TIME Tech legal Why the Constitution Can Protect Passwords But Not Fingerprint Scans A portable fingerprint scanner is displayed at the Biometrics Conference and Exhibition at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre. Peter MacdiarmidGetty Images Fingerprint scans are more secure, except when it comes to the Fifth Amendment

Cellphone fingerprint passcodes werent on James Madisons mind when he authored the Fifth Amendment, a constitutional protection with roots in preventing torture by barring self-incriminating testimonials in court cases.

Yet those tiny skin ridges we all share were at the heart of a Virginia court case last week in which a judge ruled that police, who suspected there was incriminating evidence on a suspects smartphone, could legally force the man to unlock his device with its fingerprint scanner. While the Fifth Amendment protects defendants from revealing their numeric passcodes, which would be considered a self-incriminating testimonial, biometrics like fingerprint scans fall outside the laws scope.

If you are being forced to divulge something that you know, thats not okay, said Marcia Hofmann, an attorney and special counsel to digital rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation. If the government is able through other means to collect evidence that just exists, then they certainly can do that without stepping on the toes of the constitutional protection.

The important thing is, Hofmann said, is it something you know, or something you have?

The Virginia ruling was perhaps the most clear-cut decision among similar cases whose outcomes have varied significantly by circumstance. In United States v. Fricosu (2012), a court ruled because it was a foregone conclusion that the defendants password-locked data was incriminating, the Fifth Amendment didnt apply. In United States v. John Doe (2011), the defendant, who had a hard drive protected by encryption, at first didnt receive Fifth Amendment protection, but that decision was reversed by an appellate court that ruled that if Doe provided his decryption password, then it would lead the Government to evidence that would incriminate him. Last weeks Virginia ruling is a fresh example of what can happen when a 225-year-old law is applied to a field as rapidly changing as digital security.

I think the courts are struggling with this, because a fingerprint in and of itself is not testimony, said Hayes Hunt, a criminal defense and government investigations lawyer at Cozen OConnor. The concern is, once we put a password on something or in ourselves, we have a certain privacy interest.

Judges across the country will only have to make more decisions about biometrics, as their use by everyday consumers is on the rise. Today, our data is protected by everything from iris scans at airports to heartbeat measurements and ear-print smartphone locks. This whole area is in such a state of flux, said Jody Goodman, a counsel at Crowell & Moring. It seems like every week there are new things happening.

Apple in particular is one of the most widely-recognized consumer technology companies that have adopted biometrics, though it wasnt the first. Its latest flagship iPhones and iPads come with Touch ID, which lets users unlock their devices or make payments by scanning their thumbprints instead of inputting a numeric passcode. But while Apple and other companies with fingerprint scanners on their devices say the feature provides more protection from data theft, the Virginia ruling means that data protected only by an old-school passcode is afforded stronger legal protection under the Fifth Amendment.

The solution for those seeking more legal cover for their data, though, is surprisingly simple. If a defendants data is protected by both a thumbprint and a passcode, he or she could invoke the Fifth for the thumbprint, thereby blocking access to the data at least according to the precedent set by the Virginia case. But for now, iPhones at least lack this option, probably because its not being demanded by consumers.

Go here to read the rest:

Why the Constitution Can Protect Passwords But Not Fingerprint Scans

New ruling may affect police access to smartphones
A federal judge in Virginia ruled that fingerprints are not protected by the Fifth Amendment, which could affect police access to fingerprint-protected devic...

By: CBS This Morning

Excerpt from:

New ruling may affect police access to smartphones - Video

Fingerprints: iPhone Users Forfeit Fifth Amendment.
Court rules fingerprints have no fifth amendment right. What does this mean for the rest of our biometric data? .

By: TheRiverMersey

See the original post here:

Fingerprints: iPhone Users Forfeit Fifth Amendment. - Video

Last week, there was a lot of press coverage about a Virginia court ruling on how the Fifth Amendment applies to bypassing a smart phone passcode. The ruling hasnt been available before today, but here it is: Commonwealth v. Baust, via Marcia Hofmann. Its a short opinion, just five pages, so its a quick read. Unfortunately, though, the opinion doesnt address the really important issue raised by compelled decryption: Whether the government can force the defendant to enter in the passcode. Its not the courts fault that the opinion didnt reach that, to be clear. The government never asked for an order compelling the defendant to do that, so the court didnt decide it. Heres a quick rundown of the facts, the law, and my reaction.

