Posted on 04/19/2024 12:39:09 PM PDT by nickcarraway
The 9th Circuit determined that forcibly mashing a suspect's thumb into his phone to unlock it was akin to fingerprinting him at the police station. JOE LANCASTER | 4.19.2024 12:50 PM
As we keep more and more personal data on our phones, iPhone and Android devices now have some of the most advanced encryption technology in existence to keep that information safe from prying eyes. The easiest way around that, of course, is for someone to gain access to your phone.
This week, a federal court decided that police officers can make you unlock your phone, even by physically forcing you to press your thumb against it.
In November 2021, Jeremy Payne was pulled over by two California Highway Patrol (CHP) officers over his car's window tinting. When asked, Payne admitted that he was on parole, which the officers confirmed. After finding Payne's cellphone in the car, officers unlocked it by forcibly pressing his thumb against it as he sat handcuffed. (The officers claimed in their arrest report that Payne "reluctantly unlocked the cell phone" when asked, which Payne disputed; the government later accepted in court "that defendant's thumbprint was compelled.")
The officers searched through Payne's camera roll and found a video taken the same day, which appeared to show "several bags of blue pills (suspected to be fentanyl)." After checking the phone's map and finding what they suspected to be a home address, the officers drove there and used Payne's keys to enter and search the residence. Inside, they found and seized more than 800 pills.
Payne was indicted for possession with intent to distribute fentanyl and cocaine.
In a motion to suppress, Payne's attorneys argued that by forcing him to unlock his phone, the officers "compelled a testimonial communication," violating both the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure and the Fifth Amendment's guarantee against self-incrimination. Even though the provisions of his parole required him to surrender any electronic devices and passcodes, "failure to comply could result in 'arrest pending further investigation' or confiscation of the device pending investigation," not the use of force to make him open the phone.
The district court denied the motion to suppress, and Payne pleaded guilty. In November 2022, he was sentenced to 12 years in prison. Notably, Payne had only served three years for the crime for which he was on parole—assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer.
Payne appealed the denial of the motion to suppress. This week, in an opinion authored by Judge Richard Tallman, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled against Payne.
Searches "incident to arrest" are an accepted part of Fourth Amendment precedent. Further, Tallman wrote that as a parolee, Payne has "a significantly diminished expectation of privacy," and even though the conditions of his parole did not require him to "provide a biometric identifier," the distinction was insufficient to support throwing out the search altogether.
But Tallman went a step further in the Fifth Amendment analysis: "We hold that the compelled use of Payne's thumb to unlock his phone (which he had already identified for the officers) required no cognitive exertion, placing it firmly in the same category as a blood draw or fingerprint taken at booking," he wrote. "The act itself merely provided CHP with access to a source of potential information."
From a practical standpoint, this is chilling. First of all, the Supreme Court ruled in 2016 that police needed a warrant before drawing a suspect's blood.
And one can argue that fingerprinting a suspect as they're arrested is part and parcel with establishing their identity. Nearly half of U.S. states require people to identify themselves to police if asked.
But forcibly gaining access to someone's phone provides more than just their identity—it's a window into their entire lives. Even cursory access to someone's phone can turn up travel history, banking information, and call and text logs—a treasure trove of potentially incriminating information, all of which would otherwise require a warrant.
When they drafted the Fourth Amendment, the Founders drew on the history of "writs of assistance," general warrants used by British authorities in the American colonies that allowed government agents to enter homes at will and look for anything disallowed. As a result, the Fourth Amendment requires search warrants based on probable cause and signed by a judge.
Tallman does note the peculiar circumstances of the case: "Our opinion should not be read to extend to all instances where a biometric is used to unlock an electronic device." But, he adds, "the outcome…may have been different had [the officer] required Payne to independently select the finger that he placed on the phone" instead of forcibly mashing Payne's thumb into it himself.
Totalitarian dictatorships operate like this.
“Sorry....Warrant needed...secure in his papers....”
You need to read the decision. Parolee.
“The judges are totally out to lunch thinking this case is interchangeable.”
Bet you didn’t read the actual decision!
“This why my iPhone is unlocked by pass code only; not thumbprint nor facial ID.”
What are you out on parole from?
Not because I have anything incriminating or illegal on it, but because phones are the gateway to our finances and identity; there are plenty of bad cops out there, and I just can't take the risk of what could happen if my phone fell into _anyone_ elses' hands.
“The 9th Circus gets it wrong, yet again...”
I love how keyboard lawyers make decisions without knowing the facts.
“Correct. This decision is highly problematical. Might be reviewed by SCOTUS.”
Nope. Read the frickin’ decision!
“This why my iPhone is unlocked by pass code only; not thumbprint nor facial ID.”
Bingo.
They can do the same with your face.
They cannot, however, make you give them your password.
So just set a typed password and turn off the other features
Lol... Do you actually believe this practice is acceptable?
Wait until they check to see if you frequent conservative sites. This is DANGEROUS to allow and/or think is acceptable and need to be nipped in the bud before it goes any further.
The only thing I do on my phone is a text message and go to a few websites.
“Lol... Do you actually believe this practice is acceptable?”
I know that you didn’t read the court decision!
“Lol... Do you actually believe this practice is acceptable?”
What practice are you referring to?
“I know that you didn’t read the court decision!”
Doesn’t matter what they ruled... Wrong is wrong period. There is no gray area or compromise with the concept of wrong.
And if they allow this it is wrong. Full stop...
Guess everyone needs those wipes Hillary referred to inregards to wiping a phone or harddrive.
“Doesn’t matter what they ruled... Wrong is wrong period. There is no gray area or compromise with the concept of wrong.”
You don’t even know the ruling yet say it is wrong!
Stat what is wrong!
Stat >> State what is wrong.
The fascist court is wrong.
“physically?”
Sure if I’m dead or unconscious.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.