Court Rules Police Can Force Users to Unlock iPhones With Fingerprints, But Not Passcodes

[NY Guitarist]

I mean, people get arrested without having broken the law all the time

This seems to be the point that many are missing. You can be arrested for a crime and detained while the police gather evidence against you.

Also, cases are built on circumstantial evidence all the time, often circumstances are coincidental. Ex: someone says they saw you commit a crime, and your phone shows that you were in the area. Eyewitness statements are notoriously inaccurate more often that you may think. But even if there isn't an actual connection the prosecution may use coincidental information to build a case.

Any information in your phone 'can, and will, be used against you', including if you're falsely arrested.

 

[ZombieShooter]

But in his case, the fingerprint itself does not tie him in with the attack....it enables the police to then view other information. That will be what the appeals court hangs on to to overturn this decision.

In the meantime, all someone needs to do is to us the wrong finger a few times and then it will require a passcode...or just reboot the phone and a passcode will be required. Besides, most criminals use Android phones

Not correct.

The reason? His victim is still alive and no doubt is the one who told the police that he was taking photos/video of the attack. That's why they want the phone open. It may have evidence on it.

The police needed to get a warrant to look through his photos and videos. Too do that they needed the defendant to open the phone with his finger.

The appeals court will not overturn this ruling. Courts have already said that with a proper warrant the police can search your computers. The iPhone is just another computer.

 

[garylapointe]

So if you get arrested, turn off your phone. It requires a passcode after a reboot.

"Excuse me officer, can you remove these handcuffs so that I can lock my iPhone down so you can't find any incriminating evidence on it?" is not going to going to go over well. Neither is reaching into your pocket to pull it out after being cuffed or while they're after you (they'll think you're reaching for a weapon!).

Gary

 

[Keirasplace]

"Excuse me officer, can you remove these handcuffs so that I can lock my iPhone down so you can't find any incriminating evidence on it?" is not going to going to go over well. Neither is reaching into your pocket to pull it out after being cuffed or while they're after you (they'll think you're reaching for a weapon!).

Gary

Well, cuffing is not instantaneous ;-). When I'm walking I often already my hands either on my phone or my pockets (bad habit) with my phone next to it. Closing the phone can easily occur in a very innocent way, before they even ask you to give the phone. If driving... Then it becomes slightly more delicate, but they're arresting you, there's a good chance you could get your hands on your phone without fuss.

 

[garylapointe]

Well, cuffing is not instantaneous ;-). When I'm walking I often already my hands either on my phone or my pockets (bad habit) with my phone next to it. Closing the phone can easily occur in a very innocent way, before they even ask you to give the phone. If driving... Then it becomes slightly more delicate, but they're arresting you, there's a good chance you could get your hands on your phone without fuss.

I'm thinking we're talking about people actually committing crimes. If someone is committing a crime and they are stopped by the police, reaching into your pocket isn't really a good idea (by then you've got your hands over your head or against the building).

If you get pulled over for a ticket and know you've got a bench warrant out for you or something, while they're running you're plates I suppose you've got time to reboot or disable TouchID.

The police generally don't bother me when I'm walking down the street. Unless I'm on the phone, it's generally locked an in my pocket, if it's already in my hand, shutting it down wouldn't be difficult. Again, I can't imagine being arrested in that situation.

I suppose if I someone were a suspect (but not arrested) in some crime, they'd have all sorts of time to disable touch ID and wipe all their tech, before the police came back to arrest them.

Gary

 

[poppy10]

It's no error.

Fingerprints are physical evidence. You can be compelled to give them your fingers to unlock the phone.

You automatically give up your fingerprints when you get arrested and taken to jail.

Your blood/DNA is physical evidence. You can be compelled to give them your blood.

You can be compelled to provide other physical evidence such as keys, documents, pictures, video, and other stuff. All this physical evidence can be just as incriminating against you.

You're not testifying against yourself when you give these things up.

