3 ms·

This seems reasonable. Anybody want to play internet lawyer to explain why you can't/shouldn't be compelled to unlock a fingerprint protected device?

bendykstra 11y ago
After Riley v California (2014), a warrant is required before the search of a mobile device. Therefore, in a scenario where you are asked to unlock your device, the only question is whether you are required to cooperate by giving your password or offering your finger. In the case of a password, the answer appears to be no, due to the privilege against self-incrimination. In the case of fingerprints, there is no such right. You are merely identifying yourself to the phone and your identity cannot be construed as incriminating testimony. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-132_8l9c.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-132_8l9c.pdf http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3437&context=jclc http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent...
ctdonath 11y ago
Not that I do or don't agree... My current operating theory is that investigators may use a "rag doll" view: they can't compel you to admit or divulge anything, but they can make use of your limp uncooperative (but not resisting per se) body. They may note your biometrics (eye color, iris pattern, hair samples, fingerprints, etc), doing so non-invasively (no blood samples unless you're already bleeding); as such they could take your hand and press your finger onto a fingerprint reader, just as they are allowed to gather prints for a background check without a warrant (AFAIK). Corrections welcome.
- rhino369 11y ago
  You are essentially correct. The fifth amendment says you can't be compelled to "to be a witness against himself." Courts have found that bio-metrics aren't witnessing, it's just evidence they are collecting about you.
ams6110 11y ago
The analogy I've often heard is that it's like a safe. Presented with the proper warrants, you can't refuse to open a safe on the basis of the 5th ammendment.
- tormeh 11y ago
  Yeah, that would be the closest thing I can think of in the real world.
- derekp7 11y ago
  But what if the safe had documents in it which was written in a language that only you know? Is there any circumstances where you could be compelled to translate them?
  - mc32 11y ago
    Some bookkepers for crime organizations have from time to time used their own notation to keep the books. Typically, they have not been sophisticated enough to hide malfeasance, in addition, the shadiness of it is often enough evidence of wrongdoing, or at least leads to forensic accounting which reveals tax evasion.
- galaxyLogic 11y ago
  I find it interesting. It is crime to do crime is a tautology. But isn't "It is crime to try to hide the fact that you are doing crime" bit of the same? If you're doing crime OF COURSE you are trying to hide the fact that you are are doing crime. Does it make it more or less of a crime, since in practice every criminal is already doing that? Except terrorists. They want everybody to know they are doing it. Does that make them less criminal then?

bendykstra 11y ago

After Riley v California (2014), a warrant is required before the search of a mobile device. Therefore, in a scenario where you are asked to unlock your device, the only question is whether you are required to cooperate by giving your password or offering your finger. In the case of a password, the answer appears to be no, due to the privilege against self-incrimination. In the case of fingerprints, there is no such right. You are merely identifying yourself to the phone and your identity cannot be construed as incriminating testimony. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-132_8l9c.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-132_8l9c.pdf http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3437&context=jclc http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent...

ctdonath 11y ago

Not that I do or don't agree... My current operating theory is that investigators may use a "rag doll" view: they can't compel you to admit or divulge anything, but they can make use of your limp uncooperative (but not resisting per se) body. They may note your biometrics (eye color, iris pattern, hair samples, fingerprints, etc), doing so non-invasively (no blood samples unless you're already bleeding); as such they could take your hand and press your finger onto a fingerprint reader, just as they are allowed to gather prints for a background check without a warrant (AFAIK). Corrections welcome.

rhino369 11y ago
You are essentially correct. The fifth amendment says you can't be compelled to "to be a witness against himself." Courts have found that bio-metrics aren't witnessing, it's just evidence they are collecting about you.

ams6110 11y ago

The analogy I've often heard is that it's like a safe. Presented with the proper warrants, you can't refuse to open a safe on the basis of the 5th ammendment.

tormeh 11y ago
Yeah, that would be the closest thing I can think of in the real world.
derekp7 11y ago
But what if the safe had documents in it which was written in a language that only you know? Is there any circumstances where you could be compelled to translate them?
- mc32 11y ago
  Some bookkepers for crime organizations have from time to time used their own notation to keep the books. Typically, they have not been sophisticated enough to hide malfeasance, in addition, the shadiness of it is often enough evidence of wrongdoing, or at least leads to forensic accounting which reveals tax evasion.
galaxyLogic 11y ago
I find it interesting. It is crime to do crime is a tautology. But isn't "It is crime to try to hide the fact that you are doing crime" bit of the same? If you're doing crime OF COURSE you are trying to hide the fact that you are are doing crime. Does it make it more or less of a crime, since in practice every criminal is already doing that? Except terrorists. They want everybody to know they are doing it. Does that make them less criminal then?