The Fifth Amendment protects individuals from incriminating themselves, but a Minnesota court has ruled it does not apply when a suspect is ordered to provide a fingerprint to unlock a cell phone.
Giving a fingerprint is akin to standing in a lineup, not revealing a password, the Minnesota Court of Appeals found on Tuesday.
The three-judge panel ruled against Matthew Vaughn Diamond, who was convicted in 2015 of theft, burglary and criminal damage to property after the Carver County District Court threatened to hold him in contempt if he refused to offer his fingerprint to unlock his cell phone. Incriminating evidence was subsequently discovered on the device. The phone had been the subject of a search warrant.
“Diamond was not required to disclose any knowledge he might have or to speak his guilt,” Judge Tracy Smith wrote in the court’s opinion, adding, “The district court’s order is therefore distinguishable from requiring a defendant to decrypt a hard drive or produce a combination.”
Smith cited Supreme Court precedent in the 1988 case Doe v. United States, where the high court wrote, “in order to be testimonial, [a criminal defendant’s] communication must itself, explicitly or implicitly, relate a factual assertion or disclose information. Only then is a person compelled to be a ‘witness’ against himself.”
A 2010 federal case, United States v. Kirschner, resulted in a ruling that found requiring a defendant to supply a computer password did, in fact, violate the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.
“[T]he task that Diamond was compelled to perform—to provide his fingerprint—is no more testimonial than furnishing a blood sample, providing handwriting or voice exemplars, standing in a lineup, or wearing particular clothing,” Smith wrote in Tuesday’s decision.
“We express no opinion regarding whether, in a given case, a defendant may be compelled to produce a cellphone password, consistent with the Fifth Amendment,” she continued.
Diamond has been sentenced to 51 months in prison.
https://www.rt.com/usa/374160-fifth-amendment-fingerprint-cellphone-court/
People in government ALWAYS give themselves an excuse to violate the “Bill of rights”.
Love to see the judge stroke out on a jury nullification
It’s already a mistrial
But I guess none of that matters to them as they believe the “incriminating ” evidence no matter how illegally they obtained it is good enough for them
On a purely practical level, wouldn’t this issue be moot? After all, they take your fingerprints when they arrest you anyway. I’d expect the pigs to have some means of transferring ink prints to a mold that could be used to unlock the phone.
*** “[T]he task that Diamond was compelled to perform—to provide his fingerprint—is no more testimonial than furnishing a blood sample, providing handwriting or voice exemplars, standing in a lineup, or wearing particular clothing,” Smith wrote in Tuesday’s decision. ***
Which of these things is not like the other?
That judge is an idiot. Being forced to give a blood sample is vastly more invasive than being made to do the other things mentioned, especially due to the ease of performing a DNA analysis on blood. (It’s also sometimes possible to get DNA from a fingerprint on an object, but that’s more difficult and less reliable.)
No. The judge is not an idiot.
Judges are part of the government Corporation.
Corporations are in business to make profits. No matter how.
Actually, you’re right. The judge probably knows exactly what she’s doing, just like those who try to argue that the Second Amendment is a “collective right,” or the Supreme Court “Justices” who deemed civil asset forfeiture to be constitutional. They don’t actually believe their own ludicrously flawed arguments; they just hope the public will fall for them.
Omg, I’m so sorry he lost his 5th amendment, I wonder if he’ll find it again…!!!?
Let’s ask our representative government if they know where it is and if we are allowed to get it again…!!!
Death to this NWO
THE “5TH” CRAWLED UNDER THE 2ND WITH THE REST OF’EM, WAITING ON BRAVE SELF SACRIFICING SOULS TO SCREAM “FREEDOM”! ……..
AND LOOSE THE DOGS OF WAR………
this sets a legal precedent if you have a fingerprint unlocking car or house lock, they could enter and search without a cause.