The defendant has been charged with assaulting a woman. There is reason to believe that the defendant videotaped the assault and that there is a copy of the video on the defendants passcode-protected smart phone. The state wants the defendant to be ordered either to disclose his passcode so the police can enter in the passcode to unlock the phone themselves, or else to give up his fingerprint to unlock the phone directly using the phones fingerprint sensor.

The court reaches a split ruling. First, there is no Fifth Amendment problem with forcing the defendant to provide his fingerprint. Second, the defendant cannot be forced to tell the government his passcode because that would be forcing the defendant to disclose the contents of his own mind. Most importantly, the court rules that the foregone conclusion doctrine doesnt apply because the police dont know the passcode:

Contrary to the Commonwealths assertion, the password is not a foregone conclusion because it is not known outside of Defendants mind. Unlike a document or tangible thing, such as an unencrypted copy of the footage itself, if the password was a foregone conclusion, the Commonwealth would not need to compel Defendant to produce it because they would already know it.

In dicta, the Court adds that the defendant could not be compelled to hand over a decrypted version of the video believed to be on his phone. Thats true because it is not a foregone conclusion that the video exists or is on the phone. The defendant cant be forced to effectively testify as to that by producing a decrypted version of the video.

This is just a state court trial ruling, not an appellate decision. So its interesting more for its reasoning than its precedential value. With that said, here are some thoughts on the reasoning of the case.

First, the courts ruling on divulging a fingerprint is easy. Theres obviously no Fifth Amendment problem with that. On the governments request for the passcode, the opinion is frustrating because the governments request was poorly framed. In this case, the government doesnt need to know the defendants passcode. It only needs to bypass the passcode gate, either through the fingerprint or by having the passcode entered in by the defendant. If the government couldnt get into the phone with the fingerprint, then, the sensible request would be for an order to have the defendant enter in the code rather than an order disclosing it to the government. But the government didnt ask for that: Instead it asked for an order that the defendant tell them his passcode.

Whats the difference? Having the defendant enter in his passcode would minimize the Fifth Amendment implications of the compelled compliance, as it would not involve disclosing the potentially incriminating evidence of the passcode itself. The passcode itself could be independently incriminating, at least in some cases. Imagine a conspiracy case in which members of the conspiracy use a common passcode. Proof that a suspect used that exact passcode on his own phone would be incriminating evidence, as it could help to show membership in the conspiracy.

Because the passcode itself could be incriminating, the smart way to limit the Fifth Amendment problem is for the government to ask for an order compelling the target to enter in the passcode rather than to divulge it to the police. That way, the government gets the unlocked phone but never gets the passcode. If the defendant has to enter in the passcode rather than tell it to the police, the testimonial aspect of complying would only be admitting knowledge of the passcode, which would very likely be a foregone conclusion in a case where the phone is used heavily by that person. But the government didnt ask for that here, so the court didnt consider how the Fifth Amendment would apply in such circumstances.

Notably, the court does address in dicta whether it would be incriminating for the defendant to hand over the unencrypted video believed to be on the phone. But forcing the defendant to hand over the unencrypted video is quite different from having him enter in the passcode to unlock the phone. Being forced to enter in the passcode to unlock the phone amounts to being forced to say, I know the passcode for this phone. On the other hand, as the court recognized, being forced to produce the unencrypted video amounts to being forced to say much more, such as I admit that the video exists; I admit that this is the video; I know where that video is; and I admit that I know what video youre talking about. Being forced to produce the video raises a host of Fifth Amendment issues that merely entering in the passcode does not.

Originally posted here:

Volokh Conspiracy: Virginia state trial court ruling on the Fifth Amendment and smart phones

A person suspected of a crime cannot be compelled to divulge to authorities the passcode that would unlock his smartphone. To allow this would be a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

But a fingerprint doesn't share those same protections. At least according to a recent ruling from a Circuit Court judge in Virginia, who found that compelling a suspect to unlock his fingerprint-protected smartphone is just fine and dandy.

There's some logic here, but it's pretty badly flawed. The thinking behind the decision: The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states that an individual cannot be forced to testify against himself. As such, compelling someone to fork over a smartphone's passcode -- which would amount to testimony -- would violate the Fifth Amendment.

