I've done a little reading on this case and the details provided in the MacRumors summary are a little misleading. Apparently, the suspect assaulted his girlfriend by strangling her, she wasnt strangled to death, but the room that this is said to have occurred in had video recording equipment in it and it is suspected that he may have transferred recorded footage of the assault to his phone. I haven't seen the full details but it seems a little tenuous.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Court Rules Police Can Force Users to Unlock iPhones With Fingerprints, But Not Passcodes
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
WTH? So my personal fingerprint is under state control (and can be used against me) but my personal memory of a passcode isn't.
Wonder what category retina scans fall under.
Maybe you don't fully understand what a Birth Certificate is, not saying that to be sarcastic or belittle. Might be worth Googling it. You'd be surprised what you are going to find out.
Last edited:
This is actually a good idea.
And it already happens.
On my phone once it's unlocked and I want to use a certain app I still have to use a passcode for those apps.
If the photos of me killing someone are in the private photo app then that's under a passcode.
Sure I will open the iPhone with my finger. But you're not getting the passcode to the app.
What we need now is an app that automatically erases its data when the wrong code is used.
Of course I wouldn't have photos of a murder on my phone in the first place. That would be stupid but I can see there is a lot of stupid in this country based on photos put on the internet of people robbing banks/stores and then sharing it with the world on Facebook. LOL
Something important to note: the request for the suspect in the case to unlock his phone was accompanied by a search warrant. If in the course of an investigation a police officer forces someone to do this I have to believe there is a search warrant involved. Just like searching a residence or a computer. If the police get a warrant to search your home it's not like you can say "well that's cool but my door is locked so...." Personally I find this to be a non-story. If you really feel compelled to strangle your girlfriend and record it then maybe the Fifth Amendment isn't your biggest problem in life.
All these posts about wanting to foil the police. I would really like to see the reaction from one of you when the police come to you and say, Sorry, we had to let the guy who raped and murdered your young daughter go because we couldnt get into his phone for evidence. Hes back out on the streets.
Yea because all iphone users will be in front of a judge everyday, with a similar felony that involves going thru your phone.
F the police. no disrespect some are ok but not once in my life have i had a cop help me yet have had them harass me.. once for asking if my dog had a license for no reason, another told me "don't let that dog **** around here" and all i was doing was walking minding my business. another came into where i work when i was 23 and told me i look younger than my age and said probably cause of my zits which i had a problem with at that age and he said this is front of a ton of people in the store so i was embarrassed by this fat jerk. oh and a cop paid my mom not to report an accident when he backed into her trying to avoid waiting at a light near our house! if it was me i would have reported him just for spite
Thanks for the link, theres a good documentary on youtube called taking liberties its scary (and sad) the road the UK is going down with individual rights and liberties.
I see this to be the same as not being able to search for specific items unless given a warrant. I'm so against allowing law enforcement making me go into my phone for anything, especially off of suspicion and not proof. But so for letting them go to videos to find proof such as that.
The Constitution does not grant the government the right to seize without reasonable cause/warrant, and does not grant the right to incarcerate an innocent person. Anything else is just talk by people without understanding of the US justice system.
----------
This is exactly why a legal system is in place and has to be preserved. My reaction would be to kill the murderer (without trial), and his family, and his friends, and so on. Maybe torture him. Yet, due to rage, I wouldn't care if the suspected person is guilty or not. In my eyes, any suspect would be considered a guilty party (as it often happens in the media).
The legal system sometimes does protect a guilty person who still has the right to a fair trial.
"An eye for eye for an eye" has been deemed as a quite antiquated method of applying the law.
We are speaking about unlock a frakkin phone, not about incarcerate an innocent....
I'm done with this thread. I'm working for the government. I'm also a father, an husband and a son, just like most of you. Not a Nazi.
I really hope just a few Americans see the government trough your distorted eyes....
Not so easy: Don't have the police make a mistake and falsely accuse you of breaking the law. Or perhaps your view is that the police are an infallible institution.
And how do they know that the guy is actually guilty? If they know already it means they have enough evidence, so the smartphone is not needed. If they need the smartphone's contents it's because they don't have enough evidence, so they only have a suspect which is innocent until proven guilty.
Good luck to the police to keep the phone battery from running out until they get a warrant compelling you to unlock it, while at the same time preventing you or your confederates from remote-wiping it.
