Police can’t demand you reveal your phone passcode then tell a jury you refused (eff.org)

Article summary

The Utah Supreme Court is considering a case where a defendant was asked to reveal their phone passcode, and the prosecution commented on their refusal to do so. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) argues that this violates the defendant's Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The court of appeals agreed, but the state has appealed to the Utah Supreme Court. The case raises questions about the balance between law enforcement's need for evidence and individuals' right to privacy and protection against self-incrimination.

Main themes

• Fifth Amendment rights
• phone passcode privacy
• self-incrimination protection
• biometric unlock vs passcode
• digital evidence and law enforcement
• individual privacy and security

What commenters say

• The Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being forced to reveal their phone passcode, as it is a form of self-incrimination.
• The ruling that police cannot comment on a defendant's refusal to reveal their passcode is a new development in the application of the Fifth Amendment.
• Individuals can invoke their right to remain silent at any time, even during a conversation with law enforcement, and this cannot be used against them in court.
• The distinction between biometric unlock and passcode unlock is important, as biometric unlock is considered identification rather than authorization.
• The use of biometric unlock can compromise individuals' security and privacy, and it is recommended to use passcodes instead.
• The Fifth Amendment only protects against self-incrimination, not incrimination of others, so accomplices can be forced to unlock their devices and provide evidence against others.
• The ruling in this case may have implications for other cases involving digital evidence and the Fifth Amendment, and may vary by jurisdiction.