Court Has No Problem With All House Residents Being Forced To Hand Over Fingers To Law Enforcement
from the fifth-amendment-five-finger-discount dept
A ruling has been handed down by a federal judge finding the government's demands for fingerprints from multiple residents of a house does not implicate the Fifth Amendment. [h/t Brad Heath]
The underlying case -- still under seal -- bears some resemblance to one we discussed here about a year ago. Law enforcement sought a search warrant for a residence, which would allegedly house devices containing child pornography. The devices were suspected to be Apple products, which can be opened with fingerprints. The warrant asked for permission to compel the residents to supply their fingerprints -- both to unlock the devices and to ascribe possession to the person whose fingerprint unlocked them.
Surprisingly, the magistrate judge rejected the government's request. The government appealed the magistrate's rejection, kicking it up a level in the federal court system. The court notes in its ruling [PDF] its reviews of magistrates' decisions isn't normally adversarial, but this case raises some questions in need of additional viewpoints.
Ordinarily, review of the magistrate judge’s decision on a warrant application would be ex parte. But because the magistrate judge’s thoughtful opinion addressed a novel question on the scope of the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination, the Court invited the Federal Defender Program in this District to file an amicus brief to defend the decision (the government did not object to the amicus participation). The Court is grateful for the Federal Defender Program’s excellent service in fulfilling this request.
The decision here comes down on the side of the government, decisively so. But that may be due to the specifics of the fingerprint application. Rather than directly asking the residents of the searched home to use Apple's TouchID to unlock the devices (which would require a specific finger known only to each resident), law enforcement officers will choose which finger each suspect must apply to the device.
Specifically, the constitutional text on which the right is premised only prevents the government from compelling a person from being a “witness” against himself. U.S. Const., amend. V. The Fifth Amendment provides, in pertinent part: “No person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” Witnesses provide testimony, so that specifically is the forbidden compulsion: the government cannot force someone to provide a communication that is “testimonial” in character…
The same holds true for the fingerprint seizure sought by the government here. As noted earlier, and worth emphasizing again, the government agents will pick the fingers to be pressed on the Touch ID sensor, Affidavit ¶ 39 n.9, ¶ 41, so there is no need to engage the thought process of any of the residents at all in effectuating the seizure. The application of the fingerprint to the sensor is simply the seizure of a physical characteristic, and the fingerprint by itself does not communicate anything.
The court likely would have reached the same conclusion even if the government had demanded residents choose fingers themselves. (The court does not state -- nor is it reflected anywhere in the court's discussion -- that law enforcement is limited to one finger from each resident. To keep this from becoming a mockery of the court's intent, you would think this would be the case. Nothing on the record indicates, however, that the government gets one finger per person.)
What's depicted here clearly falls in line with previous decisions related to the Fifth Amendment implications of providing fingerprints to unlock devices. Physical properties like fingerprints haven't been considered testimonial because they're apparent, visible, and clearly linked to the individual under suspicion. Handing over a fingerprint requires no "testimonial" effort, courts have decided, even if the non-testimonial action produces a wealth of incriminating evidence.
The compelled production of passwords and PINs is still an open issue. How open is a matter of (judicial) opinion. So far, refusing the government's offer to provide the keys to possibly incriminating evidence has only conclusively proven to be a good way to spend an indefinite amount of time in jail. But it at least provides the slimmest hope a judge will find demands for passwords a violation of the Fifth Amendment. The case for fingerprints being testimonial hasn't found much sympathy in the courts, despite the application of fingerprints ultimately being every bit as revealing as typing in a password.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 4th amendment, 5th amendment, finger prints, search warrant, warrant
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Biometric information is not a valid password!
Well, basic security rule nr 1: biometric information is not a valid password (at best it is a user identification like a username or emailaddress)!Rationale:
1) If compromised, you cannot change your biometric information as you would a password.
2) Biometric information, by it's very nature, can be collected without your consent.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
When you're arrested you have to give your fingerprints and that could lead to your conviction if your fingerprints match prints found on something connected to the case. So that's tantamount to incriminating yourself as well. It seems though that everybody is fine with that.
Although it's still complicated because in this case it seems they went on a fishing expedition and compelled everybody in the general vicinity to be fingerprinted. That is a dangerous path in my view. Now it was "limited" to all residents of the residence. What is to say they can't "limit" it to all residents of a certain neighborhood, city, state, country?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is a reasonable exception
That's not a problem with fingerprints; if your fingerprint doesn't work, it doesn't work.
