7 ms·
That Court you're so impressed with repeatedly refused to review lower court rulings that police can physically force a suspect to press their finger against th
by KennyBlanken 2y ago
That Court you're so impressed with repeatedly refused to review lower court rulings that police can physically force a suspect to press their finger against their phone or force them to look at it to unlock it with thumbprint or face ID. The most recent ruling, which they refused to hear an appeal on, was v Payne. The opinion from the 9th circuit was that it was oke-dokeily because, and I quote, "required no cognitive exertion, placing it firmly in the same category as a blood draw or fingerprint taken at booking", and also because the cop could have done it while Payne was unconscious or asleep. The court you're so impressed with looked at that and in refusing to hear the appeal, upheld the decision.
That court you're so impressed with also:
..ruled that silence does not indicate someone is exercising their right to remain silent (!) in Berghuis v. Thompkins. I mean really, you can't make this shit up.
...made Miranda rights almost worthless in Vega v. Tekoh, where a cop cornered a nurse in a storage room, threatened the nurse by putting his hand on his gun, threatened him and his family with deportation, etc...and then his statements were then used against them in court. The ruling removed the right to sue for having one's Miranda rights violated, only that they can suppress the statements in court.
...ruled that imprisoning someone did not count as "custodial". Again, you cannot make this shit up.
...threw a hissy fit when people dared to start protesting outside their homes.
- rpmisms 2y ago> The opinion from the 9th circuit was that it was oke-dokeily because, and I quote, "required no cognitive exertion, placing it firmly in the same category as a blood draw or fingerprint taken at booking" You might dislike it, but legally, these are equivalent, with the requirement of a finger being less onerous. Biometrics are public information, like it or now. It's a well-reasoned decision.
- roenxi 2y agoJust dealing with the one you seem to put as most important - the 9th circuit's logic is watertight and police have to be able to investigate or a lot of murders will go unsolved. You'd really need to provide a reason why the search was unreasonable to make a point with that one. It makes a lot of sense to have protections against the police searching phones, homes, businesses, etc. But assuming that those protections aren't at play then it is entirely reasonable that a policeperson can force someone to put their thumb somewhere. The police already have the power to manhandle and imprison people, forced thumblocation is nothing compared to that. What do you want the Supreme court to do here, officially rule that police can coerce not just entire bodies at once, but also thumbs separately and individually? That seems like an unnecessary call for them to make.
- rayiner 2y ago> That Court you're so impressed with repeatedly refused to review lower court rulings that police can physically force a suspect to press their finger against their phone or force them to look at it to unlock it with thumbprint or face ID Of course they can. Why wouldn’t they be able to?