As case law continues to be developed, it continues to look as though the best way to hold onto your Fifth Amendment rights is to secure your devices with a passcode. There’s no solid consens…
Best description of this I have seen is: the 5th Amendment protects compelled production what you know. It does not protect what you are (fingerprints, hair, etc).
Yep. Passcode unlocks are legally protected, unlike fingerprint unlocks. If you have any desire to keep the police out of your phone, you should not have fingerprint unlock enabled.
Also breathalyzers. You can be compelled to give blood/breath/etc in the course of a criminal investigation and there are no constitutional protections covering you.
Or “things you possess,” either. I remember being told (maybe in a college class, but I don’t remember exactly) that you can be compelled to give up the key to a lock, but not the combination to a lock.
Best description of this I have seen is: the 5th Amendment protects compelled production what you know. It does not protect what you are (fingerprints, hair, etc).
So force your phone to require a passcode by holding volume up and off button
Yep. Passcode unlocks are legally protected, unlike fingerprint unlocks. If you have any desire to keep the police out of your phone, you should not have fingerprint unlock enabled.
Also breathalyzers. You can be compelled to give blood/breath/etc in the course of a criminal investigation and there are no constitutional protections covering you.
which is crazy. how is puncturing someones sking and drawing blood against their will not a type of battery
If blood draw is done properly it should be pretty uneventful.
Permanent damage could get a lawsuit to compel a less risky procedure by the cops.
Or “things you possess,” either. I remember being told (maybe in a college class, but I don’t remember exactly) that you can be compelled to give up the key to a lock, but not the combination to a lock.