3 ms·
> Baust will head to the police station on Monday morning [to comply with the ruling], but [his lawyer] believes police still may be unable to unlock the phone
by andreyf 12y ago
> Baust will head to the police station on Monday morning [to comply with the ruling], but [his lawyer] believes police still may be unable to unlock the phone because it should require a password [demanding which is unconstitutional], in addition to a fingerprint, once it has been shut off.
Am I naive for thinking these technicalities are really silly? Is not the goal here to establish whether accessing and searching one's phone is fair game at some point in an investigation / trial?
- ipsin 12y agoThis is not "some point in an investigation / trial", this is a specific point. They have a warrant. I'm not a big fan of "compelled evidence" (gathering DNA, blood or fingerprints from a suspect), but the courts have been saying it's ok, and that's the approach they're taking here. They just can't (so far, in the US) compel you to actually produce testimonial evidence like passwords, passcodes, etc.