They should just issue a warrant to cut off a felon's finger. Then the Arresting Officer can just pick up the finger and use it to unlock the phone. So simple.
If there is anything on your phone that you would be uncomfortable with being on your moms Facebook page, it is an issue. This included pictures, browser history and any comment you have made anywhere online.If you don't participate in criminal activity then this is a non-issue.
If a judge OK's it what's the problem? Why would a phone be any different then a locked box if a warrant is being executed.
My daughter tried to enroll her nose. She was not successful. A friend of mine attempted to enroll.... Another body part.... He was successful.Some people have reported success using their nose with touch ID. No, seriously.
Most of the time that is true, however it is very naive to believe that there aren't corrupt police out there that might misuse their authority.If you don't participate in criminal activity then this is a non-issue.
It's a simple case with a small time offense to establish a legal precedent. I doubt they even care about the content of this particular phone.
[doublepost=1455036064][/doublepost]
Because you are forcing the accused to participate in the collection of evidence. This could be more analogous to forcing a person to reveal the combination of a pad lock.
What if he hadn't?
If you don't participate in criminal activity then this is a non-issue.
And that's different from giving your finger prints, tissue samples, urine, DNA, blood, or blowing through a tube in the case of DUI (although you can refuse that and forfeit your license) how? It's all self incriminating and courts can order you to cough it all up.
Think of it as biological goop you leave all over the place anyway (you nasty bastard), vs. privately held information.
The former has no expectation of privacy. If you sneeze, you're blowing snot all over the place. If you get cut, you're going to bleed all over your friend's nice couch. If you touch something, you'll leave your fingerprints. Therefore, you can be compelled to give it up.
But something like the combination to your safe, or your passcode ID for your various computers, or what you were doing in Texas on Nov. 22, 1963? You don't have to say a word.
You don't have to sneeze, bleed out, or touch something for the courts to compel you to give it up. Biometric data is not covered under the 5th amendment, hence whey the police can finger print you. The courts are telling this guy to use his fingerprint to unlock his phone.
In the U.S., a Virginia court ruled that fingerprints, unlike passwords and passcodes, are not protected by the Fifth Amendment. In his ruling, Judge Steven C. Frucci opined that "giving police a fingerprint is akin to providing a DNA or handwriting sample or an actual key," which is permitted under federal law.
[doublepost=1455043990][/doublepost]It would be interesting if he tried to smash the phone once they present it to him to attempt to unlock it.
Norwegian police will force a 27-year-old man accused of drug possession to unlock his iPhone with Touch ID, according to local website Bergensavisen [Google Translate]. The police believe the confiscated smartphone may contain evidence about where he obtained the illegal substance.
![]()
The man, who reportedly admitted he was culpable, has refused to unlock his iPhone for police since being charged, but the Nordhordland District Court's recent verdict allows Norwegian police to force the accused's thumb on to his Touch ID-secured iPhone. Local police will also analyze his phone call and data history.
It remains unclear if Norwegian police are aware that Touch ID requires a passcode as supplemental verification after 48 hours of disuse, a restart, or three failed fingerprint entry attempts. The accused was arrested on January 25, so it may be impossible for authorities to unlock his iPhone with Touch ID without taking additional measures.
In the U.S., a Virginia court ruled that fingerprints, unlike passwords and passcodes, are not protected by the Fifth Amendment. In his ruling, Judge Steven C. Frucci opined that "giving police a fingerprint is akin to providing a DNA or handwriting sample or an actual key," which is permitted under federal law.
Note: Due to the political nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.
Article Link: Norway to Force Accused Criminal to Unlock His iPhone With Touch ID
[doublepost=1455043990][/doublepost]It would be interesting if he tried to smash the phone once they present it to him to attempt to unlock it.
If you don't participate in criminal activity then this is a non-issue.
What if he hadn't?
The thing that stands out to me in this is that the ruling isn't really regarding the actual offense:
He's already admitted it (and presumably was physically possessing the item), and anything on the phone (or from the other stuff they're doing) will have no impact on the outcome of that.
What the investigators are looking for is information that could lead to a different crime committed by someone else, in a different location. Or failing that; perhaps the guy did more bad things they don't know about yet.
Well you can't acknowledge being in possession of illegal drugs and expect authorities to ignore the source. That would be terrible police work.
Every person who gets picked up for a drug offense should be held until they rat out the distribution channels? That would be a terrible justice system.
Every person who gets picked up for a drug offense should be held until they rat out the distribution channels? That would be a terrible justice system.