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. <\/p>\n
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. <\/p>\n
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. <\/p>\n
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. <\/p>\n
Ars has contacted Baust's attorney and will update if we hear any comment from him. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Follow this link: <\/p>\n
Virginia judge: Police can demand a suspect unlock a phone with a fingerprint<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 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 Continue reading