Arizona lawmakers may prevent police from forcing someone to unlock their phone with a fingerprint without a warrant.
A recent court case in Virginia brought up the possibility that there are situations in which police could force someone to unlock their phone with a fingerprint, like with Apple's TouchID, but would not be able to force someone to give up a passcode to the phone.
The Arizona Senate yesterday voted unanimously to require a search warrant in order for police to compel someone to unlock any electronic device with a biometric identifier, such as a fingerprint.
Senate Bill 1195's sponsor, Republican Senator Jeff Dial, told New Times the bill was an effort to make sure Arizona law was keeping pace with the state of technology, and to make sure that constitutional protections are ensured.
Despite the bipartisan support on the bill, Dial's original bill was amended to add that someone could be compelled to unlock their phone under "exigent circumstances."
The bill still would need to be passed by the House before it's given to the governor for his approval.
However, based on one analysis of the Virginia ruling, the use of this proposed Arizona law may only come under rare circumstances. Here's an explanation of what that ruling means from FindLaw.com attorney and writer Brett Snider:
The Supreme Court ruled in the late 1980s that there's a difference between being forced to give up a key to a locked box versus giving up a combination or passcode to a safe. Courts like [Virginia] Judge Frucci's have taken this ruling to heart, essentially finding that if a phone can be unlocked with an arrestee's fingerprint, it's like finding a key and a lockbox on a suspect.
This Virginia ruling does not mean that police can now search a fingerprint-unlockable smartphone without a warrant; the Supreme Court has said a warrant is typically required. However, where a suspect may not have been forced to give up his or her passcode, officers with a search warrant for a defendant's phone may force him or her to unlock the phone with a fingerprint.
So in that last example, a warrant would be needed specifically for the "biometric identifier." However, it still sounds like you're better-protected with the passcode.
If you like this story, consider signing up for our email newsletters.
SHOW ME HOW
You have successfully signed up for your selected newsletter(s) - please keep an eye on your mailbox, we're movin' in!
For what it's worth, Wired magazine predicted this predicament back in 2013.
Got a tip? Send it to: Matthew Hendley.