# Lifestyles & Discussion > Privacy & Data Security >  VA Judge: Law Enforcement Can Compel Fingerprint to Unlock Cell Phone

## Brian4Liberty

It seems that new technology always ends up being deemed a reason to circumvent and erode the Bill of Rights...

VA Judge: Law Enforcement Can Compel Fingerprint to Unlock Cell Phone
By Tommy Creegan




> An interesting ruling regarding cell phone privacy has emerged from a Virginia Circuit Court. Judge Steven Frucci of Virginias 2nd Judicial Circuit has ruled that law enforcement can compel someone to unlock his cellphone by fingerprint identification, but cannot compel one to divulge his passcode in order to unlock the device.
> 
> The defendant in this case is accused of physically assaulting his wife. Defendant, his wife, and law enforcement believe there may be video footage of the alleged incident recorded on his cell phone. With a search warrant, law enforcement was able to obtain the phone, which was locked by both fingerprint identification and passcode. So, the question before the court is whether the production of ones passcode or fingerprint is testimonial communication and therefore subject to the defendants Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
> 
> Judge Frucci penned a nuanced answer to the question. The passcode is protected because it would require the defendant to disclose information only known to him (the passcode) that could lead to incrimination. However, law enforcement can compel the defendant to provide his fingerprint because it qualifies as physical evidence.
> 
> The key to understanding this ruling is that protections against self-incrimination only extend to oral testimony; the protections do not apply to physical items of evidence. Further, Fifth Amendment protections do not apply to pre-trial matters in which a defendant may be asked to produce physical evidence such as fingerprints, DNA or blood samples.
> 
> While one can follow the reasoning of Judge Frucci, his ruling still seems strikingly odd. Perhaps this is because the passcode and fingerprint identification serve the same purpose: to protect information stored in your phone from being viewed or accessed by a party you do not wish to see that information. 
> ...

----------


## nobody's_hero

If anything tech complicates things. Too much room for grey areas and we know how gov't usually invites itself to have the final say on grey areas.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> It seems that new technology always ends up being deemed a reason to circumvent and erode the Bill of Rights...


The State will clutch at every straw it can.

(Tyrants didn't have much trouble concocting excuses prior to the advent of modern technology, either ...)

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Apparently this VA Judge has a different definition of "evidence" than the rest of the human race.

----------


## limequat

I'm meh on this one.  They already compel you to provide fingerprints when you're booked.  And he has a warrant.  But it sounds like it wouldn't matter in this case because the phone was locked by password (protected) _and_ fingerprint (not protected).

----------


## Brian4Liberty

So the finger is "physical evidence". Why not go ahead and say that his finger must type in the pass-code? Just a little bit farther down that slippery slope.

----------