But a fingerprint, the judge said, is another story. It's more like a key, which the law has long allowed authorities to obtain from a criminal suspect.

While one can understand the legal distinction that forms the basis for the ruling, it doesn't long hold up under scrutiny.

The Fifth Amendment states, in part: "No person shall be ... compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." This is the right that people are invoking when they refuse to testify on the grounds that they may incriminate themselves.

So legally, a passcode is a kind of testimony, but a key isn't.

Which is fine as far as it goes. But this is exactly where the judge went wrong.

A fingerprint can be akin to a key -- or not. In the matter at hand, what it is, in effect, is a replacement for a passcode, which is information that used to be inside the user's head. If we'd once unlocked our phones with physical keys -- like those that open a door or start the car -- the reasoning would make sense, as the fingerprint would be a replacement for same.

But that's simply not the case. We used to unlock our phones with information in our heads. And that information was protected by the Fifth Amendment. One's fingerprint, simply a replacement for the old memorized pass code, ought reasonably be afforded that same protection.

Read the original here:

Editorial: Applying the Fifth Amendment in the era of smartphones

04 November 2014

The rate of goods and services tax (GST) on tourism services in the Maldives increased to 12 percent from November 1, 2014.

The change was introduced through the First Amendment to the GST Act (Law Number 6/2014). As a result of the change, persons who are required to file GST returns quarterly must comply with special reporting requirements.

In addition, in a last minute amendment published on October 27, 2014, authorities in the Maldives intend to further amend the GST Act to provide that the rate only applies to goods and services supplied exclusively to tourists. Goods and services subject to the change listed as tourism services in the law include supplies by shops, diving schools, spas, water sports facilities, and other such facilities in tourist resorts, tourist hotels, guest houses, picnic islands, tourist vessels, and yacht marinas authorized by the Tourism Ministry.

Alongside the rate increase, the Maldives has also revoked the Tourism Tax a USD8 per night charge on accommodation also from November 1, through the Fifth Amendment to the Maldives Tourism Act (Law Number 5/2014) of February 6, 2014.

The last minute amendment also adds to the list of tourism services supplies of goods and services to tourists by domestic air transportation service providers. It clarifies also that the term "tourists" refers to persons entering the Maldives under a tourist visa issued under the Maldives Immigration Act.

The increase is part of a package of measures intended to generate higher revenues for the islands. The rate on tourism services was 3.5 percent from December 31, 2011, when the GST regime was first introduced; 6 percent from January 1, 2012; and 8 percent from January 1, 2013. Other measures to broaden the GST base have included the introduction of GST on telecom services since May 1, 2014. From this date, GST was also imposed, also at a rate of six percent, to sales of immovable property. The leasing of immovable property remains exempt.

Originally posted here:

Log into Tax-News+

All Your Fingerprints Are Belong To Us: iPhone Users Forfeit Fifth Amendment
Court rules fingerprints have no fifth amendment right. What does this mean for the rest of our biometric data? Follow Alex on TWITTER - https://twitter.com/RealAlexJones Like Alex on FACEBOOK...

By: TheAlexJonesChannel

Read the original post:

All Your Fingerprints Are Belong To Us: iPhone Users Forfeit Fifth Amendment - Video

Your Fingerprints Belong To Us: Iphone Users Forfeit 5th Amendment
Court rules fingerprints have no fifth amendment right. What does this mean for the rest of our biometric data? Stay in the know - Follow Alex on Twitter https://twitter.com/RealAlexJones Like...

By: THElNFOWARRlOR

Continue reading here:

Your Fingerprints Belong To Us: Iphone Users Forfeit 5th Amendment - Video

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties - Fifth Amendment - Shh! The Right to Remain Silent
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties is a free online course on Janux that is open to anyone. Learn more at http://janux.ou.edu. Created by the University of O...

By: Janux

Excerpt from:

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties - Fifth Amendment - Shh! The Right to Remain Silent - Video

schwit1 writes with news of a Circuit Court decision from Virginia where a judge has ruled that a criminal defendant cannot use Fifth Amendment protections to safeguard a phone that is locked using his or her fingerprint. According to Judge Steven C. Fucci, while a criminal defendant can't be compelled to hand over a passcode to police officers for the purpose of unlocking a cellular device, law enforcement officials can compel a defendant to give up a fingerprint. The Fifth Amendment states that "no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," which protects memorized information like passwords and passcodes, but it does not extend to fingerprints in the eyes of the law, as speculated by Wired last year. Frucci said that "giving police a fingerprint is akin to providing a DNA or handwriting sample or an actual key, which the law permits. A passcode, though, requires the defendant to divulge knowledge, which the law protects against, according to Frucci's written opinion."

