Phone Fingerprint Lock Sparks New Legal Dispute

A federal court has ordered a woman to use her finger to unlock her iPhone. It's the latest legal tussle in the ongoing debate pitting security and law enforcement against constitutional rights.

The case involved a Los Angeles woman who had been arrested for identity theft. The FBI wanted to access the contents of her phone, which was protected by a fingerprint lock.

Officials have not publicly revealed exactly why they wanted to access the data, or whether it directly related to the identity theft charges. Court documents show she was the girlfriend of a known member of a major LA criminal gang.

Around 45 minutes after the woman's arrest, a judge signed a warrant to compel her to put her finger on the phone. The woman did so, though police have not revealed whether she did so voluntarily or was physically made to do so. She went on to plead no contest to the identity theft charge.

Fifth Amendment Issues Arise

Although the phone has now been unlocked in this case, civil rights groups and legal experts are split over the constitutionality of the order. Unlike many cases involving locked phones, the issue at debate here is not the fourth amendment's rules on government searches. Instead, critics of the order say it breached the fifth amendment's rule that a person cannot be forced to incriminate themselves.

It appears the judge concluded the order was legal because it effectively combined two separate legal rulings by the Supreme Court in past cases: that searching a phone is legal with an appropriate warrant, and that the police have the right to order a suspect to provide fingerprints without needing a warrant. (Source: engadget.com)

Rival Analogies Fuel Debate

Opponents believe that not only is it unclear that these two rulings can combine in such a way, but that from a legal perspective, the woman unlocking the phone with her finger acted as proof that she owned it and was legally responsible for the data inside, something which could incriminate her. (Source: latimes.com)

Much of the disagreement centers on which analogy works better for this situation: should it be likened to a suspect being forced by a search warrant to give police access to their home (which is legally allowed) or to a suspect being forced to provide a passcode to unlock a phone (which is not legally allowed). Put another way, the divide is whether a suspect unlocking their phone with a fingerprint is primarily a physical action or a case of providing information.

What's Your Opinion?

Was the judge correct to make this order? Should the law be updated to specifically address fingerprint locks and other biometric security? Legally speaking, do you consider a fingerprint lock more like a physical lock or a computer password?