Testifying is what is in your head. You're thoughts. They can't make you get on the stand and say what you did or didn't do.

Bingo. Can't understand why so many people have difficulty understanding this.

It's like the safe analogy. If you have a safe that is locked with a key, the government can get a court order to compel you to produce the key to unlock it. But if the safe is locked with a combination code the government can't compel you to tell them what the code is. You always have the right to remain silent.

 

[thekev]

America is the best place for murderes and pedophiles. We hold to our absolute bogus liberties to aide criminals. Everyone should come to America and start conmitting terrible crimes because the ACLU will protect a murderes rights for free

Wouldn't your problem then be with the laws themselves rather than the ACLU?

 

[eastercat]

I'm turning off my touch id.

If you look at the innocence project, you'll see people who were unjustly imprisoned for crimes they didn't commit. Some of these people spent most of their adult lives for these crimes in prison. All of this because they didn't have the money to afford a good lawyer to defend themselves against the police's thugs.

For the people who say "don't commit a crime", you obviously know diddly squat about the so-called american justice system.

 

[bbplayer5]

So if you get arrested, turn off your phone. It requires a passcode after a reboot.

And use an actual passcode, not a 4 digit number. They could accidentally guess your code based on something in your life.

 

[AppleZilla]

A judge appointed by corrupt and headed for jail, Republican Governor Bob McDonnell.

Election day is Tuesday.

 

[Irock619]

Touch ID requires a passcode after 48 hours of disuse

Yes because the battery doesn't last 48 hours

 

[Mildredop]

Yet another reason to not buy a device with Touch ID...

So what are the various others?

 

[alexgowers]

Easy: don't break the law.

That argument is null and void! it's a non point, if they changed the law to allow police to look at your phone even if you haven't committed a crime, you'd be ok with that because you think you haven't broken the law!

It's a SLIPPERY SLOPE my friend, and you are the problem. It's not ok in anyway to self-incriminate with information you think is locked away! Even if it's really bad criminals. Police shouldn't need to invade your privacy to make a conviction.

Advice to anyone who want to protect their privacy, turn your phone off. A passcode is required and will stop police rooting through your phone.

 

[s2mikey]

Wouldn't your problem then be with the laws themselves rather than the ACLU?

Nope. The ACLU tends to go out of their way to interpret and stretch the laws to protect mostly scumbags. That's why their initials stand for "always causing legal unrest".

 

[DudeDad]

Not correct.

The reason? His victim is still alive and no doubt is the one who told the police that he was taking photos/video of the attack. That's why they want the phone open. It may have evidence on it.

The police needed to get a warrant to look through his photos and videos. Too do that they needed the defendant to open the phone with his finger.

The appeals court will not overturn this ruling. Courts have already said that with a proper warrant the police can search your computers. The iPhone is just another computer.

But they need the warrant, which they typically don't have when they arrest someone. Time will tell. In the meantime, if you have something to hide, just use the wrong finger a few times, it will then require a passcode, which they cannot force you to use.

 

[AppleZilla]

Nope. The ACLU tends to go out of their way to interpret and stretch the laws to protect mostly scumbags. That's why their initials stand for "always causing legal unrest".

The ACLU took up where the founders left off. But luckily for their detractors, the Koch Brothers have a billion times more money to fight for the 1% of the 1%.

 

[OldSchoolMacGuy]

Its too bad that what you said is almost impossible. There is almost no way to get data from an iPhone that is locked. You make it sound like you can have the suspects phone on hand and only the suspects phone and plug it into a computer like a hard drive and get the data with your software.

What you just described is exactly what we do. Plug the iPhone in, run the software and it pulls everything out. We met with the iOS security team in Cupertino back in late 2007 and showed them the product. They scoffed at it. So with the blessing of Apple's government sales guys, we moved ahead and started selling it to law enforcement. Ever big name across US law enforcement has it along with many foreign agencies. It's a great product for computer forensics.