Note to self: Use a knuckle or something...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Typo note
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It just feels like they're taking fingers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The difference between freedom and jail
I don't think passwords are testimonial either, but it's certainly problematic if the government can lock you up indefinitely if you are actually incapable of providing the correct password (because you forgot or the device isn't actually yours.)
Passwords are testimonial in that they require someone to provide personal knowledge, knowledge which can then be used to legally establish a link between them and any content/information that the password was protecting.
It's the difference between 'The police are pretty sure that the phone/device is owned by the suspect and contains incriminating evidence" and 'The police know that the suspect had access to the device, and have the incriminating evidence to use against them'.
Anything that can be the difference between a guilty conviction and a ruling of not guilty is worth significant scrutiny, such that the legal protections against self-incrimination should be upheld.
As for the second half I'd argue that it would be just as bad even if the device was owned by the suspect and they did know the password to unlock it, as they are still being punished for refusing to provide self-incriminating evidence against them, in clear violation of the prohibition against that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"We're just going to look the other way while you do whatever, alright?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's not a mockery of the intent if that was the intent all along
(Right, let's try this again with a tab instead of an enter shall we?)
To keep this from becoming a mockery of the court's intent, you would think this would be the case. Nothing on the record indicates, however, that the government gets one finger per person.
The excerpt from the article directly above this would seem to make it clear that the court has no intent in limiting it to just one finger per person.
'As noted earlier, and worth emphasizing again, the government agents will pick the fingers to be pressed on the Touch ID sensor,
Fingers, plural. Unless that is clarified elsewhere that they only get one try per person, then it would seem there is nothing preventing all fingers from all suspects be tried.
If the agents do exactly that it wouldn't be making a mockery of the 'intent', instead it would seem to be following right along with the blatant dodge the judge seems to have come up with to justify their decision. Can't force someone to provide the 'correct' finger as that would be testimonial? Not a problem, just force them to try all of their fingers until one works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's not a mockery of the intent if that was the intent all along
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's not a mockery of the intent if that was the intent all along
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The difference between freedom and jail
In this case they don't even know who the suspect is, and are on a fishing expedition. Similar in principle to if wifi was involved and the police decided to search every house in the neighborhood because they didn't know which one was involved.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Biometric information is not a valid password!
Rationale:
1) If compromised, you cannot change your biometric information as you would a password.
2) Biometric information, by it's very nature, can be collected without your consent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It's not a mockery of the intent if that was the intent all along
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: It's not a mockery of the intent if that was the intent all along
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Adding the technology doesn't change a lot. If they had intended to lock their phones in a meaningful way, they would have used a password or gesture.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
One finger gives "Warning - permanent erase in 10-9..., press to abort." Not aborting just unlocks the phone.
A different finger does the silent reset to factory specs.
In this case, it would be the Police that erased the phone, since the owner was compelled to provide the finger and the police did the actual pressing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The difference between freedom and jail
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You are unlocking your phone. As you hit the first finger, someone jiggles your hand, you almost drop your phone, and you catch it at the last second, with another finger resting on the unlock.
Congrats, your phone is factory fresh!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Of course there shouldn't be any problem with that. No fingers makes it a little harder for the congresscritters to write their stupid laws.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
We could just give them the finger.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not a mockery of the intent if that was the intent all along
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Biometric information is not a valid password!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This is a reasonable exception
Do the police have any privacy obligations here? If they make people put their fingers on a device they found, how do they know the device won't transmit them somewhere? Or store them so that the owner will get everyone's fingerprints, if they ever get the device back.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Biometric information is not a valid password!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
You do have backups, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
All House Residents Being Forced To Hand Over Fingers
Yubitsume, or the cutting off of one's finger, is a form of penance or apology. Upon a first offense, the transgressor must cut off the tip of his left little finger and give the severed portion to his boss.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Biometric information is not a valid password!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Biometric information is not a valid password!
How about two-finger authentication.
Assuming you still have two fingers left after "Residents Being Forced To Hand Over Fingers".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"All House Residents Being Forced To Hand Over Fingers"
No more five-finger discounts?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "All House Residents Being Forced To Hand Over Fingers"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: "All House Residents Being Forced To Hand Over Fingers"
The cops must've been well-armed...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: "All House Residents Being Forced To Hand Over Fingers"
But even-handed...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The difference between freedom and jail
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "All House Residents Being Forced To Hand Over Fingers"
[ link to this | view in thread ]