Re: Pro police Ninth Circuit ruling shreds several clauses of Fourth and Fifth Amendments

On 4/21/24 3:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <v03mg2$ekkk$1@dont-email.me>,
  "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> 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.