Yes, it is doable, but those police departments that manage it will be few and far between.
Actually you get prompted from the code after 3 failed attempt, but the code becomes not yet mandatory. The code becomes mandatory after 5 failed attempts.
This is actually a good idea.
And it already happens.
On my phone once it's unlocked and I want to use a certain app I still have to use a passcode for those apps.
If the photos of me killing someone are in the private photo app then that's under a passcode.
Sure I will open the iPhone with my finger. But you're not getting the passcode to the app.
What we need now is an app that automatically erases its data when the wrong code is used.
Of course I wouldn't have photos of a murder on my phone in the first place. That would be stupid but I can see there is a lot of stupid in this country based on photos put on the internet of people robbing banks/stores and then sharing it with the world on Facebook. LOL
I thought you couldn't put a passcode on the apps. How is this done? Thanks.
This is a Fouth, not a Fifth Amendment issue
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
What part of the Fourth Amendment does the Federal Judge in Virginia not understand? His ruling citing the Fifth Amendment protections against an individual testifying against himself is not material to this case. The police have no right absent probable cause to forcibly seize an individual's fingerprint to search "papers and effects" stored on his iPhone. Want to search my iPhone? You better get a warrant.
This case is akin to Weeks vs. The United States. That landmark case set the terms for what constitutes and unreasonable search and seizure. The judge in this current case completely erred on the law. This case has nothing in common with Miranda vs. Arizona, the 1966 Fifth Amendment case. It is not a matter of self incrimination. Why the court used this argument makes no sense to me.
----------
The easiest way to thwart this judge's mis reading of what constitutional amendment applies here is to immediately power off the iPhone. At restart, the fingerprint Touch ID does not work until the four digit pin is entered. Case Closed!
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
What part of the Fourth Amendment does the Federal Judge in Virginia not understand? His ruling citing the Fifth Amendment protections against an individual testifying against himself is not material to this case. The police have no right absent probable cause to forcibly seize an individual's fingerprint to search "papers and effects" stored on his iPhone. Want to search my iPhone? You better get a warrant.
This case is akin to Weeks vs. The United States. That landmark case set the terms for what constitutes and unreasonable search and seizure. The judge in this current case completely erred on the law. This case has nothing in common with Miranda vs. Arizona, the 1966 Fifth Amendment case. It is not a matter of self incrimination. Why the court used this argument makes no sense to me.
----------
The easiest way to thwart this judge's mis reading of what constitutional amendment applies here is to immediately power off the iPhone. At restart, the fingerprint Touch ID does not work until the four digit pin is entered. Case Closed!
I turned off fingerprint unlock for other reasons
I think fingerprint unlock annoying since it forces you to have to unlock your phone every time (immediately). Pass code gives you option of choosing 1, 5, 15, and 60 minutes before it requests a code again. I use the 15 minute option
I think fingerprint unlock annoying since it forces you to have to unlock your phone every time (immediately). Pass code gives you option of choosing 1, 5, 15, and 60 minutes before it requests a code again. I use the 15 minute option
I don't know. But I have several apps that use passwords. The four digit number kind and the longer versions.
For example, in order to use my banking app I have to enter my username and my password.
Absolutely--good analogy. They will get into your house even if they have to break down the door. Same thing with your phone--if it is code protected, they will try to break into your phone--but it is up to them to figure that out--not you.
Some logic for you...
First, the US Supreme Ct has already ruled that cell phone info isn't searchable by police without a warrant. This means they need probable cause to search cell phone information.
Second, though we are compelled to give forensic evidence such as finger prints, DNA, etc., the use of this has generally been only for the purpose of using this unique identification information to tie a person to a known crime (note that this also can be and often is used to help exonerate a wrongfully charged or convicted person). This info is NOT currently used for a general and broad search of any law a person may have broken (nor can it currently be used for this). This makes the use of cell phone info very different from the use of forensic evidence.
Last, though a person may be compelled to give a fingerprint, how the police can actually use it may still be restricted. A passcode is a passcode, be it biometric or otherwise. If under the 5th amendment it was determined that one passcode cannot be used, then it stands to reason that ALL passcodes should not be usable.
