A Judge Rules that Police Can Make You Show them the Contents of Your Phone, but Here is One Way You Can Stop Them

I consider this to be a direct violation of Constitutional rights. We are experiencing in real time, a very slippery slope that is careening Americans towards a despotic state. Your phone is private, or should be… and you have a right to that privacy. This whole backdooring the no need to have a warrant to get into your phone, or your home, smacks of fascism. In the name of actual justice – the act of catching a heinous murderer – our Constitutional rights are being subverted in the name of security. I think Benjamin Franklin would have been appalled.

From TPNN:

People typically view their cell phones as personal property that police would need a search warrant to access, just like their home. But, a circuit court judge has ruled that police can force an individual to divulge the contents of their phone if the phone utilizes a certain growing technology.

While many are excited about the fingerprint technology system to unlock your phone that is available on such phones as the iPhone 5s, 6, and 6 Plus, as well as the Samsung Galaxy S5 and others, using that particular feature on the phone could lead you to lose what you believe to be your constitutional rights.

The Virginian-Pilot reports on the case of David Baust, who was charged with attempting to strangle his girlfriend. Prosecutors believed there could possibly be a video of the altercation on Baust’s cell phone. They wanted the judge to force Baust to unlock his phone.

Baust’s attorney, James Broccoletti, believes that doing so would cause his client to self-incriminate which is a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. He argued such before the judge and the judge agreed. However, based upon the judge’s ruling, if Baust’s phone had been locked and unlocked with a fingerprint, then police could force him to unlock it.

Judge Steven C. Frucci ruled this week that giving police a fingerprint is akin to providing a DNA or handwriting sample or an actual key, which the law permits. A pass code, though, requires the defendant to divulge knowledge, which the law protects against, according to Frucci’s written opinion.

Broccoletti called Frucci’s ruling on target. The law is clear about fingerprints, he said, and the judge saw his point about pass codes.

You don’t have to activate the fingerprint technology. I would strongly suggest you don’t. I can hear the officials now flatly stating that this measure is to catch criminals… if you are not a dirt bag, you have nothing to worry about – we’ll never abuse this. Right. Except that in the current political atmosphere, if you are a Constitutional Conservative you are deemed a criminal. How ironic.

Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

Terresa Monroe-Hamilton is an editor and writer for Right Wing News. She owns and blogs at NoisyRoom.net. She is a Constitutional Conservative and NoisyRoom focuses on political and national issues of interest to the American public. Terresa is the editor at Trevor Loudon's site, New Zeal - trevorloudon.com. She also does research at KeyWiki.org. You can email Terresa here. NoisyRoom can be found on Facebook and on Twitter.

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!