Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 02:54:26 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: Pro police Ninth Circuit ruling shreds several clauses of Fourth and Fifth Amendments Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv References: Content-Language: en-US From: trotsky In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 67 Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail Nntp-Posting-Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 07:54:23 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 3892 Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17c88af9cda724ab$249519$3268579$10d55a65@news.newsdemon.com> Bytes: 4274 On 4/21/24 3:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote: > In article , > "Adam H. Kerman" wrote: > >> The territory of the 9th Circuit (Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, >> Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Guam, Northern Mariana >> Islands, and sometimes American Samoa) is now free of pesky clauses of >> the 4th and 5th Amendments, the ones protecting against warrantless >> searches and self incrimination. >> >> Appeals Court Rules That Cops Can Physically Make You Unlock Your Phone >> The 9th Circuit determined that forcibly mashing a suspect's thumb into >> his phone to unlock it was akin to fingerprinting him at the police >> station. >> by Joe Lancaster >> Reason >> 4.19.2024 12:50 PM >> >> Note that the appellee was a parolee, but nothing about this ruling >> truly limits it to persons who are not in prison but still under >> sentence like probation or parole. >> >> The contents of a cell phone were searched without a warrant. Because >> the phone's owner used a biometric to unlock -- thumbprint -- the court >> ruled that the phone's owner had NO PRIVACY as obtaining the fingerprint >> placed it in the same category as taking fingerprints at booking. > > Which is why I've always eschewed the face/fingerprint unlock features. > Always go with a code. Unless it's a moral code, which you clearly don't have. Oh, and what Verman said doesn't sound legal in the slightest. Is there a lawyer you can ask for confirmation? >> California Highway Patrol pulled over a vehicle for a window tinting >> violation. The driver admitted to being on parole. He was handcuffed. >> They took his cell phone. While handcuffed, they forced him to provide >> the thumbprint to unlock the phone. >> >> Now, parole conditions he was subject to allow warrantless seizure of >> electronic devices. However, unlocking the device was not a parole >> condition. >> >> They found a video in which they saw blue pills which they suspected >> were fentanyl. I guess an experienced police officer might say the pills >> looked like contraband but I have no idea how he can claim to know what >> contraband it is from an image. On the phone was a map to an address, >> which they suspected was a home address. (It doesn't say they confirmed >> with parole records that this was the man's home.) Using his own keys, >> they entered, searched, seized drugs. The man was charged with >> possession with intent to distribute. >> >> The man argued that forcibly obtaining the thumb print was a compelled >> testimonial communication in violation of the self-incrimination clause >> of the 5th Amendment, and because it happened while in custody, the >> privilege against self-incrimination is jeopardized and the 4th >> Amendment also provides self incrimination protection (from Miranda). > > So if he'd used a code, none of this would have happened to him. They > would have shouted at him on the side of the road for 10 minutes, > demanding the code, but so long as he just kept repeating "I'm asserting > my 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment rights and refuse to answer questions > without a lawyer present", there would ultimately be nothing they could > do.