A man was arrested for the evidence that the police found on his iPhone, when they requested access to it!
The protection of privacy above any circumstance is one of the guarantees that Apple offers its users and to comply with it, the company has faced the authorities of several countries. However, this week A US judge ruled in favor of allowing police to request access to a user’s iPhone.
The event that took place in California in 2021, It began with the arrest of a man identified as Jeremy Payne, who was on parole at that moment.
Although There were no elements to suspect that he was carrying out an illegal act at that timethe California Highway Patrol asked him to unlock his iPhone. Payne did it using his fingerprint and everything turned against him.
Authorities may request iPhone unlocking in specific circumstances
Reviewing the photos, videos and maps on Payne’s mobile They suggested he was dealing drugs., and after investigating it was confirmed that they were substances such as fentanyl, fluorofentanyl and cocaine. Payne was charged with possession with intent to distribute.
In the midst of the legal process, Payne’s lawyer argued that the police did not have the right to require him to use his fingerprint to unlock his iPhone, under the Fifth Amendment and the right to refrain from incriminating oneself.
According to a publication by 9to5maca federal appeals court ruled in favor of the police.
The judges rejected his claim, holding “that the forced use of Payne’s thumb to unlock his phone (which he had already identified for officers) required no cognitive effort, placing it firmly in the same category as a blood draw or a fingerprint taken. at the time of booking.”
“When Officer Coddington used Payne’s thumb to unlock his phone, which he could have accomplished even if Payne had been unconscious, he did not intrude on the contents of Payne’s mind,” the court also said.
Of course, taking into account the precedent that this ruling could give rise to, the judges affirmed that it is a specific ruling for the facts of this particular case.
(the ruling) should not be interpreted as extending to all cases in which a biometric device is used to unlock an electronic device,” since “Fifth Amendment issues like this depend largely on the facts and the line between what is testimonial and what is not particularly good.”
Although In this case, Apple’s intervention was not required, there is evidence that shows that the result could have been different. In 2015, the company confronted the FBI over its refusal to unlock the iPhone involved in the San Bernardino massacre and which years later led to the development of a $10 million laboratory to decrypt locked iPhones in New York.