See more here:

Virginia Court: LEOs Can Force You To Provide Fingerprint To Unlock Your Phone

Advances in technology always make for interesting interpretations of established law.

Most recently, a Virginia Beach Circuit Court this week ruled that an individual in a criminal proceeding cannot be forced to divulge the passcode to his cellphone as it would violate the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment. At the same time, the Court held that an individual can be compelled to give up his fingerprint to unlock Touch ID, or any fingerprint protected device for that matter.

The Court reasoned that while a passcode requires a defendant to divulge actual knowledge, a fingerprint is a form of physical evidence, akin to a handwriting sample or DNA that authorities are already legally allowed to demand in certain circumstances. In a similar vein, the Supreme Court has previously ruled that while authorities can compel an individual to hand over a physical key to a locked safe, they can't compel an individual to provide them with a combination to said safe; the key in this example is nothing more than physical evidence while the combination, based on an individual's unique knowledge, is categorized as "testimonial."

Mashable adds:

"It's exactly what we thought it would happen when Apple announced its fingerprint ID," Hanni Fakhoury, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights organization, told Mashable. (Android phones such as the Galaxy S5 and HTC One Max also have fingerprint ID systems.)

While the ruling in Virginia Beach is not as binding as a Supreme Court decision, it does establish legal precedent other local courts can draw on. More importantly, "it's just a good wake-up call for people to realize that fingerprint ID doesn't necessarily provide the same sort of legal protection than a password does," Fakhoury says.

As relayed by The Virginian-Pilot, the ruling stems from a case involving a man charged with strangling his girlfriend. Authorities had reason to believe that video footage of the couple's altercation might be located on the defendant's cellphone and "wanted a judge to force" the defendant hand over the passcode.

Read this article:

Court rules: Touch ID is not protected by the Fifth Amendment but Passcodes are

A Virginia Circuit Court judge ruled on Thursday that a persondoes not need to provide a passcode to unlock their phone for the police. The court also ruled that demanding a suspect to provide a fingerprint to unlock aphone would be constitutional.

The case in question this week involved a man named David Baust, who was charged in February with trying to strangle his girlfriend. The Virginian Pilot reports that Baust's phone might contain video of the conflict but that hisphone was locked with a passcode. Baust's attorney argued that passcodes are protected by the Fifth Amendment.

The judge agreed with Baust, though he noted in his written opinion that giving police a fingerprint is akin to providing a DNA or handwriting sample or an actual key, which the law permits, the Virginian Pilot reports. A passcode, though, requires the defendant to divulge knowledge, which the law protects against.

The ruling is interesting because it draws into relief the legal difference between a person's identity and their knowledge. The Fifth Amendment protects peoplefrom being forced to witness against themselves, and last year when Apple's TouchID fingerprint sensor was announced, Ars' sister site Wired noted that fingerprints may not have the same protection as passcodes. A communication is 'testimonial' only when it reveals the contents of your mind, Wired wrote. We cant invoke the privilege against self-incrimination to prevent the government from collecting biometrics like fingerprints, DNA samples, or voice exemplars. Why? Because the courts have decided that this evidence doesnt reveal anything you know. Its not testimonial.

Ars has contacted Baust's attorney and will update if we hear any comment from him.

Follow this link:

Virginia judge: Police can demand a suspect unlock a phone with a fingerprint

Apple and Google have taken steps recently to let users protect information stored on smartphones even from law enforcement. It turns out there may be a fingerprint-sized gap in that plan.

A Virginia Circuit Court judge ruled Tuesday that police officers cannot force criminal suspects to divulge cellphone passwords, but they can force them to unlock the phone with a fingerprint scanner.

If applied by other courts, the ruling could become important as more device makers incorporate fingerprint readers that can be used as alternatives to passwords. Apple introduced the technology last year in its iPhone 5S and Samsung included it in its Galaxy S5.

