5 ms·

Forcing me to apply my thumb to a fingerprint reader is, to my mind, no different than forcing me to empty my pockets to provide a key that unlocks something th

Forcing me to apply my thumb to a fingerprint reader is, to my mind, no different than forcing me to empty my pockets to provide a key that unlocks something the court has ordered be unlocked. Parolees have restrictions placed on them as part of their release, including the right of police to inspect things on their person and property. If parolees find those conditions burdensome, they are more than welcome to reject parole and finish their sentence as it was originally imposed.

leptons 3y ago
The title says "suspect", but in the article it's about a parolee, which seems is a bit different than just "a suspect" in the eyes of the law? Clickbait title strikes again.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  I don't think it's clickbait. The subject was a parolee who was also the suspect in a new crime.
  - EA-3167 3y ago
    Parolees are subject to all sorts of restrictions and obligations that a regular citizen is not, even when they're not a suspect in a new crime. That's the issue, their rights are already abrogated, and that's settled law.
    - SuperNinKenDo 3y ago
      Is the question of blooddraws and fingerprints drawn from that fact? That is to say, was that a valid argument for compelling the fingerprint-unlock because parolees supply their fingerprints? I'm not American and had formed the impression that simply being remanded could involve fingerprinting in some states?
      - EA-3167 3y ago
        That's my impression yes, if you can be compelled to forgo your 4th amendment rights and others, surely this is part of that.
  - shiroiushi 3y ago
    No, it'd definitely clickbait. The person wasn't just a regular citizen, he was a parolee. They left out this crucial detail from the headline, and it changes everything.
  - leptons 3y ago
    https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/04/17/22-50262.pdf https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/04/17/2... The word "parolee" is mentioned 99 times in the judgement. This is very much about someone who is on parole, who agreed to let law enforcement access their devices, and not about an average person that isn't under parole.

leptons 3y ago

The title says "suspect", but in the article it's about a parolee, which seems is a bit different than just "a suspect" in the eyes of the law? Clickbait title strikes again.

JohnFen 3y ago
I don't think it's clickbait. The subject was a parolee who was also the suspect in a new crime.
- EA-3167 3y ago
  Parolees are subject to all sorts of restrictions and obligations that a regular citizen is not, even when they're not a suspect in a new crime. That's the issue, their rights are already abrogated, and that's settled law.
  - SuperNinKenDo 3y ago
    Is the question of blooddraws and fingerprints drawn from that fact? That is to say, was that a valid argument for compelling the fingerprint-unlock because parolees supply their fingerprints? I'm not American and had formed the impression that simply being remanded could involve fingerprinting in some states?
    - EA-3167 3y ago
      That's my impression yes, if you can be compelled to forgo your 4th amendment rights and others, surely this is part of that.
- shiroiushi 3y ago
  No, it'd definitely clickbait. The person wasn't just a regular citizen, he was a parolee. They left out this crucial detail from the headline, and it changes everything.
- leptons 3y ago
  https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/04/17/22-50262.pdf https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/04/17/2... The word "parolee" is mentioned 99 times in the judgement. This is very much about someone who is on parole, who agreed to let law enforcement access their devices, and not about an average person that isn't under parole.