----------

I thought there wasn't a way for this with iOS 8 according to Apple.

There certainly are ways to access iPhone data from the phone. In addition, it's not like law enforcement can't simply subpoena any iCloud data if needed.

 

[TonyC28]

I see a lot of people talking about people who have been arrested and/or incarcerated for crimes they did not commit. Of course we all know that has happened and is very unfortunate. But can any of you provide me an example of something you have on your phone that would lead to your false imprisonment if a police officer happened to look through your phone?

----------

The ACLU took up where the founders left off. But luckily for their detractors, the Koch Brothers have a billion times more money to fight for the 1% of the 1%.

Koch Brothers....
One percent....

Any other talking points you want to recite?

 

[Naimfan]

I see a lot of people talking about people who have been arrested and/or incarcerated for crimes they did not commit. Of course we all know that has happened and is very unfortunate. But can any of you provide me an example of something you have on your phone that [c]ould lead to your false imprisonment if a police officer happened to look through your phone?

(Emphasis added.)

Because there is no way to answer "would," I've changed it to "could."

Sure. Imagine a phone with a number of pictures of a variety of government buildings, inadvertently including the building where the local FBI field office is located.

Or a phone with a number of pictures of scantily clad, youngish-looking women.

I've represented both; in neither case was there anything remotely criminal. In both cases, if the "investigating" cops had had a shred of intelligence, they would never have bothered arresting anyone. The building case was actually a federal one, once the US attorney understood that the FBI's complaint was that someone dared photograph their new under-construction building, no charge was ever filed and an appropriate settlement was reached.

Law enforcement, as a whole, has managed to create a level of distrust among the public that is difficult to credit. There are numerous reasons for it, but that, as well as the solution, are for a different day.

In short, as noted in other forum topics, you have NOTHING to gain and much to lose by ever cooperating with a law enforcement investigation (absent being the victim in criminal case). If anyone in a law enforcement role ever asks to come into your home, or to see your phone, or to search your car, etc., politely decline.

 

[deffcap]

But surely America has all that Freedom™ they keep talking about?

 

[TonyC28]

(Emphasis added.)

Because there is no way to answer "would," I've changed it to "could."

Sure. Imagine a phone with a number of pictures of a variety of government buildings, inadvertently including the building where the local FBI field office is located.

Or a phone with a number of pictures of scantily clad, youngish-looking women.

I've represented both; in neither case was there anything remotely criminal. In both cases, if the "investigating" cops had had a shred of intelligence, they would never have bothered arresting anyone. The building case was actually a federal one, once the US attorney understood that the FBI's complaint was that someone dared photograph their new under-construction building, no charge was ever filed and an appropriate settlement was reached.

Law enforcement, as a whole, has managed to create a level of distrust among the public that is difficult to credit. There are numerous reasons for it, but that, as well as the solution, are for a different day.

In short, as noted in other forum topics, you have NOTHING to gain and much to lose by ever cooperating with a law enforcement investigation (absent being the victim in criminal case). If anyone in a law enforcement role ever asks to come into your home, or to see your phone, or to search your car, etc., politely decline.

I assume you are a lawyer. Without getting specific, were these two instances of information gained from a cell phone the result of someone being randomly stopped and questioned the police? Or were they part of another investigation that happened to come across these other pictures?

 

[Naimfan]

I assume you are a lawyer. Without getting specific, were these two instances of information gained from a cell phone the result of someone being randomly stopped and questioned the police? Or were they part of another investigation that happened to come across these other pictures?

Not currently practicing, but did represent both. Unfortunately, it's not uncommon for law enforcement types to believe they see something and to act without thinking. In the case of the pictures of the FBI building, a pair of agents said they observed a "suspicious" individual taking pictures of the under-construction building. What made the photographer suspicious? That he was photographing the building from a public street with an iPhone and a Nikon tripod-mounted camera. All while standing outside his SUV, which was emblazoned with his name, business logo, etc.