When those phones arrived, lawyers said users might be required to unlock the phones with their fingerprints. More recently, Apple and Google said they had changed the encryption scheme on the newest phones using their operating systems so that law enforcement cant retrieve the data. FBI Director James Comey criticized the companies, saying were allowing users to place themselves above the law.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives people the right to avoid self-incrimination. That includes divulging secret passwords, Judge Steven C. Frucci ruled. But providing fingerprints and other biometric information is considered outside the protection of the Fifth Amendment, the judge said.

The ruling came in the case of David Baust, an emergency-medical-services captain accused of domestic abuse. Police obtained a search warrant for Bausts phone and asked him to unlock it so they could look for video evidence against him. Baust refused, citing the Fifth Amendment and his right to protect his privacy; Baust said police could search for other, embarrassing items on the phone that are unrelated to the case.

In the wake of Judge Fruccis ruling, Baust does not have to provide his password, but he is required to place his finger on his iPhones fingerprint sensor.

Baust planned to comply Friday morning at a police station in Virginia, his lawyer, James Broccoletti said in an interview. The meeting was postponed because the detective needed to attend to a sick child.

Baust will head to the police station on Monday morning instead, but Broccoletti believes police still may be unable to unlock the phone because it should require a password, in addition to a fingerprint, once it has been shut off.

If they are unable to gain access to the phone, prosecutors in the case could appeal the password ruling to the Virginia court of appeals.

Read more:

Judge Rules Suspect Can Be Required To Unlock Phone With Fingerprint

Disciplinary hearing for SB officer moved to later date
A South Bend Police officer is fighting for his job. Jack Stilp was questioned before the Board of Public Safety today, but he cited the Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself.

By: WSBT-TV

Read more here:

Disciplinary hearing for SB officer moved to later date - Video

CHATTANOOGA, TN (WRCB) - The Chattanooga police officer at the center of a TBI criminal investigation appeared in court Friday.

Detective Karl Fields was in court, testifying as the lead investigator in Cordalro Strickland's murder case. But most of the questions revolved around the criminal investigation into the detective, prompting Fields to plead the Fifth Amendment over 15 times.

Fields was put on administrative leave last month, following allegations of inappropriate contact with a woman who filed a rape report.

There were questions whether or not the detective could testify in the upcoming murder trial while he was under a criminal probe himself. On Friday, attorneys argued whether or not a jury could hear the most recent allegations against the police officer.

"I'm currently on administrative leave," Fields said.

"Why are you on administrative leave?" asked Strickland's attorney, Brandy Spurgin.

"Undergoing investigation by internal affairs and TBI," Fields replied.

The legal fallout is crossing over into some of the cases Fields worked, namely Strickland's, who is charged with first degree murder in the 2011 shooting death of Melvin Fennell.

Fields answered questions about the case, but he was also grilled about his inappropriate contact with the alleged rape victim.

"Did you joke with another officer that videos in that case were YouTube material?" Spurgin asked.

Original post:

Detective dodges questions about allegations made during rape investigation

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. (WOFL FOX 35 ORLANDO) -

Both former Governor Charlie Crist and current Governor Rick Scott turned up the heat in their final debate before the election, with both men making it clear they do not like each other and both men taking multiple opportunities to attack their opponent over personal wealth and other issues. One repeatedly called the other by first name before taking their jabs.

On personal character and ethics

Crist employed the same type of attacks he has used on television about Scott, pointing to his tenure at HCA/Columbia, a hospital chain which was fined $1.7 billion for Medicare fraud. Crist repeated a line from one of those ads, saying that Scott once invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination while questioned about an unrelated civil lawsuit.

Rick you talk about being accountable. How were you accountable with HCA at all? asked Crist.

Scott raised questions about associates of Crist, including Scott Rothstein, who was convicted and imprisoned for masterminding one of the state's largest Ponzi schemes, and Jim Greer, the disgraced former chairman of the Republican Party of Florida, who served time after pleading guilty to theft and money laundering.

"Scott Rothstein testified, under oath, that Charlie was paid to appoint judges," said Scott. "His hand-picked party chairmen went to prison."

On raising the minimum wage and job creation

One issue the pair returned to was the minimum wage. Scott and Crist were on opposite sides of this issue like many others.

The private sector determines wages," said Scott. "Let's look at actually what happened. When Charlie says he wants to raise the minimum wage, that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, would lose $500,000 jobs. Charlie, you lost 832,000 jobs when you were governor. How many more jobs can we lose?

