Comment on Utah Supreme Court says suspects can refuse to hand over phone passwords to the police | Other state Supreme Courts disagree and the case would wind up before the US Supreme Court

• CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I never said they wouldnt have a warrant, I dont understand the comparison

  source

  • Phlogiston@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    If one had a warrant then you just force the suspect to give over. Just like forcing them to give fingerprints. Isn’t the whole discussion moot if they have a warrant.

    So when you offer a path to get into the phone without a warrant it’s just like breaking into a “house” without a warrant. Technically easy - just go through the window or use the fingerprint from booking. It if we agree with due process either is wrong.

    source

    • Decoy321@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      It is not, because the issue is whether police CAN compel someone to give their password.

      From the article:

      When [Valdez] was arrested, the police found a cell phone in his pocket and obtained a search warrant for its contents. However they were unable to crack the password and Valdez refused to provide it when asked. The police were never able to search the phone.

      Further down, italics added by me to emojis the important bit.

      He was convicted in the jury trial, which was reversed by the court of appeals that agreed Valdez had a right under the Fifth Amendment to refuse to provide his passcode, and that the state violated that right when it used his refusal against him at trial.

      Lastly, I want to add one important distinction. Fingerprints are physical characteristics, while passwords are personal information. Fingerprints are distinct from passwords in that you have fingerprints, but know a password. You can only get one of them off a dead guy.

      source