2 ms·
I'm just not seeing a meaningful distinction between forcibly taking their fingerprint ("something about them") to check against prints found on a gun and forci
by darkpuma 8y ago
I'm just not seeing a meaningful distinction between forcibly taking their fingerprint ("something about them") to check against prints found on a gun and forcibly taking their fingerprint ("something about them") to check a smartphone found on the scene.
If they have a warrant to check the phone, and if taking fingerprints of the arrested without consent has already been found constitutional, I just don't see a problem.
- rocqua 8y agoI'm guessing this ruling is about taking the suspects actual finger and placing it on the scanner. This is different from building a fake finger based on fingerprints and using it to unlock your device. Consider the password case, you can't be compelled to give your password, but the government is allowed to throw all of their hacking prowess against your device to crack that password. They can even ask you about the name of your first pet to get through security questions. Though they can't compel you to answer truly regarding the name of your first pet.