The rest is here:

Scott and Crist have heated and personal final debate before November election

PITTSBURGH -- An evidence suppression hearing for Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School founder Nick Trombetta will stretch into November after another day of arguments Monday was more notable for who did not testify than for who did.

Beaver County solicitor Joe Askar, who also represents the Rochester-based National Network of Digital Schools, invoked his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and refused to testify. Askar was subpoenaed by Trombettas defense team in their effort to get recorded conversations with attorneys, including him, tossed out by U.S. District Court Chief Judge Joy Flowers Conti.

Trombetta -- who faces 11 federal charges -- is claiming that the FBI violated his attorney-client privilege by recording discussions with Askar, former PA Cyber attorney Timothy Barry, and Ralph Monico and Leo Daly, attorneys who also represented NNDS. A Sept. 30 hearing was continued until Monday.

Mr. Askar has neither committed nor been charged with any crime. Nor will he be. As the U.S. Supreme Court has said, the privilege is available not only to protect the guilty, but also the innocent: We have emphasized that one of the Fifth Amendments basic functions is to protect innocent men, who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances, Bruce Teitelbaum, Askars attorney, said in a statement.

The ambiguities inherent in this complex matter and the possibility of misunderstanding compelled me, out of caution, to advise Mr. Askar to invoke his privilege, Teitelbaum said.

Barry was called to the stand by defense attorney Adam Hoffinger later in the day, but was excused after a lengthy off-the-record sidebar involving his attorney, Trombettas lawyers and prosecutors. Hoffinger said Barry would be recalled when the hearing continues next month.

Trombetta attorney Robert Salerno quizzed FBI agent Samantha Bell, the lead investigator, on synopses of calls monitored by agents, instructions to agents on recording calls and minimization, the FBIs name for when agents stop listening to calls that are irrelevant or might be protected by attorney-client privilege.

After Barry was excused, FBI agent Paul Allen took the stand and was questioned by Hoffinger on a June 2012 synopsis of a recorded call on which he noted that Trombetta would be talking to his attorney.

Hoffinger wondered how agents could know when to stop recording privileged communications if they truly did not know whether Trombetta had a personal attorney. Allen said he did not exactly remember, but testified that he might have simply written the note to be cautious.

Im not sure why I used the personal pronoun his, Allen said. I didnt mean anything by it.

Follow this link:

Agents questioned, Askar takes the Fifth in Trombetta hearing

Property Rights | Century Law Group
http://fighteminentdomain.com/ | Century Law Group | Eminent domain is provided for in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as a section of property rights. This allows a government...

By: Century Law

See the rest here:

Property Rights | Century Law Group - Video

Fresno Police Officer violated fifth amendment at a dui checkpoint. part 2
On Wednesday, October 8, 2014 3:49 PM At this point i asked what is the VCV for how far i have to row down the window, the officer said 2814.2... The California Supreme Court has held that...

By: max xiong

See the original post here:

Fresno Police Officer violated fifth amendment at a dui checkpoint. part 2 - Video

By Elisabeth Hulette The Virginian-Pilot October 12, 2014

VIRGINIA BEACH

Picture this: You're being prosecuted for a crime.

Police have a search warrant for your iPhone, but they can't open it without your pass code. Now they're asking a judge to order you to give it up. What do you do?

If you're David Baust, you put up a fight. The Emergency Medical Services captain, who is charged with trying to strangle his girlfriend during a fight in February, argues the move raises a Fifth Amendment issue - that by opening his phone, he could incriminate himself.

A judge will decide Baust's case, but it's unlikely to settle the issue for good. Apple and Android recently announced plans to dramatically increase the amount of information on their phones that's automatically encrypted - translated into code - making it far more difficult for law enforcement officials to get the access they say they need to convict criminals.

As that happens, attorneys and experts say, the courts are likely to see more cases pitting prosecutors and police against pass codes.

"It's a bitterly disputed debate on all fronts," said Sharon Nelson, immediate past president of the Virginia State Bar and the president of Sensei Enterprises, a digital forensics company in northern Virginia.

"You can see the need of law enforcement on the one hand," she said. "On the other, the Fourth Amendment means nothing if you have to turn your life over to the government." The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches.

Police access to cellphones changed radically after a June ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. Officers still can extract information from cellphones of people who are arrested but now need a court-issued search warrant.

More:

Code cases: Police want phone access, but some pass