know your response may seem implausible, but prosecutors have fought against the release of known innocent people.
It’s not even that they’ll try to get a win. It’s that they can refuse to simply honor justice in its most fundamental forms.
Central park 5 comes to mind
Cops have also been known to use “parallel construction” in order to launder evidence that would otherwise be considered inadmissible. It’s fucked.
How come there are never 3A advocates? What if I’m really against allowing soldiers to quarter in private homes?
Edit: I probably subconsciously stole this joke from someone/somewhere in case anyone thinks I’m trying to claim it as my own.
I dunno, how many Jan. 6’ers got convicted by the contents of their phones? :)
deleted by creator
“well, this possible violation of the 5th could have similar results as this other time when i liked the results so…??? should we???”
Not in a post Trump supreme court era it isnt
I’ll keep saying it; The Supreme Court is conservative, not partisan. They owe Trump nothing and have had a few surprising decisions lately.
I don’t trust them a bit, but neither do I trust they’ll always make the wrong call.
I don’t think that’s right. A group that very strongly believes in the Republican Party and its agenda and values would still be definitively partisan. Partisan has always been used in the context of following party lines, not necessarily one person.
But you can trust they will make the wrong call after geting a very expensive vacation and a few dufflebags of money.
Hey, thanks, that’s a useful (and probably fairly accurate) distinction and I’m happy to find that a positive shift in my viewpoint, if minor. The corruption might be a really big problem or it might be one guy who’s an aberration for being wildly outside the court’s norms, really unclear on that part. But I needed a solid reminder that it’s not quite yet another ruined and hypocritical institution we once held dear.
If you believe this, I’m not sure you’ve been paying attention.
The Federalist Society is 100% in bed with the Republican party, and they have chosen essentially every SCOTUS pick by a Republican President since (at least) George W. Bush.
They also stacked our federal courts during Trump’s tenure.
To suggest it’s not partisan is naive.
I mean, whether you say it’s legal or not, I wouldn’t give out my pass code to a police officer. You can get fucked on that one.
In France it’s illegal not to allow them to unlock your phone once they take you to the station. That’s why most of the time we clean our phones or use burners during civil desobedience actions.
Won’t they just keep you locked up perpetually for refusing then?
They might also just shoot you.
Dunno, bit that’s a risk I’m willing to take to maintain my 4th ammendment right.
Shut down your phones so they can’t uze biometrics on you
Android also has a Lockdown mode that will disable biometrics until you unlock with the pin.
How many digits is the pin? Can you try all codes?
It depends, you can pick it. It can range from a simple 4 digit numeric PIN to a full blown alphanumeric with symbols password text field. But I guess the most common is that grid gesture thing, which in some phones you can also customise the size of the grid itself. All these options work as the default fallback to biometrics.
As far as I know as well, you are required to input your pin/password/gesture after a long period of inactivity, after X days, and after a reboot, before being able to use biometrics again.
Pins are pretty damn secure because after too many wrong guesses the phone will start making you wait a long time between attempts.
OTOH, as a point of reference, Microsoft requires an 8-digit pin on phones that can access comment resources. It was 6 until very recently, though, so that’s probably fine if you’re not a target of corporate espionage.
First you’d need to activate it.
As does iOS for over a decade now.
Why are you being downvoted?
He sounds like android just got this feature.
On lemmy, Apple Bad™
This is a complicated situation, but in my opinion, probably the correct decision.
Given this is the ruling, if you do believe your phone is about to be confiscated, and you don’t want its contents to be used as evidence, it might be a good idea to turn off your phone. Although the police cannot compel a password, a biometric unlock is not a password. If you turn off your phone, it will generally require a password to enable biometric unlock.
It’s not complicated at all. The constitution guarantees the right that no one be compelled to testify against themselves.
It is complicated in the US because of biometrics and the wide use of contempt citations. If you “forget” your password, you can be held in contempt and jailed for up to 18 months (I missed that; last I knew it was indefinite). Biometrics and other “something you are” items can be forcibly taken (eg your fingerprints or retinal scans) with full legal backing. Your perspective, while laudable, only exists in the potential future orgs like the EFF and ACLU are fighting to create. It is very wrong today.
I don’t understand the USA law that well, probably not a good thing because I’ve lived here my whole life, but don’t the Miranda rights say “you have the right to remain silent” and the 5th amendment says you have the right to not answer any questions that would self incriminate yourself? The police can’t legally compell a private citizen to tell them a phone passcode or anything and I think any defense lawyer would immediately call out a judge who posed the threat of contemp over this.
IANAL. I recommend you start with the link I shared and the OP article which has a massive number of links to related cases (included the one I shared). The basics, as I understand them, is that being compelled to share a password and being compelled to give details of a crime you committed are viewed differently by the law.
