Utah Supreme Court says suspects can refuse to hand over phone passwords to the police | Other state Supreme Courts disagree and the case would wind up before the US Supreme Court
Utah Supreme Court says suspects can refuse to hand over phone passwords to the police | Other state Supreme Courts disagree and the case would wind up before the US Supreme Court
Utah's state Supreme Court has upheld a court of appeals ruling, finding in the State v. Valdez that the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination allows criminal suspects...
Utah Supreme Court says suspects can refuse to hand over phone passwords to the police | Other state Supreme Courts disagree and the case would wind up before the US Supreme Court::undefined
You're viewing a single thread.
5A protections SHOULD cover divulging passwords or being forced to supply biometrics as a password.
Now, if the police/feds can take fingerprints obtained at booking and use a 3d printer to simulate that finger and then use that fake finger to open a lock, then I dont think 5A would protect that. Thats just crafty detective work.
Yeah biometrics historically haven't been protected by the 5th amendment. I have seen other people argue that not supplying the password if the police obtain a warrant can result in obstruction of justice charges. I like to think it wouldn't. They have the phone and a warrant it's up to them to figure it out, a person doesn't have to point out where they hide things in their home to police.
But if you don't open the safe, they can destroy it to retrieve the contents. They could destroy your phone too in the process.
...Exactly. The laws in the USA don't really reflect modern digital technology that well. Many of our legislators don't understand the tech and the government is so divided that getting anything to pass seems impossible.
How is your “crafty detective work” really any different than sneaking in through a window even though you don’t have a search warrant?
I never said they wouldnt have a warrant, I dont understand the comparison
If one had a warrant then you just force the suspect to give over. Just like forcing them to give fingerprints. Isn’t the whole discussion moot if they have a warrant?
So when you offer a path to get into the phone without a warrant it’s just like breaking into a “house” without a warrant. Technically easy - just go through the window or use the fingerprint from booking. It if we agree with due process either is wrong.
It is not, because the issue is whether police CAN compel someone to give their password.
From the article:
When [Valdez] was arrested, the police found a cell phone in his pocket and obtained a search warrant for its contents. However they were unable to crack the password and Valdez refused to provide it when asked. The police were never able to search the phone.
Further down, italics added by me to emojis the important bit.
He was convicted in the jury trial, which was reversed by the court of appeals that agreed Valdez had a right under the Fifth Amendment to refuse to provide his passcode, and that the state violated that right when it used his refusal against him at trial.
Lastly, I want to add one important distinction. Fingerprints are physical characteristics, while passwords are personal information. Fingerprints are distinct from passwords in that you have fingerprints, but know a password. You can only get one of them off a dead guy.
It's pretty well established that any biometric can just be taken from you --- facial recognition is super easy and it won't be hard to force your thumb onto the sensor.
This is also the case for things like blood draw for blood alcohol testing.
The only unlock key that's (probably) truly yours is something inside your brain.
Being well established and being valid are two different things.