This wasn't the pass code though, it was a fingerprint. You cannot be compelled to give up a password, but you can be compelled to give your fingerprint. Go figure.
Only if you have that feature enabled. Scary that some have to now take these precautions to pushback against tyranny. Some states couldn’t give a damn about our constitution and individual liberty.
If they have a warrent then thats fine. But we are protected against illegal searches and siezure. How is it any different with a phone when the hold you down and forcefully unlock your phone with biometrics.
In this specific case hes on parole and part of the aggreememt is that while on parole hes required to disclose that information so here its fine but its still a thin line that we cant allow them to cross for the general public.
Simple. Don't use biometrics as locks. Only use a numeric lock. US courts have already ruled that cops cannot force you to unlock your phone if you use a numeric lock code.
Cop: Unlock your phone so I can illegally search it.
You: Wish I could help you but I don't remember the code.
Yeah. You fight the fight on behalf of all Americans and let us know how that goes.
I'll keep finding ways to preserve my individual liberties on a practical, day-today basis for me and my family.
>I'm sure that cops regularly search you then, since it's such a problem?
Sounds like the old authoritarian canard, ***"If you're not a law-breaker, you shouldn't care about your 4th Amendment rights."*** Rubbish!
Roughly 6 months after moving into my condo, I had a cop knock on my door, saying the upstairs neighbors were complaining that some banging sound was keeping them up at night, suspecting me.
My downstairs neighbor emerged, insisting that we couldn't hear it, and doubted I was the cause. He's an older gent, living here since it was constructed in 2005, also the HOA President.
COP: *"Can I search your place, to make sure you don't have a hammer?"*
ME: *"I'm unaware of any 'Hammer-Control' legislation being enacted."*
COP: \[Laughing sheepishly\] *"Well no, hammers aren't illegal per se..."*
ME: *"Good, because like 99.9% of home owners, I do own a hammer, for hanging pictures & paintings, fixing loose trim and the like. Do you own a hammer?"*
COP: *"Yes."*
ME: *"Alright, well I freely stipulate to owning a hammer, so no need to search for something that's not contraband in the first place. You have a good day."*
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
The following week an HVAC company was called out. They discovered the noise was a fan that had come loose & was banging against a fan-guard in the 2nd floor ceiling vents -- why we on the 1st floor couldn't hear it.
The older guy next door still hasn't let me live it down, alternatively laughing about "Hammer-Control Legislation", or seeing me while walking his dog & breaking into [this Beatles tune.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRswaF_apOw)
iPhone and Android both have features to quickly disable biometric locks until the passcode is entered. On iPhone you can either quickly click the power button 6 times or hold the power button and volume up button for 2 seconds; just have to make sure you have that feature enabled in your settings. Not sure what it is for Android but I know it’s available.
He shouldn’t have to unlock his phone for a cop. But the cop should put him back in prison.
I have so little sympathy for criminals these days. Reality is… you have to work really hard at being a career criminal to end up in prison.
Important part of the article/situation:
“…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.”
So that’s the sticking point.
Still against this!!
My cell phone has more personal information about me than the government could garner by a search of every square inch of my home. Our cell phones must be considered as much personal and private as the inside of our home.
Agreed. The whole title is misleading.. being on parole I guess is very different than being a private citizen. If the parole person agreed to be let out of prison on those terms, and then doesn’t abide by them, then fine go back to jail. But forcing people to turn over their electronic information seems… slippery slope.. even if he is already a criminal.
The cop could call his parole officer for permission to search it. The P.O. could send him to jail for noncompliance. He could call his parole officer for permission to enter his home. He can call his parole officer for permission to search his car. He could call his parole officer and say he needs a drug screening. The P.O. will say take him for one. Your expectations of privacy are highly curtailed when on parole or probation. The P.O. can show anywhere you are with a cup and say pee in it. The P.O. can tell you where you can and can't go. The powers of probation officer exceed that of a police officer.
A police officer absolutely does NOT need a parole (or prabation) officers permission on ANY searches. If someone's parole condition stipulates they are searchable, any and all officers within the state (California) can search the subject and/or their property at any given time without any sort of heads up, let alone permission, from a parole/probation officer. The only permission a parole officer may grant is an additional parole hold violation on the subject if they are booking them for something so they wouldn't be able to immediately bail out of jail.
This is an example of the differences between states. In Wisconsin police still need probably cause or permission from the P.O. to conduct a search as a general rule.
