July 3, 2024 at 05:54PM
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that state highway police lawfully unlocked a suspect’s phone using his fingerprint during a drug bust, finding no violation of 5th or 4th Amendment rights. Experts caution against relying on biometrics, especially for those likely to interact with police, due to unsettled legal issues and potential privacy risks.
The meeting notes highlighted a recent ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California, which concluded that state highway police acted lawfully in forcibly unlocking a suspect’s phone using their fingerprint. This ruling has raised concerns about the use of biometrics to protect sensitive information on phones, particularly in cases where individuals may interact with law enforcement, such as during protests. The ruling, in the case of United States v. Jeremy Travis Payne, found that the police did not violate the suspect’s 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination or the 4th Amendment protections against unlawful search and seizure. It noted that the arguments surrounding the 5th Amendment and biometrics are still unsettled.
Experts have cautioned about the use of biometrics in interactions with the police, advising individuals to turn off thumbprint or face unlock features before attending protests or when interacting with law enforcement. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has suggested that there is more 5th Amendment protection for passwords than for biometrics, as revealing a password is more clearly an act of disclosing what’s in one’s mind. While turning off biometrics is recommended for those anticipating interactions with the police, there are still nuanced challenges in protecting private details, particularly with the use of nested biometrics.
In light of this, individuals are advised to consider using encrypted services and ensuring that their apps and messages are secure, especially in the event of a warranted search by the police. However, it’s emphasized that there is no guaranteed safeguard for digital life, and until a major court offers a defining legal opinion, the recommendation stands to avoid using biometrics altogether.