Other thoughts: If the police have nothing else besides a locked cell phone, especially if it's not enough cause for a warrant, then chances are the person may actually be innocent. Though it usually has to be very strong and compelling, circumstantial evidence is often used to gain a conviction. Anyone who thinks innocent people are never convicted is delusional. With the advent of DNA analysis, many wrongful convictions have been overturned, often after the person has already served a long sentence. Fortunately less often, this can even expose evidence handling improprieties by police or others.
With all of the video cameras now in use and the growing use of other new forensic techniques, the police have more tools at their disposal than ever to solve and convict a crime. I'm not saying felons don't sometimes walk free, but in order to preserve our constitutional rights it's important that we preserve the original intent of our constitution, lest we come that much closer to becoming a police state. I guarantee if it's you being wrongfully charged then you will want this protection!
First, the US Supreme Ct has already ruled that cell phone info isn't searchable by police without a warrant. This means they need probable cause to search cell phone information.
Second, though we are compelled to give forensic evidence such as finger prints, DNA, etc., the use of this has generally been only for the purpose of using this unique identification information to tie a person to a known crime (note that this also can be and often is used to help exonerate a wrongfully charged or convicted person). This info is NOT currently used for a general and broad search of any law a person may have broken (nor can it currently be used for this). This makes the use of cell phone info very different from the use of forensic evidence.
Last, though a person may be compelled to give a fingerprint, how the police can actually use it may still be restricted. A passcode is a passcode, be it biometric or otherwise. If under the 5th amendment it was determined that one passcode cannot be used, then it stands to reason that ALL passcodes should not be usable.
Other thoughts: If the police have nothing else besides a locked cell phone, especially if it's not enough cause for a warrant, then chances are the person may actually be innocent. Though it usually has to be very strong and compelling, circumstantial evidence is often used to gain a conviction. Anyone who thinks innocent people are never convicted is delusional. With the advent of DNA analysis, many wrongful convictions have been overturned, often after the person has already served a long sentence. Fortunately less often, this can even expose evidence handling improprieties by police or others.
With all of the video cameras now in use and the growing use of other new forensic techniques, the police have more tools at their disposal than ever to solve and convict a crime. I'm not saying felons don't sometimes walk free, but in order to preserve our constitutional rights it's important that we preserve the original intent of our constitution, lest we come that much closer to becoming a police state. I guarantee if it's you being wrongfully charged then you will want this protection!
Actually the judges ruling is right on target.
The defendant is saying that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to his fingerprint. The defendant is saying the 5th Amendment applies to his fingerprints and therefore he does not have to give his fingerprint to unlock the phone. The defendant is claiming that giving his fingerprint is forcing him to testify against himself and therefore the state can not get a warrant to require the defendant to unlock the phone with his fingerprint.
The judge has ruled, correctly IMHO, that his fingerprint is not covered under the 5th Amendment because a fingerprint is considered physical evidence. You are not testifying against yourself by using your finger to unlock your phone just as you are not testifying against yourself by giving police the key to you house.
The judged has ruled that fingerprints to unlock an iPhone are covered by the 4th Amendment. In which case police would need a warrant in order to compel the defendant to give his fingerprint in order to unlock the phone.
If you read the article you would see that the police and prosecutors were asking this judge to give them a warrant in order to compel the defendant to unlock the phone with his finger as this is covered under the 4th Amendment. You would also see why the judge was citing the 5th Amendment. It was because the defendant brought up the 5th Amendment!
In this case the police were in court trying to get a warrant from the judge to compel the person to open the phone with his fingerprint.
The defendant objected and he was overruled.
You're only half right.
You leave out that you can also be compelled to give over other items which identify you such as legal paperwork, identification cards, keys, and so on.
Requiring a finger to open a cell phone is no different then requiring a key to open a door. As long as a proper warrant is issued you have to turn it over.
No.
Your finger is not a passcode. The fingerprint pattern is not stored in your brain with other passwords. It is on your finger.
Your fingerprint is not covered under the 5th Amendment. If it was the police would never be able to fingerprint anyone at any time because everyone would claim the 5th Amendment.
Your fingerprint is covered under the 4th Amendment. The police need a warrant to get your fingerprint or they need to arrest you and process you through the jail system.
In this case the police have something as important as the phone: The victim.
She didn't die. She probably told them he was recording the incident which is why they want the phone.