In re Residence in Oakland, Cal.
354 F.Supp.3d 1010 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Compelling an individual to use a biometric feature (such as a fingerprint, thumbprint, or facial scan) to unlock an electronic device is a testimonial act that violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. A search warrant seeking to compel such an act from any individual present at a location is also unconstitutionally overbroad under the Fourth Amendment.
Facts:
- The U.S. Government was conducting a criminal investigation targeting two specific suspects.
- The Government believed that evidence related to the crime could be found on digital devices located at a specific residence, referred to as the 'Subject Premises.'
- The Government sought a warrant to search the Subject Premises and to seize any digital devices found there.
- The warrant application also requested the authority to compel any individual present at the premises during the search to use their biometric features (finger, thumb, face, iris, etc.) to unlock any seized digital device.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States Government submitted an ex parte application for a search warrant to a United States Magistrate Judge in a U.S. District Court.
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 an individual to use their biometric feature to unlock a digital device violate the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination?
Opinions:
Opinion of the Court - Author not specified in provided text
Yes, compelling an individual to use their biometric feature to unlock a digital device violates the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination. The act of using a biometric feature to unlock a device is testimonial because it is the functional equivalent of providing a passcode, which requires the use of the contents of one's mind. This act implicitly communicates incriminating facts: that the individual has possession and control of the device, has previously accessed it, and can authenticate its contents. This differs from non-testimonial acts like providing a fingerprint exemplar for comparison, as the biometric unlock directly produces the device's contents and authenticates the user's connection to them. The court reasoned that if a passcode is protected as testimonial, its biometric equivalent must also be protected. The 'foregone conclusion' doctrine does not apply because the government cannot know with requisite particularity what data exists on a modern smartphone, which contains vast amounts of unknown and sensitive information. The court also found the warrant application overbroad under the Fourth Amendment because it was not limited to the two named suspects or their devices, but sought to compel any person present to unlock any device.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for extending Fifth Amendment protections squarely into the realm of modern biometric technology. By equating a biometric feature used for authentication with a memorized passcode, the court classifies the physical act of unlocking a device as testimonial communication. This ruling strengthens digital privacy rights and creates a substantial hurdle for law enforcement seeking access to encrypted devices, forcing them to use forensic methods or obtain information from third parties rather than compelling a suspect to self-incriminate through the act of unlocking. The case reflects the judiciary's ongoing effort to adapt long-standing constitutional principles to the challenges posed by rapid technological advancement, following the trajectory of landmark cases like Riley v. California and Carpenter v. United States.
