Commonwealth v. Baust
89 Va. Cir. 267, 2014 Va. Cir. LEXIS 93 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Compelling a defendant to reveal a smartphone passcode is a testimonial act protected by the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination because it requires the disclosure of the contents of one's mind. However, compelling a defendant to provide a fingerprint to unlock a smartphone is a non-testimonial physical act, akin to providing a key, that is not protected by the privilege.
Facts:
- David Charles Baust was charged with strangling a victim in his bedroom on February 19, 2014.
- The victim stated that Baust had a device in the room that continuously recorded video and transmitted the footage to his smartphone.
- The victim had previously received video footage from Baust via text message showing them engaged in sexual intercourse in that same room.
- When the victim attempted to take the recording equipment after the alleged assault, Baust allegedly assaulted her again to prevent her from taking it.
- Both Baust and the victim informed police that the recording device 'could have possibly' recorded the assault and that the recording 'may exist' on the phone.
- Pursuant to a search warrant, police seized Baust's smartphone, but it was encrypted and could only be accessed with a passcode or a fingerprint.
Procedural Posture:
- David Charles Baust was charged by indictment with strangulation in a Virginia trial court.
- The Commonwealth filed a Motion To Compel the Production of the Passcode or Fingerprint to Encrypted Smartphone in the same trial court.
- The trial court held a hearing on the Commonwealth's motion.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does compelling a criminal defendant to provide either a passcode or a fingerprint to unlock an encrypted smartphone violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Steven C. Frucci
No as to the fingerprint, and yes as to the passcode. Compelling a defendant to provide a physical characteristic like a fingerprint to unlock a phone is a non-testimonial act and does not violate the Fifth Amendment, but compelling a defendant to disclose the contents of their mind, such as a passcode, is a testimonial act that does violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The Fifth Amendment protects against compelled testimonial communication that is incriminating. The act of providing a fingerprint is a physical act, not a communicative one; it is analogous to surrendering a key to a strongbox. It does not require the defendant to disclose any knowledge or reveal the contents of his mind. In contrast, providing a passcode is a testimonial act because it forces the defendant to divulge knowledge that exists only in his mind, which is equivalent to telling an inquisitor the combination to a safe. The 'foregone conclusion' doctrine does not apply to the passcode itself, as the government has no prior knowledge of what the passcode is. Therefore, compelling the production of the passcode is unconstitutional, while compelling the use of the fingerprint is not.
Analysis:
This influential trial court decision was one of the first to apply the Fifth Amendment's self-incrimination clause to modern smartphone security features. It established a critical legal distinction between knowledge-based authentication (passcodes) and biometric authentication (fingerprints). This framework, which treats revealing knowledge as protected testimony but providing a physical characteristic as an unprotected act, has been widely cited and debated by other courts grappling with digital evidence. The decision shapes the boundaries of law enforcement's power to access encrypted devices, creating different legal outcomes based on the type of lock a suspect uses.
Unlock the full brief for Commonwealth v. Baust