Phone-unlocking case law is "total mess," may be ripe for Supreme Court review.

Suspects can refuse to provide phone passcodes to police, court rules::Phone-unlocking case law is “total mess,” may be ripe for Supreme Court review.

  • CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.worldEnglish
    76·
    11 months ago

    Nope, each state is doing its own thing and the 5th ammendment is being trampled in a few of them. Biometrics and passwords are being forced and this is an amazing ruling for 5A advocates like myself.

    SC needs to rule on it, but preferably not THIS supreme court

    • AdamEatsAss@lemmy.worldEnglish
      262·
      11 months ago

      But biometrics have never been covered by the 5th amendment. Police collect facial photos and fingerprints and have done so for years. On top of that any DNA you unknowing leave at a police station can be used as evidence (strand of hair, spit on the rim of a water glass). I would never recommend commiting a crime but if you do and have evidence of it on your phone don’t use biometrics.

      • CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.worldEnglish
        32·
        11 months ago

        Forcing someone to press on their phone to unlock it via fingerprunt is a lot different than just collecting data.

        IMO, forced/coerced biometrics to unlock a device SHOULD be covered by 5A

        • AA5B@lemmy.worldEnglish
          8·
          11 months ago

          Exactly. If the hair I leave behind or my spit on the rim of a glass can unlock my phone, that sucks but those are public things I’ve left behind. Unless I leave my fingers behind on the officers desk, forcing me to unlock my phone with them should be should be a violation of my rights.

        • APassenger@lemmy.worldEnglish
          18·
          11 months ago

          You’re right. I know your response may seem implausible, but prosecutors have fought against the release of known innocent people.

          It’s not even that they’ll try to get a win. It’s that they can refuse to simply honor justice in its most fundamental forms.

        • prole@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          11·
          11 months ago

          Cops have also been known to use “parallel construction” in order to launder evidence that would otherwise be considered inadmissible. It’s fucked.

    • prole@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      9·
      11 months ago

      How come there are never 3A advocates? What if I’m really against allowing soldiers to quarter in private homes?

      Edit: I probably subconsciously stole this joke from someone/somewhere in case anyone thinks I’m trying to claim it as my own.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldEnglish
      310·
      11 months ago

      I dunno, how many Jan. 6’ers got convicted by the contents of their phones? :)

      • Chee_Koala@lemmy.worldEnglish
        13·
        11 months ago

        “well, this possible violation of the 5th could have similar results as this other time when i liked the results so…??? should we???”

      • starman2112@lemmy.worldEnglish
        6·
        11 months ago

        My understanding was that most of them got got because their cell companies knew where they were, not because of the contents of their phones

        But also, I’d rather let every Jan Sixer go free than imprison one innocent person because they looked up textiles.com two years ago and found out how to make meth