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

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."

Comments

Duh

[machineghost]

Police have been collecting finger prints for decades, and they have caught thousands, if not millions, of criminals they otherwise wouldn't have caught as a result.

All this judge said was that you using your fingerprint on your phone doesn't give you a "get out of fingerprinting free" card when you get arrested. If it did every criminal in America would lock their phone with a fingerprint so they didn't have to get fingerprinted.

Re:don't use biometrics

[Shakrai]

Got pictures of your toddler daughter playing in the sprinkler or bath tub on there somewhere? You might not want them looking through there and charging you with distributing child pornography.

This is FUD; have you actually read any legal statues regarding child pornography? Here's the Federal statute, 18 U.S. Code 2252 - Certain activities relating to material involving the sexual exploitation of minors, emphasis mine:

(a) Any person who —
(1) knowingly transports or ships using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means including by computer or mails, any visual depiction, if—
(A)the producing of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B)such visual depiction is of such conduct;

(There are also other sections that cover simple possession, rather than distribution, but they use the same two pronged definition from (A) and (B) above, so I've omitted them here for the sake of brevity.)

Here's New York State's statute, Penal Law Article 263:

S 263.11 Possessing an obscene sexual performance by a child.
A person is guilty of possessing an obscene sexual performance by a child when, knowing the character and content thereof, he knowingly has in his possession or control, or knowingly accesses with intent to view, any obscene performance which includes sexual conduct by a child less than sixteen years of age.

Definition from that same chapter:

"Sexual conduct" means actual or simulated sexual intercourse, oral sexual conduct, anal sexual conduct, sexual bestiality, masturbation, sado-masochistic abuse, or lewd exhibition of the genitals.

Re:don't use biometrics

[myowntrueself]

lewd exhibition of the genitals.

So basically, if it gives the judge an erection you are in big trouble.