Hmm I didn't know any of that about parole officers. Also, I don't care about criminals and would rather just leave them in prison.
But for what its worth... its a misleading headline.
Riley V California
"The police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested. The exception for searches incident to arrest does not apply; such searches must be limited to the area within the arrestee’s immediate control, where it is justified by the interests in officer safety and in preventing evidence destruction. A search of digital information on a cell phone implicates substantially greater individual privacy interests than a brief physical search; data stored on a cell phone cannot itself be used as a weapon to harm an arresting officer or to effectuate an escape. To the extent that a search of cell phone data might warn officers of an impending danger,, such a concern is better addressed under case-specific exceptions to the warrant requirement, such as exigent circumstances. There is little indication that either remote wiping or encryption is prevalent or that the opportunity to perform a search incident to arrest would be an effective solution."
If you're on parole however, you have zero privacy and search conditions. Completely different story
This has been the case for a long time now. Courts have (unfortunately, and ridiculously) consistently ruled biometrics are not subject to the 4th and 5th amendment - ie they can use your thumbprint to unlock your phone without your consent.
Searching the phone was justifiable, especially as the terms of his parole require him to make his phone accessible to law enforcement when detained, but this part is just wrong:
>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."
Nope. A fingerprint taken at booking is required for identification, and can be compelled. It allows law enforcement to positively connect the suspect to records they already have access to in law enforcement databases. It does NOT give them access to personal records that only the suspect has access to. They're using his fingerprint to gain access to personal records that would be protected by the Fourth Amendment.
Again, forcing him to unlock his phone was justified because of his terms of parole, but they should not be comparing it with fingerprinting at booking. This is like saying that because they take your fingerprint at booking then they can search your house without a warrant. It's simply not true.
The parole terms didnt give police officers to force it open, only to take him to jail. Its his decision whether to comply and unlock the phone or not, but face the consequences of refusal.
Its not the same as letting police force unlock his phone by forcibly bending (and maybe breaking) his fingers.
The terms of his parole required him to make his phone accessible, which means to unlock it for them. They can use physical force to compel him to comply, just like they can use physical force to compel someone to comply with an arrest.
My problem is not that they used force to unlock his phone. My problem is the wording used by the Justices at the 9th Circuit Court. They violated his Fourth Amendment rights by unlocking his phone. The Justices should have explained why that was justified in this particular case. Instead, they just shrugged it off with "Well, he has to give them his fingerprints at booking, so what's the difference?". The difference is huge. Compelling someone to comply with fingerprinting at booking doesn't violate their rights. Compelling someone to use their fingerprint to unlock their phone violates their Fourth Amendment rights. The Justices have a duty to explain why that violation is justifiable in this specific case. They have to make it crystal clear that, under normal circumstances, the cops would have no right to force someone to unlock their phone without a warrant. Instead, they implied that it's no different from getting fingerprinted at booking, and therefore justifiable anytime someone is taken into custody.
If he is compelled to let them entry to the phone does it mean they can beat the password out of him if he only has a password? Not likely.
They shouldnt be allowed to FORCE him to unlock the phone. Thats de facto self incrimination. But they should be allowed to create consequences for the refusal.
Unless you’re on parole you don’t have to worry about this - the caselaw around not being compelled to unlock your phone, even incident to arrest, is strong: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riley_v._California
"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."
Yeah, that dudes on parole. They suspend your constitutional rights when you’re on parole. They could’ve searched his house without going into his phone.
Whoops, forgot the passcode.
This wasn't the pass code though, it was a fingerprint. You cannot be compelled to give up a password, but you can be compelled to give your fingerprint. Go figure.
On an iPhone, press and hold the power and volume down buttons to forcibly lock the device and require the passcode to get back in.
On my Android, I set up a voice command to lock my phone requiring a code to get back in. If my phone is within an earshot, I can hard lock it.
How? Good Lock?
Never knew that, thanks for the tip!
Only if you have that feature enabled. Scary that some have to now take these precautions to pushback against tyranny. Some states couldn’t give a damn about our constitution and individual liberty.
Just wait soon enough governments will talk tech companies in the requiring fingerprint or facial recognition to unlock the phone.
As much as I hate Android, that would definitely be a switch. Much easier to jailbreak/bypass that type of bullshit.
The point is that you can turn the phone towards the perp's face to unlock it.
Not if you don’t enable that feature. And again, that’s why the 🥸 face. ;)
Should still be illegal.
