Police Can't Force You to Unlock an iPhone Using Face ID or Touch ID, California Judge Rules

[techwhiz]

And this is the right call.
As the judge noted, they are functionally equivalent to a passcode. So equivalent, that if you fail to use one then a passcode is required. The government's own argument proves the case by stating "time is of the essence" to unlock or a passcode will be required.

Let's see what the appeal brings.

 

[bradl]

If there is a warrant that have the right to it? It's no different than going through your house.

Here is what I don't understand - if there is a proper search warrant, approved by a judge, why would the locking tech of a phone or computer make any difference ?

Because the warrant wouldn't be the problem. The authorities did the right thing there in obtaining the warrant, so this is no longer a 4A issue.

This becomes a 5A issue, where now the problem is that them forcing you to give up your fingerprint or FaceID recognition is a violation of your 5A right against self-incrimination. That is what this ruling addresses.

BL.

 

[gnasher729]

Just prepare for a looooong detention if refusing to open your phone when requested by law enforcement.

There's.a huge difference between a criminal case and a legal case.

In a legal case, if we are in court I can demand that you show up evidence that is on your iPhone. And if you refuse, then the judge may assume that what you are hiding would be evidence against you and you suffer the consequences. Basically if I claim "X happened and there is evidence on your phone", and you refuse to let the judge look at your phone, the judge will assume that X did indeed happen.

 

[cfurlin]

Just like many other days.

Not even close.

 

[bradl]

There's.a huge difference between a criminal case and a legal case.

In a legal case, if we are in court I can demand that you show up evidence that is on your iPhone. And if you refuse, then the judge may assume that what you are hiding would be evidence against you and you suffer the consequences. Basically if I claim "X happened and there is evidence on your phone", and you refuse to let the judge look at your phone, the judge will assume that X did indeed happen.

The judge can not assume that that has happened, because in our judicial system, all suspects are innocent until proven guilty. You as the prosecution, have not presented the evidence to show that he is guilty, and such refusal is not the presumption of guilt.

In fact, the Judge can not assume that, because you in effect are demanding that the defense violates their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

You have to prove that the person committed the crime and show the evidence proving such, not rely on the defendant to do your job for you.

BL.

 

[gnasher729]

Here is what I don't understand - if there is a proper search warrant, approved by a judge, why would the locking tech of a phone or computer make any difference ?

If the police has a warrant to search your home, and you refuse to open the door, THEY will open the door and the damage to the door is your problem. If the police has a warrant to search your phone, and there was a method to extract all data while destroying the phone, they would be allowed to use that without paying for the damage. But there is no such method. They have a warrant but that's useless if you don't unlock the phone.
[doublepost=1547579981][/doublepost]

The judge can not assume that that has happened, because in our judicial system, all suspects are innocent until proven guilty. You as the prosecution, have not presented the evidence to show that he is guilty, and such refusal is not the presumption of guilt.

In fact, the Judge can not assume that, because you in effect are demanding that the defense violates their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

You have to prove that the person committed the crime and show the evidence proving such, not rely on the defendant to do your job for you.

BL.

A legal case. Not state vs defendant, but one private person vs. another private person. There is no "innocent until proven guilty". The judge decides according to what is more probable.

But also in criminal cases in the UK: "If you don't mention anything when questioned that you later rely on in court, you are stuffed". So if there is a witness that says X happened, and you had evidence on your phone that shows this is not true, and refuse to unlock your phone, you are stuffed.

 

[bradl]

A legal case. Not state vs defendant, but one private person vs. another private person. There is no "innocent until proven guilty". The judge decides according to what is more probable.

Sorry, but not true.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...fornia-law-correction/?utm_term=.2a5367f6837d

BL.

 

[dk001]

As long as FaceID, TouchID, and similar technologies on mobiles devices are identified as alternative ways of entering paswwords/passcodes we should be covered. If they become "unhitched" from that function ...

We will see this in one form or another, maybe a couple of forms, in SCOTUS.

 

[barmann]

If the police has a warrant to search your home, and you refuse to open the door, THEY will open the door and the damage to the door is your problem. If the police has a warrant to search your phone, and there was a method to extract all data while destroying the phone, they would be allowed to use that without paying for the damage. But there is no such method. They have a warrant but that's useless if you don't unlock the phone

Well, if there is a warrant, the phone has to be unlocked by the owner, or by other means , like a locksmith or the FD would open a door for the cops .
In the case of an iPhone, Apple can of course hack into any of them, so they'd need to provide that service or the required information to law enforcement - if there is a warrant .

