quote:

ORIGINAL: http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-iphones-fingerprints-20160430-story.html
As the world watched the FBI spar with Apple this winter in an attempt to hack into a San Bernardino shooter's iPhone, federal officials were quietly waging a different encryption battle in a Los Angeles courtroom.

There, authorities obtained a search warrant compelling the girlfriend of an alleged Armenian gang member to press her finger against an iPhone that had been seized from a Glendale home. The phone contained Apple's fingerprint identification system for unlocking, and prosecutors wanted access to the data inside it.

It marked a rare time that prosecutors have demanded a person provide a fingerprint to open a computer, but experts expect such cases to become more common as cracking digital security becomes a larger part of law enforcement work.

The Glendale case and others like it are forcing courts to address a basic question: How far can the government go to obtain biometric markers such as fingerprints and hair?

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that police can search phones with a valid warrant and compel a person in custody to provide physical evidence such as fingerprints without a judge's permission.

But some legal experts say there should be a higher bar for biometric data because providing a fingerprint to open a digital device gives the state access to a vast trove of personal information and could be a form of self-incrimination.

"It isn't about fingerprints and the biometric readers," said Susan Brenner, a law professor at the University of Dayton who studies the nexus of digital technology and criminal law, but rather, "the contents of that phone, much of which will be about her, and a lot of that could be incriminating."

In the Glendale case, the FBI wanted the fingerprint of Paytsar Bkhchadzhyan, a 29-year-old woman from L.A. with a string of criminal convictions who pleaded no contest to a felony count of identity theft.

The FBI wanted the fingerprint of Paytsar Bkhchadzhyan, a 29-year-old woman from L.A. with a string of criminal convictions.

She was sentenced in that case on Feb. 25 in a Van Nuys courtroom. Jail records and court documents show that about 45 minutes after Bkhchadzhyan was taken into custody, U.S. Magistrate Judge Alicia Rosenberg — sitting in a federal courtroom 17 miles away — signed off on the warrant for the defendant to press her finger on the phone.

By 1 p.m., an FBI agent specializing in cybercrimes took her print, according to court papers.
...
Even with the limited outlines of the inquiry, Brenner said the act of compelling a person in custody to press her finger against a phone breached the 5th Amendment's protection against self-incrimination. It forced Bkchadzhyan to testify —without uttering a word — because by moving her finger and unlocking the phone, she authenticated its contents.

"By showing you opened the phone, you showed that you have control over it," Brenner said. "It's the same as if she went home and pulled out paper documents — she's produced it."

But Albert Gidari, the director of privacy at Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society, said the action might not violate the 5th Amendment prohibition of self-incrimination.

"Unlike disclosing passcodes, you are not compelled to speak or say what's 'in your mind' to law enforcement," Gidari said. "'Put your finger here' is not testimonial or self-incriminating."

The issue partly revolves around the prevailing legal stance toward fingerprints.

Law enforcement routinely obtains search warrants to examine property or monitor telecommunications, even swab inside an inmate's mouth for DNA. But fingerprints have long remained in the class of evidence that doesn't require a warrant, along with providing handwriting samples or standing in a lineup. Courts have categorized fingerprints as "real or physical evidence" sourced from the body, unlike communications or knowledge, which cannot be compelled without violating the 5th Amendment.

George M. Dery III, a lawyer and criminal justice professor at California State University, Fullerton, likened the warrant to the government's request for a key.

"Before cell phones, much of this information would be found in a person's home," Dery said, noting that search warrants commonly authorize police to march into a home and seize evidence. "This has a warrant. Even though it is a big deal having someone open up their phone, they've gone to a judge and it means there's a likelihood of criminal activity."

Apple's fingerprint sensor, known as Touch ID, is installed on phones and tablets rolled out after 2013, and the optional feature has a narrow window during which it is viable for an investigator. The Touch ID biometric reader cannot be used if the phone has not been unlocked for 48 hours. If a phone is restarted, or goes beyond the 48-hour window, only a passcode can open it.

Few courts have taken up the issue of whether a defendant can be forced to unlock his or her iPhone, either with a password or fingerprint.
...

quote:

If it goes to appeal and the search warrant is found to be invalid then all the evidence found on the phone is also inadmissable and must be destroyed

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-iphones-fingerprints-20160430-story.html
As the world watched the FBI spar with Apple this winter in an attempt to hack into a San Bernardino shooter's iPhone, federal officials were quietly waging a different encryption battle in a Los Angeles courtroom.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-iphones-fingerprints-20160430-story.html
As the world watched the FBI spar with Apple this winter in an attempt to hack into a San Bernardino shooter's iPhone, federal officials were quietly waging a different encryption battle in a Los Angeles courtroom.

Few courts have taken up the issue of whether a defendant can be forced to unlock his or her iPhone, either with a password or fingerprint.
...