Last I looked at it, it was like having a safe. They can take the safe and break in.
If the safe is locked by a key. They can subpoena a key since it’s a physical object. It’s something you have, not something you know. If you’re phone is locked by biometrics, it’s something you have. They can force you to give them something you have.
If the safe is locked with a combination, they cannot force you to talk. You have the right to remain silent and the right not to incriminate yourself. If your phone is locked with a pin or passcode, it’s a similar concept.
However, things get murky, because if we stay with the safe analogy, and they know you have a specific document or item in that safe. They can subpoena that specific document and you may be compelled to provide the document, although maybe not the combination.
Anyway, long story short. Shit is weird and not cut and dry.
deleted by creator
Not all phones have it I believe. For example, OnePlus just removed one day with an update when they switched to using a ColorOS skin.
Most phones have a way to use a button sequence force the next lock to require a PIN code. iPhone is just hitting the side button 5x for instance.
On iPhone, tap the power button five times quickly
Or squeeze volume up button and power button. Encrypts your data and requires passcode unlock. Also, set a long passcode like 10 digits. 4 can be cracked in minutes. 6 can be cracked in a few hours.
Don’t hold them down for too long though or it automatically calls the emergency services!
FTA:
“The Valdez case does not involve an order to compel a suspect to unlock a device. Instead, “law enforcement asked Valdez to verbally provide his passcode,” Utah justices wrote. “While these circumstances involve modern technology in a scenario that the Supreme Court has not yet addressed, we conclude that these facts present a more straightforward question that is answered by settled Fifth Amendment principles.””
So now, every cop everywhere is going to be like “Yeah, I’m going to need you to unlock your phone.”
deleted by creator
I’m not discussing my day.
“Do me a favor”
That’s a free trade agreement?
Oh no, I get it, the Federal Transit Administration said that. To the Forum on Tax Administration.
[Sarcasm] That everything has to be an initialism now is sooooooper convenient and cool. Imean, TEHTBAINISCAC. EWKWTM.
An app can clear your phone with a specific password, can’t remember the name…
Wasted on F-Droid.
Can you suggest any app, which gives more flexibility in what to erase?
Pretty sure the 5th Amendment doesn’t protect against obstruction of justice if you knowingly wipe your phone while under custody
How could they know?
Just yell at them “WTF DID YOU DO? MY LAST GRANDFATHER PICTURES ARE GONE!”
And tadaaaaa
Isn’t this a human right?
Bold of you to assume human rights are respected.
deleted by creator
I think we’re sort of deciding that right now? Lots of new technologies are getting out ahead of any substantial laws that would protect human rights in these situations.
What if you have face unlock?
Last I heard biometrics were not protected. As in you have to unlock your phone upon request. A code, pattern or other thing you know was treated differently from using your body to unlock your phone.
No one has ever accused criminals of being smart
Criminals are just the smallest group that interact with cops and get harassed by them.
While it’s tough to have any sympathy for an offender like this, even the worst monsters are entitled to due process and their rights as human beings. Most of the article is about disobeying the court, so that really shouldn’t be news.
It’s the twisted logic that got them there that’s really suspect. If I can paraphrase, “we don’t have enough evidence to incriminate you so you must provide that evidence. The ruling stand because the police already know you’re guilty so incriminating yourself is not self-incrimination”. Yeah, I took some liberties with it, but not as much as the court
At least the ruling limiting jail time makes sense, you can’t imprison someone for contempt longer than the court proceedings, or impanelment, or 18 months, whichever comes first. I didn’t see any implications in the article, but hopefully it either applies generally to contempt, or any contempt charge has a similar limitation. You can’t just imprison someone indefinitely for refusing to speak
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Criminal suspects can refuse to provide phone passcodes to police under the US Constitution’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, according to a unanimous ruling issued today by Utah’s state Supreme Court.
Police officers obtained a search warrant for the contents of Valdez’s phone but couldn’t crack his passcode.
At his trial, the state “elicited testimony from the detective about Valdez’s refusal to provide his passcode when asked,” today’s ruling said.
"And during closing arguments, the State argued in rebuttal that Valdez’s refusal and the resulting lack of evidence from his cell phone undermined the veracity of one of his defenses.
“While these circumstances involve modern technology in a scenario that the Supreme Court has not yet addressed, we conclude that these facts present a more straightforward question that is answered by settled Fifth Amendment principles.”
“One of the major issues in the law of digital evidence investigations is how the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination applies to unlocking phones,” Kerr wrote.
The original article contains 499 words, the summary contains 161 words. Saved 68%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
this is still up in the air, but it seems to be generally breaking such that police can force you to use fingerprints or faceID to unlock your phone because fingerprints and face scans are evidence, but you can refuse to give them a passcode because a passcode is testimony. so use passcodes, not biometrics.
