3 ms·
> Although the focus of the foregone conclusion is on the passcode, in our view, it properly should be placed on the information the State is ultimately seeking
by mydriasis 3y ago
> Although the focus of the foregone conclusion is on the passcode, in our view, it properly should be placed on the information the State is ultimately seeking, which is not the passcode but everything on Spicer’s phone.
...
> Although the denial did not directly suppress specifically identified evidence, it prevented the State from accessing any evidence on the phone and presenting it to the factfinder, thereby having the substantive effect of suppressing evidence.
This... seems like some weird mental / legal gymnastics.
- Kon-Peki 3y agoYeah, really weird. In the decision linked in the article, the court says that putting in your passcode is just muscle memory; you don’t have to dig deep into your mind for it. It also said that phones are just containers and that a defendant has valid 4th amendment rights to challenge the scope of the search warrant. So I guess they are saying the just because you unlocked the phone doesn’t mean the police can do whatever they want with it.
- salawat 3y agoDidn't you know? That's what courts are for. Same way growing extra grain, that you don't intend to sell anyone is still regulable by the Federal government as interstate commerce. See Wickett v. Filburn