Mediaboss Marketing

Advances in technology always make for interesting interpretations of established law.

Most recently, a Virginia Beach Circuit Court this week ruled that an individual in a criminal proceeding cannot be forced to divulge the passcode to his cellphone as it would violate the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment. At the same time, the Court held that an individual can be compelled to give up his fingerprint to unlock Touch ID, or any fingerprint protected device for that matter.

The Court reasoned that while a passcode requires a defendant to divulge actual knowledge, a fingerprint is a form of physical evidence, akin to a handwriting sample or DNA that authorities are already legally allowed to demand in certain circumstances. In a similar vein, the Supreme Court has previously ruled that while authorities can compel an individual to hand over a physical key to a locked safe, they can't compel an individual to provide them with a combination to said safe; the key in this example is nothing more than physical evidence while the combination, based on an individual's unique knowledge, is categorized as "testimonial."

Mashable adds:

"It's exactly what we thought it would happen when Apple announced its fingerprint ID," Hanni Fakhoury, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights organization, told Mashable. (Android phones such as the Galaxy S5 and HTC One Max also have fingerprint ID systems.)

While the ruling in Virginia Beach is not as binding as a Supreme Court decision, it does establish legal precedent other local courts can draw on. More importantly, "it's just a good wake-up call for people to realize that fingerprint ID doesn't necessarily provide the same sort of legal protection than a password does," Fakhoury says.

As relayed by The Virginian-Pilot, the ruling stems from a case involving a man charged with strangling his girlfriend. Authorities had reason to believe that video footage of the couple's altercation might be located on the defendant's cellphone and "wanted a judge to force" the defendant hand over the passcode.

The rest is here:
Court rules: Touch ID is not protected by the Fifth Amendment but Passcodes are

A Virginia Circuit Court judge ruled on Thursday that a persondoes not need to provide a passcode to unlock their phone for the police. The court also ruled that demanding a suspect to provide a fingerprint to unlock aphone would be constitutional.

The case in question this week involved a man named David Baust, who was charged in February with trying to strangle his girlfriend. The Virginian Pilot reports that Baust's phone might contain video of the conflict but that hisphone was locked with a passcode. Baust's attorney argued that passcodes are protected by the Fifth Amendment.

The judge agreed with Baust, though he noted in his written opinion that giving police a fingerprint is akin to providing a DNA or handwriting sample or an actual key, which the law permits, the Virginian Pilot reports. A passcode, though, requires the defendant to divulge knowledge, which the law protects against.

The ruling is interesting because it draws into relief the legal difference between a person's identity and their knowledge. The Fifth Amendment protects peoplefrom being forced to witness against themselves, and last year when Apple's TouchID fingerprint sensor was announced, Ars' sister site Wired noted that fingerprints may not have the same protection as passcodes. A communication is 'testimonial' only when it reveals the contents of your mind, Wired wrote. We cant invoke the privilege against self-incrimination to prevent the government from collecting biometrics like fingerprints, DNA samples, or voice exemplars. Why? Because the courts have decided that this evidence doesnt reveal anything you know. Its not testimonial.

Ars has contacted Baust's attorney and will update if we hear any comment from him.

See more here:
Virginia judge: Police can demand a suspect unlock a phone with a fingerprint

Apple and Google have taken steps recently to let users protect information stored on smartphones even from law enforcement. It turns out there may be a fingerprint-sized gap in that plan.

A Virginia Circuit Court judge ruled Tuesday that police officers cannot force criminal suspects to divulge cellphone passwords, but they can force them to unlock the phone with a fingerprint scanner.

If applied by other courts, the ruling could become important as more device makers incorporate fingerprint readers that can be used as alternatives to passwords. Apple introduced the technology last year in its iPhone 5S and Samsung included it in its Galaxy S5.

When those phones arrived, lawyers said users might be required to unlock the phones with their fingerprints. More recently, Apple and Google said they had changed the encryption scheme on the newest phones using their operating systems so that law enforcement cant retrieve the data. FBI Director James Comey criticized the companies, saying were allowing users to place themselves above the law.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives people the right to avoid self-incrimination. That includes divulging secret passwords, Judge Steven C. Frucci ruled. But providing fingerprints and other biometric information is considered outside the protection of the Fifth Amendment, the judge said.

The ruling came in the case of David Baust, an emergency-medical-services captain accused of domestic abuse. Police obtained a search warrant for Bausts phone and asked him to unlock it so they could look for video evidence against him. Baust refused, citing the Fifth Amendment and his right to protect his privacy; Baust said police could search for other, embarrassing items on the phone that are unrelated to the case.

In the wake of Judge Fruccis ruling, Baust does not have to provide his password, but he is required to place his finger on his iPhones fingerprint sensor.

Baust planned to comply Friday morning at a police station in Virginia, his lawyer, James Broccoletti said in an interview. The meeting was postponed because the detective needed to attend to a sick child.

Baust will head to the police station on Monday morning instead, but Broccoletti believes police still may be unable to unlock the phone because it should require a password, in addition to a fingerprint, once it has been shut off.

If they are unable to gain access to the phone, prosecutors in the case could appeal the password ruling to the Virginia court of appeals.

Excerpt from:
Judge Rules Suspect Can Be Required To Unlock Phone With Fingerprint

Disciplinary hearing for SB officer moved to later date
A South Bend Police officer is fighting for his job. Jack Stilp was questioned before the Board of Public Safety today, but he cited the Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself.

By: WSBT-TV

Go here to read the rest:
Disciplinary hearing for SB officer moved to later date - Video

CHATTANOOGA, TN (WRCB) - The Chattanooga police officer at the center of a TBI criminal investigation appeared in court Friday.

Detective Karl Fields was in court, testifying as the lead investigator in Cordalro Strickland's murder case. But most of the questions revolved around the criminal investigation into the detective, prompting Fields to plead the Fifth Amendment over 15 times.

Fields was put on administrative leave last month, following allegations of inappropriate contact with a woman who filed a rape report.

There were questions whether or not the detective could testify in the upcoming murder trial while he was under a criminal probe himself. On Friday, attorneys argued whether or not a jury could hear the most recent allegations against the police officer.

"I'm currently on administrative leave," Fields said.

"Why are you on administrative leave?" asked Strickland's attorney, Brandy Spurgin.

"Undergoing investigation by internal affairs and TBI," Fields replied.

The legal fallout is crossing over into some of the cases Fields worked, namely Strickland's, who is charged with first degree murder in the 2011 shooting death of Melvin Fennell.

Fields answered questions about the case, but he was also grilled about his inappropriate contact with the alleged rape victim.

"Did you joke with another officer that videos in that case were YouTube material?" Spurgin asked.

See the article here:
Detective dodges questions about allegations made during rape investigation