State of Minnesota v. Matthew Vaughn Diamond
2017 Minn. App. LEXIS 9, 2017 WL 163710, 890 N.W.2d 143 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court order compelling a defendant to provide a fingerprint to unlock a seized cellphone is not a testimonial communication and therefore does not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
Facts:
- On October 30, 2014, M.H. returned to her home to find it had been burglarized, with a safe, laptop, and jewelry missing.
- M.H. discovered an envelope in her driveway bearing the name of S.W.
- Police learned that S.W. had pawned jewelry on the day of the burglary, which M.H. later identified as hers.
- On November 4, 2014, police located S.W.'s car, which Matthew Vaughn Diamond was driving.
- Diamond was arrested on an unrelated outstanding warrant, and his personal property, including his shoes and a cellphone, was collected and stored by jail staff.
- A detective observed similarities between the tread on Diamond's shoes and shoeprints left on the kicked-in door at the crime scene.
- Police obtained a warrant to search the contents of Diamond's cellphone but were unable to unlock it.
- S.W. later testified that Diamond gave her the stolen jewelry to pawn and that he had been using her car on the day of the burglary.
Procedural Posture:
- The state filed a motion in the district court (trial court) to compel Diamond to provide his fingerprint to unlock his seized cellphone.
- The district court granted the state's motion, ruling that it did not violate Diamond's Fifth Amendment rights.
- When Diamond refused to comply, the district court found him in civil contempt.
- Diamond subsequently complied with the order and provided his fingerprint.
- Diamond later filed a pro se motion to suppress evidence from his cellphone and shoes, arguing the initial seizure was an illegal warrantless seizure.
- The district court denied the suppression motion, finding the seizure was justified by exigent circumstances.
- Following a trial, a jury found Diamond guilty of second-degree burglary, misdemeanor theft, and fourth-degree criminal damage to property.
- Diamond (appellant) appealed his convictions to the Minnesota Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate 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 a court order compelling a defendant to provide a fingerprint to unlock a seized cellphone violate the defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination?
Opinions:
Majority - Smith, Tracy M., Judge
No. The district court's order compelling Diamond to provide his fingerprint to unlock his cellphone does not violate his Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination. The Fifth Amendment protects against compelled 'testimonial communications,' which must relate a factual assertion or disclose information from the defendant's mind. The act of providing a fingerprint is not testimonial because it does not require the defendant to disclose any knowledge or 'speak his guilt.' The court analogized this physical act to other non-testimonial compulsions approved by the Supreme Court, such as furnishing a blood sample, providing a handwriting exemplar, or standing in a lineup. The court distinguished providing a fingerprint from providing a password, as the latter requires the use of one's mental faculties to communicate knowledge, which is a testimonial act.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant precedent in Minnesota as an issue of first impression, clarifying the application of the Fifth Amendment to biometric data. The decision reinforces the traditional distinction between non-testimonial physical evidence and testimonial evidence that reveals the contents of a person's mind. By categorizing a fingerprint as a physical key rather than a mental one (like a password), the court provides law enforcement a clear method to access secured devices without implicating self-incrimination protections. This ruling will likely influence future cases involving other forms of biometric security and sets up a potential doctrinal split between compelled physical acts and compelled disclosure of knowledge like passcodes.