As an aside, while the iPhone pictures were OK, the pictures from the Nikon were in another world.

 

[ARandomFellow]

I'm not sure I'd like to be the first person to test it, but theoretically, you could give them your fingerprint without putting it on your Touch ID. So I think they could compel you to provide the fingerprint, but perhaps not put it where they want it. Maybe?

 

[Bartman01]

Just toying with you. Like most people on here, I'd just unlock it for them - I have nothing to hide anyway.

Good luck with that. Some estimates indicate that the average person (not criminals, just regular 'law abiding' people) breaks the law 5 times a week usually either unknowingly or unthinkingly. Other estimates indicate that the average person unknowingly violates 3 federal criminal laws each day.

Police are allowed to lie to you when questioning you, and they are also allowed to seize your property (including your cash) with no due process because they 'feel' that the property is facilitating a crime that there is no solid evidence may actually be occurring. You can certainly fight the seizure after the fact, but it will (except in rare cases) cost you more in legal fees than the property is worth.

Even if you have really done nothing wrong (that you know of), the worst case scenario of you voluntarily unlocking your phone is that you will find yourself arrested or having your property seized. If you are fine with that, then I wish you the best of luck and pray that you never find yourself on the wrong end of abuse of power.

All that being said, the case in question is a bit of a red herring since it involves an actual warrant - not random warrant-less searches. I would have a huge problem with them being able to compel you to unlock your phone without a warrant, less so when a warrant is involved.

 

[TonyC28]

Not currently practicing, but did represent both. Unfortunately, it's not uncommon for law enforcement types to believe they see something and to act without thinking. In the case of the pictures of the FBI building, a pair of agents said they observed a "suspicious" individual taking pictures of the under-construction building. What made the photographer suspicious? That he was photographing the building from a public street with an iPhone and a Nikon tripod-mounted camera. All while standing outside his SUV, which was emblazoned with his name, business logo, etc.

As an aside, while the iPhone pictures were OK, the pictures from the Nikon were in another world.

So in this person's case the pictures on the iPhone were specific to why he was arrested or detained, correct?

My post was more directed to the people who are implying that people are falsely arrested all the time and now everyone is going to have their phone randomly searched by police. You are a lawyer so you know that the police can't just go fishing for any information or evidence they want. A search warrant is a specific request. If a person were arrested for drunk driving, for example, the police have no compelling reason to search the phone at all. Unless this somehow ends up falling under search incident to arrest, which I don't see happening. So if the police do search the phone, even if they did it by forcing the person to use their thumb print, whatever they find would never be admissible in court anyway. In real world applications this is probably only going to be seen in specific cases where data on a phone could be pertinent to an investigation. Just like a person can be forced to give a DNA sample in a criminal investigation or give their blood if they've been involved in a car accident where a person was injured and alcohol is suspected as a factor.

----------

Good luck with that. Some estimates indicate that the average person (not criminals, just regular 'law abiding' people) breaks the law 5 times a week usually either unknowingly or unthinkingly. Other estimates indicate that the average person unknowingly violates 3 federal criminal laws each day.

Police are allowed to lie to you when questioning you, and they are also allowed to seize your property (including your cash) with no due process because they 'feel' that the property is facilitating a crime that there is no solid evidence may actually be occurring. You can certainly fight the seizure after the fact, but it will (except in rare cases) cost you more in legal fees than the property is worth.

Even if you have really done nothing wrong (that you know of), the worst case scenario of you voluntarily unlocking your phone is that you will find yourself arrested or having your property seized. If you are fine with that, then I wish you the best of luck and pray that you never find yourself on the wrong end of abuse of power.

All that being said, the case in question is a bit of a red herring since it involves an actual warrant - not random warrant-less searches. I would have a huge problem with them being able to compel you to unlock your phone without a warrant, less so when a warrant is involved.

Wow! I really hope people don't read all of this and take is fact.