 

[bradl]

Well, if there is a warrant, the phone has to be unlocked by the owner, or by other means , like a locksmith or the FD would open a door for the cops .
In the case of an iPhone, Apple can of course hack into any of them, so they'd need to provide that service or the required information to law enforcement - if there is a warrant .

Again, not true. Fifth Amendment violation, and it has been proven in court that requiring a suspect to unlock their phone

https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2018/11/01/passcodes-are-protected-by-fifth-amendment-says-court/
https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/20...olates-fifth-amendment-says-court-of-appeals/

This ruling codifies that to include biometrics, even as the authority's use of this was too broad.

BL.

 

[t76turbo]

Law enforcement officials can't force smartphone users to unlock their devices using fingerprints or other biometric features such as facial recognition, according to a Northern California court ruling from last week.

The ruling, which was shared this morning by Forbes, was the result of an Oakland investigation into possible extortion. Police officers asked the court for permission to seize multiple devices and then compel the suspects to unlock the devices using biometric authentication.

The court said that there was indeed probable cause to grant a search warrant, but that it was denied because the request to force the suspects to unlock their devices using biometric authentication "funs afoul of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments." From the ruling:In further analysis, the court equated biometric authentication to a passcode rather than something like submitting to a DNA swab. It has been previously established that under the Fifth Amendment, a suspect cannot be compelled to provide the passcode of a device.

Biometric features like Touch ID and Face ID, said the court, serve the same purpose as a passcode, securing the owner's content, "pragmatically rendering them functionally equivalent."

The ruling also made an interesting point about the urgency with which law enforcement officials attempt to get a suspect to unlock a device biometrically, because after a device is passcode locked (iPhones will passcode lock after a short period without a biometric unlock), the government can't compel a person to enter the passcode. This urgency essentially confirms that a passcode and a biometric lock are one and the same.Biometric authentication measures have been a hotly debated topic, and previous rulings have suggested that Touch ID and Face ID are not equivalent to a passcode, though most rulings have pertained to Touch ID as Face ID is newer.

This has allowed law enforcement to force suspects to unlock their iPhones and other devices using biometric authentication. In October, for example, the FBI was able to force a man accused of child abuse to unlock his iPhone using Face ID.

The California court's most recent ruling could potentially have an impact on future court cases of this type, perhaps putting an end to the practice of forced biometric smartphone unlocking and the belief that a passcode is not equivalent to a biometric lock.

For now, though, Apple has implemented a method to quickly and temporarily disable Touch ID and Face ID by pressing on the side button of recent iPhones five times in quick succession.

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: Police Can't Force You to Unlock an iPhone Using Face ID or Touch ID, California Judge Rules

Macrumors may want to make a disclaimer before the following paragraph in the story above:

‘For now, though, Apple has implemented a method to quickly and temporarily disable Touch ID and Face ID by pressing on the side button of recent iPhones five times in quick succession.’



I didn’t know that by default, this causes the iPhone to call 911 emergency services. I tried it thinking it would just make my phone require typing in the passcode. But it called instead. Found out there is a set of options to turn it off in settings. Wish I had known that BEFORE I tried it.

 

[C DM]

Macrumors may want to make a disclaimer before the following paragraph in the story above:

‘For now, though, Apple has implemented a method to quickly and temporarily disable Touch ID and Face ID by pressing on the side button of recent iPhones five times in quick succession.’



I didn’t know that by default, this causes the iPhone to call 911 emergency services. I tried it thinking it would just make my phone require typing in the passcode. But it called instead. Found out there is a set of options to turn it off in settings. Wish I had known that BEFORE I tried it.

There's a link included in that sentence that goes to an article that covers it all.

 

[MrJeffreyGee]

Thank you California!

 

[routine_analyst]

Another California judge doing the opposite of what others will. At least this time it's something helpful.

 

[dk001]

Another California judge doing the opposite of what others will. At least this time it's something helpful.

Blind squirrel and all that

 

[Tech198]

I think its come to the bottom of the barrel, police don't care what the law says as they abuse it..

Its nice to "think" that's under our control and police can't force you to look at your phone, but they will make excuses to bypass it, just like everything else.

Although this would make police get fined, or worse, for forcing people to unlock their phones., its too late. I don't think it will have any effect.

A fine is better than nothing.But the police ain't gonna stop you,,, then go back and get a request to try and unlock your phone..

They'll side on the convenient method. unlock it while we are in front of you.