Suspects can refuse to provide phone passcodes to police, court rules::Phone-unlocking case law is “total mess,” may be ripe for Supreme Court review.

    • CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      69
      ·
      11 months ago

      Nope, each state is doing its own thing and the 5th ammendment is being trampled in a few of them. Biometrics and passwords are being forced and this is an amazing ruling for 5A advocates like myself.

      SC needs to rule on it, but preferably not THIS supreme court

      • AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        But biometrics have never been covered by the 5th amendment. Police collect facial photos and fingerprints and have done so for years. On top of that any DNA you unknowing leave at a police station can be used as evidence (strand of hair, spit on the rim of a water glass). I would never recommend commiting a crime but if you do and have evidence of it on your phone don’t use biometrics.

        • CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          28
          ·
          11 months ago

          Forcing someone to press on their phone to unlock it via fingerprunt is a lot different than just collecting data.

          IMO, forced/coerced biometrics to unlock a device SHOULD be covered by 5A

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            11 months ago

            Exactly. If the hair I leave behind or my spit on the rim of a glass can unlock my phone, that sucks but those are public things I’ve left behind. Unless I leave my fingers behind on the officers desk, forcing me to unlock my phone with them should be should be a violation of my rights.

          • APassenger@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            11 months ago

            You’re right. I know your response may seem implausible, but prosecutors have fought against the release of known innocent people.

            It’s not even that they’ll try to get a win. It’s that they can refuse to simply honor justice in its most fundamental forms.

      • shalafi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        I’ll keep saying it; The Supreme Court is conservative, not partisan. They owe Trump nothing and have had a few surprising decisions lately.

        I don’t trust them a bit, but neither do I trust they’ll always make the wrong call.

        • Encrypt-Keeper@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          I don’t think that’s right. A group that very strongly believes in the Republican Party and its agenda and values would still be definitively partisan. Partisan has always been used in the context of following party lines, not necessarily one person.

        • boreengreen@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          But you can trust they will make the wrong call after geting a very expensive vacation and a few dufflebags of money.

        • Benjaben@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Hey, thanks, that’s a useful (and probably fairly accurate) distinction and I’m happy to find that a positive shift in my viewpoint, if minor. The corruption might be a really big problem or it might be one guy who’s an aberration for being wildly outside the court’s norms, really unclear on that part. But I needed a solid reminder that it’s not quite yet another ruined and hypocritical institution we once held dear.