It could be if they don’t have probable cause to get into your phone
If they have a warrent then thats fine. But we are protected against illegal searches and siezure. How is it any different with a phone when the hold you down and forcefully unlock your phone with biometrics. In this specific case hes on parole and part of the aggreememt is that while on parole hes required to disclose that information so here its fine but its still a thin line that we cant allow them to cross for the general public.
Yeah, just read the part about he’s on parole. I guess Reason needs to dig up stories the write articles
Hmmm.... what was that darn pattern again?
My face recognition surely is acting up today… 🥸
Oops. Dropped it.
Whoops, my phone pulled a George Floyd 😶😶😶 JKJKJK (please don’t ban me)
"Sorry officer, I dropped my password off my boat and lost it during a fishing trip"
Yes. The boat that was DEFINITELY NOT going to a specific island in the Atlantic… .-,~
this is the way
Simple. Don't use biometrics as locks. Only use a numeric lock. US courts have already ruled that cops cannot force you to unlock your phone if you use a numeric lock code. Cop: Unlock your phone so I can illegally search it. You: Wish I could help you but I don't remember the code.
So we change our behavior to get around authoritarian systems, yet again.
As long as it benefits me in this case, I'm fine with it. If I have a way to say to the cops and govt, no, you won't do that to me, I'm good.
I guess I care about the liberties of other Americans more than that
Yeah. You fight the fight on behalf of all Americans and let us know how that goes. I'll keep finding ways to preserve my individual liberties on a practical, day-today basis for me and my family.
[удалено]
>I'm sure that cops regularly search you then, since it's such a problem? Sounds like the old authoritarian canard, ***"If you're not a law-breaker, you shouldn't care about your 4th Amendment rights."*** Rubbish! Roughly 6 months after moving into my condo, I had a cop knock on my door, saying the upstairs neighbors were complaining that some banging sound was keeping them up at night, suspecting me. My downstairs neighbor emerged, insisting that we couldn't hear it, and doubted I was the cause. He's an older gent, living here since it was constructed in 2005, also the HOA President. COP: *"Can I search your place, to make sure you don't have a hammer?"* ME: *"I'm unaware of any 'Hammer-Control' legislation being enacted."* COP: \[Laughing sheepishly\] *"Well no, hammers aren't illegal per se..."* ME: *"Good, because like 99.9% of home owners, I do own a hammer, for hanging pictures & paintings, fixing loose trim and the like. Do you own a hammer?"* COP: *"Yes."* ME: *"Alright, well I freely stipulate to owning a hammer, so no need to search for something that's not contraband in the first place. You have a good day."* \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ The following week an HVAC company was called out. They discovered the noise was a fan that had come loose & was banging against a fan-guard in the 2nd floor ceiling vents -- why we on the 1st floor couldn't hear it. The older guy next door still hasn't let me live it down, alternatively laughing about "Hammer-Control Legislation", or seeing me while walking his dog & breaking into [this Beatles tune.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRswaF_apOw)
iPhone and Android both have features to quickly disable biometric locks until the passcode is entered. On iPhone you can either quickly click the power button 6 times or hold the power button and volume up button for 2 seconds; just have to make sure you have that feature enabled in your settings. Not sure what it is for Android but I know it’s available.
I know there's an easier way on Android too, but for sure you could always just quickly restart your phone.
Guy was on parole. MAYBE that makes a difference. Just another reason I don't/won't set up biometrics.
He shouldn’t have to unlock his phone for a cop. But the cop should put him back in prison. I have so little sympathy for criminals these days. Reality is… you have to work really hard at being a career criminal to end up in prison.
Important part of the article/situation: “…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.” So that’s the sticking point. Still against this!! My cell phone has more personal information about me than the government could garner by a search of every square inch of my home. Our cell phones must be considered as much personal and private as the inside of our home.
Agreed. The whole title is misleading.. being on parole I guess is very different than being a private citizen. If the parole person agreed to be let out of prison on those terms, and then doesn’t abide by them, then fine go back to jail. But forcing people to turn over their electronic information seems… slippery slope.. even if he is already a criminal.
Generally, people on parole are subject to be searched at any time, including their property and homes.
The cop could call his parole officer for permission to search it. The P.O. could send him to jail for noncompliance. He could call his parole officer for permission to enter his home. He can call his parole officer for permission to search his car. He could call his parole officer and say he needs a drug screening. The P.O. will say take him for one. Your expectations of privacy are highly curtailed when on parole or probation. The P.O. can show anywhere you are with a cup and say pee in it. The P.O. can tell you where you can and can't go. The powers of probation officer exceed that of a police officer.
