Appeals Court Rules That Cops Can Physically Make You Unlock Your Phone

[revelarts]

Appeals Court Rules That Cops Can Physically Make You Unlock Your Phone
https://reason.com/2024/04/19/appeals-court-rules-that-cops-can-physically-make-you-unlock-your-phone/


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....


imaginary rights ;)

[fj1200]

This doesn't bother me too much because of his reduced rights as a parolee. I imagine most folks would be subject to similar provided a warrant was issued.

[revelarts]

This doesn't bother me too much because of his reduced rights as a parolee. I imagine most folks would be subject to similar provided a warrant was issued.
"reduced rights"?
If it wasn't spelled out in the terms of his parole then it wasn't reduced until the court ruled on it.

FJ, I really don't understand why people don't appreciate the idea of legal president. And 1st exceptions putting in the crack that opens the "legal" door for more.

"They are only going to spy on 'terrorist'.... They are only going to torture 'bad guys'. They are only going to take the guns of some people... Only 14 days to slow the curb..."

People seem to think they are being pragmatic and realistic. and that gov't will act pragmatically and realistically according to THEIR idea of what that means.
But the gov't only acts on what's OPEN to them "legally" . and whatever the people will let them get away with..


It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. James Madison



for some reason when civil libertarians point it out we're crazy or extreme.
But everyone wants to claim they agree with the constitution and the founding fathers while pissing on them all because of supposed pragmatism.

Land of the safety, and home of the pragmatic.

[Gunny]

"reduced rights"?
If it wasn't spelled out in the terms of his parole then it wasn't reduced until the court ruled on it.

FJ, I really don't understand why people don't appreciate the idea of legal president. And 1st exceptions putting in the crack that opens the "legal" door for more.

"They are only going to spy on 'terrorist'.... They are only going to torture 'bad guys'. They are only going to take the guns of some people... Only 14 days to slow the curb..."

People seem to think they are being pragmatic and realistic. and that gov't will act pragmatically and realistically according to THEIR idea of what that means.
But the gov't only acts on what's OPEN to them "legally" . and whatever the people will let them get away with..


It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. James Madison



for some reason when civil libertarians point it out we're crazy or extreme.
But everyone wants to claim they agree with the constitution and the founding fathers while pissing on them all because of supposed pragmatism.

Land of the safety, and home of the pragmatic.You're too alarmist. That being said ...

Parolees have restrictions on their Rights/privacy. They can not agree to those conditions and remain in prison. Choice is theirs, crappy or not. I have no problem with conditions of parole.

On the other hand, the 9th District can kiss my ass. Authorities should not be allowed to invade privacy without a warrant. I think wordsmithing their way around privacy where electronics are concerned is BS and they surely have.

My advice is don't put anything on your electronics you aren't willing to share with the World. All you have to be is an innocent suspect and the law and MSM will share the info with the World, using their interpretations of your intent, and even after dismissed as a suspect/found not guilty in court, the damage is done.

[Mr. P]

For what it's worth.

https://youtu.be/quV4JSKnf9Y?si=OXymK8HRpNuxjg2U

[fj1200]

For what it's worth.

https://youtu.be/quV4JSKnf9Y?si=OXymK8HRpNuxjg2U

Not so sure about that. Riley v California

https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/courts/police-law-enforcement-cannot-force-you-to-unlock-search-phone-without-warrant-permission/536-0c126151-ea40-435d-b52c-9fb575da94b0

[fj1200]

"reduced rights"?
If it wasn't spelled out in the terms of his parole then it wasn't reduced until the court ruled on it.

FJ, I really don't understand why people don't appreciate the idea of legal president. And 1st exceptions putting in the crack that opens the "legal" door for more.

"They are only going to spy on 'terrorist'.... They are only going to torture 'bad guys'. They are only going to take the guns of some people... Only 14 days to slow the curb..."

People seem to think they are being pragmatic and realistic. and that gov't will act pragmatically and realistically according to THEIR idea of what that means.
But the gov't only acts on what's OPEN to them "legally" . and whatever the people will let them get away with..


It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. James Madison



for some reason when civil libertarians point it out we're crazy or extreme.
But everyone wants to claim they agree with the constitution and the founding fathers while pissing on them all because of supposed pragmatism.

Land of the safety, and home of the pragmatic.

Thank you for your standard laundry list of grievances. This case is not the canary in the coal mine IMO.


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.

[Gunny]

Not that there's anything on my phone to begin with, BUT ...

Depending on my mood, I'm like as not to drop it and stomp on it before unlocking it for a cop if I don't agree with the reason. Not that I have an attitude problem or anything :laugh: