Slashdot Mirror
Feds Walk Into a Building, Demand Everyone's Fingerprints To Open Phones (dailyherald.com)
An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes the Daily Herald:
Investigators in Lancaster, California, were granted a search warrant last May with a scope that allowed them to force anyone inside the premises at the time of search to open up their phones via fingerprint recognition, Forbes reported Sunday. The government argued that this did not violate the citizens' Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination because no actual passcode was handed over to authorities...
"I was frankly a bit shocked," said Andrew Crocker, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, when he learned about the scope of search warrant. "As far as I know, this warrant application was unprecedented"... He also described requiring phones to be unlocked via fingerprint, which does not technically count as handing over a self-incriminating password, as a "clever end-run" around constitutional rights.
"I was frankly a bit shocked," said Andrew Crocker, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, when he learned about the scope of search warrant. "As far as I know, this warrant application was unprecedented"... He also described requiring phones to be unlocked via fingerprint, which does not technically count as handing over a self-incriminating password, as a "clever end-run" around constitutional rights.
This is an obvious violation of the fifth amendment, and the judge who issued the warrant isn't qualified to practice law in the united states.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
That is the very definition of a "general search warrant".
General search warrants are the very reason the Fourth Amendment was written. They are categorically banned in the Constitution.
The judge must be a Redcoat.
Unreasonable search and seizure
A search warrant for building contents is fine.
Searching the personal affects of every person just because they happened to be present is not reasonable.
The constitution requires a specific warrant. Searching someone's person constitutionally requires that person be named in the Warrant.
Merely being present at a place of work or being at a restaurant or other public place is not probable cause for a search of someone's person.
(...) even people who have done nothing wrong (...). And anybody who has done something wrong should (...)
The problem is that everyone has some something wrong. There is some kind of law, statute or rule that you broke... or didn't follow strictly.
This day and age there are so many rule, such broad law, that everyone had some something. Even if it as minor as jaywalking. Or driving over the speed limit for a couple minutes. Or parking a little too far from the sidewalk. Or something else completely different that in a given place is a misdemeanor.
I'm not screaming "evil big government here". I'm actually a law student and an intern in a attorney office. We all break some law several times every day. But these are such minor things that the legal system simply don't care. Maybe it is not a criminal law, but only enough for a civil lawsuit. But we are still breaking the rules.
In the eyes of the law, no one is 100% guiltless, even if they are innocent.
This is one of the problems why the legal system doesn't work. We punish too many things, so we punish badly. And, in that scenario, when the policing forces (local, state or federal) get increased powers and broader mandates, they get carte blanche to so pretty much what they want to anyone they want. After all, everyone is guilty of something.
Things are only getting scarier.
morcego
That's not what they did.
It's more like you had a party at your house with 50 people, and the police got a warrant to search your house,
that included a clause "allowing" them to search the fingerprint-protected safe of any person who was at your party
scope that allowed them to force anyone inside the premises at the time ....
Contrast that against the Fourth amendment's requirements:
Note that the constitution requires that warrants describe particular people or things.
It's Unconstitutional and Illegal/violation of the supreme law of the land to have a "generic search" or a "generic warrant document"
allowing police to search and seize or disseminate the personal property of ANY random person they happen to find at place X.
The constitution requires they have made a specific list of people to search people, or a specific list of things to search objects not in peoples' personal affects.
We have very little information to go on. I'd like to read the actual warant and know the cirumstances, but based on the article it seems like a violation of the FOURTH amendment. The cops are supposed to have a warrant, based on probable cause, describing what particular things they are searching for and where, and why they think those things are in that place.
I can't imagine a probable cause to believe that everyone in the building has some specific evidence on their phone. Thus the search itself is unconstitutional under the fourth, with or without a fingerprint.
The fifth says you don't have to testify against yourself. It doesn't say you can't be fingerprinted. Thus I see no *fifth* amendment violation, though it seems like a rather onerous *fourth* amendment violation.
Well, if you see them coming in demanding everybody unlock their phones, just quickly take it out, unlock it and turn it off. Takes about 3 seconds. Then when they get to you, it's too late because the phone will now require a password which you don't have to give.
Doesn't work if you're the first one they ask, of course.
The Bushes are voting for Clinton this time around.
Go figure. It's not because Trump is a 'disaster'. It's because he doesn't represent their political class. Hillary does.