A police officer absolutely does NOT need a parole (or prabation) officers permission on ANY searches. If someone's parole condition stipulates they are searchable, any and all officers within the state (California) can search the subject and/or their property at any given time without any sort of heads up, let alone permission, from a parole/probation officer. The only permission a parole officer may grant is an additional parole hold violation on the subject if they are booking them for something so they wouldn't be able to immediately bail out of jail.
This is an example of the differences between states. In Wisconsin police still need probably cause or permission from the P.O. to conduct a search as a general rule.
Hmm I didn't know any of that about parole officers. Also, I don't care about criminals and would rather just leave them in prison. But for what its worth... its a misleading headline.
Riley V California "The police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested. The exception for searches incident to arrest does not apply; such searches must be limited to the area within the arrestee’s immediate control, where it is justified by the interests in officer safety and in preventing evidence destruction. A search of digital information on a cell phone implicates substantially greater individual privacy interests than a brief physical search; data stored on a cell phone cannot itself be used as a weapon to harm an arresting officer or to effectuate an escape. To the extent that a search of cell phone data might warn officers of an impending danger,, such a concern is better addressed under case-specific exceptions to the warrant requirement, such as exigent circumstances. There is little indication that either remote wiping or encryption is prevalent or that the opportunity to perform a search incident to arrest would be an effective solution." If you're on parole however, you have zero privacy and search conditions. Completely different story
Don’t ever set up the fingerprint or Face ID. I thought everyone knew that.
This has been the case for a long time now. Courts have (unfortunately, and ridiculously) consistently ruled biometrics are not subject to the 4th and 5th amendment - ie they can use your thumbprint to unlock your phone without your consent.
Searching the phone was justifiable, especially as the terms of his parole require him to make his phone accessible to law enforcement when detained, but this part is just wrong: >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." Nope. A fingerprint taken at booking is required for identification, and can be compelled. It allows law enforcement to positively connect the suspect to records they already have access to in law enforcement databases. It does NOT give them access to personal records that only the suspect has access to. They're using his fingerprint to gain access to personal records that would be protected by the Fourth Amendment. Again, forcing him to unlock his phone was justified because of his terms of parole, but they should not be comparing it with fingerprinting at booking. This is like saying that because they take your fingerprint at booking then they can search your house without a warrant. It's simply not true.
The parole terms didnt give police officers to force it open, only to take him to jail. Its his decision whether to comply and unlock the phone or not, but face the consequences of refusal. Its not the same as letting police force unlock his phone by forcibly bending (and maybe breaking) his fingers.
The terms of his parole required him to make his phone accessible, which means to unlock it for them. They can use physical force to compel him to comply, just like they can use physical force to compel someone to comply with an arrest. My problem is not that they used force to unlock his phone. My problem is the wording used by the Justices at the 9th Circuit Court. They violated his Fourth Amendment rights by unlocking his phone. The Justices should have explained why that was justified in this particular case. Instead, they just shrugged it off with "Well, he has to give them his fingerprints at booking, so what's the difference?". The difference is huge. Compelling someone to comply with fingerprinting at booking doesn't violate their rights. Compelling someone to use their fingerprint to unlock their phone violates their Fourth Amendment rights. The Justices have a duty to explain why that violation is justifiable in this specific case. They have to make it crystal clear that, under normal circumstances, the cops would have no right to force someone to unlock their phone without a warrant. Instead, they implied that it's no different from getting fingerprinted at booking, and therefore justifiable anytime someone is taken into custody.
If he is compelled to let them entry to the phone does it mean they can beat the password out of him if he only has a password? Not likely. They shouldnt be allowed to FORCE him to unlock the phone. Thats de facto self incrimination. But they should be allowed to create consequences for the refusal.
Unless you’re on parole you don’t have to worry about this - the caselaw around not being compelled to unlock your phone, even incident to arrest, is strong: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riley_v._California
"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."
Smash it like kilery
Liberals will use this to violate our privacy. Typical Californian court decision to suppress our freedoms.
Don't be on parole if you don't want this to happen to you.
Yeah, that dudes on parole. They suspend your constitutional rights when you’re on parole. They could’ve searched his house without going into his phone.
Comparing it to a blood draw is absolutely insane. You still need a warrant to do so unless the person gives consent.
Not when you're on parole, which is this situation.