New in OS X: Get MacRumors Push Notifications on your Mac

Resubscribe Now Close

Police Can't Force You to Unlock an iPhone Using Face ID or Touch ID, California Judge Rules

Law enforcement officials can't force smartphone users to unlock their devices using fingerprints or other biometric features such as facial recognition, according to a Northern California court ruling from last week.

The ruling, which was shared this morning by Forbes, was the result of an Oakland investigation into possible extortion. Police officers asked the court for permission to seize multiple devices and then compel the suspects to unlock the devices using biometric authentication.


The court said that there was indeed probable cause to grant a search warrant, but that it was denied because the request to force the suspects to unlock their devices using biometric authentication "funs afoul of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments." From the ruling:
The Government, however, also seeks the authority to compel any individual present at the time of the search to press a finger (including a thumb) or utilize other biometric features, such as facial or iris recognition, for the purposes of unlocking the digital devices found in order to permit a search of the contents as authorized by the search warrant.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that the Government's request funs afoul of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and the search warrant application must be DENIED.
In further analysis, the court equated biometric authentication to a passcode rather than something like submitting to a DNA swab. It has been previously established that under the Fifth Amendment, a suspect cannot be compelled to provide the passcode of a device.

Biometric features like Touch ID and Face ID, said the court, serve the same purpose as a passcode, securing the owner's content, "pragmatically rendering them functionally equivalent."

The ruling also made an interesting point about the urgency with which law enforcement officials attempt to get a suspect to unlock a device biometrically, because after a device is passcode locked (iPhones will passcode lock after a short period without a biometric unlock), the government can't compel a person to enter the passcode. This urgency essentially confirms that a passcode and a biometric lock are one and the same.
This urgency appears to be rooted in the Government's inability to compel the production of the passcode under the current jurisprudence. It follows, however, that if a person cannot be compelled to provide a passcode because it is a testimonial communication, a person cannot be compelled to provide one's finger, thumb, iris, face, or other biometric feature to unlock that same device.
Biometric authentication measures have been a hotly debated topic, and previous rulings have suggested that Touch ID and Face ID are not equivalent to a passcode, though most rulings have pertained to Touch ID as Face ID is newer.

This has allowed law enforcement to force suspects to unlock their iPhones and other devices using biometric authentication. In October, for example, the FBI was able to force a man accused of child abuse to unlock his iPhone using Face ID.

The California court's most recent ruling could potentially have an impact on future court cases of this type, perhaps putting an end to the practice of forced biometric smartphone unlocking and the belief that a passcode is not equivalent to a biometric lock.

For now, though, Apple has implemented a method to quickly and temporarily disable Touch ID and Face ID by pressing on the side button of recent iPhones five times in quick succession.

Note: Due to the political nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.



Top Rated Comments

(View all)

23 weeks ago
It'll still happen.
Rating: 13 Votes
23 weeks ago

TouchID and passcodes I get, but in practical terms, how can you stop someone from holding your phone in front of you?

lock down or close your eyes... but even if they forced you, the evidence could not be used against you... any lawyer would jump on a chance to take a case where you've been forced.
Rating: 8 Votes
23 weeks ago
A step in the right direction, but as another said, it means little until a Supreme Court case inevitably comes about (through an appeal on this ruling or another case altogether) and delivers the final word on this matter.
Rating: 8 Votes
23 weeks ago

Yet they can hold you down and take a blood sample.



They need a warrant to take blood if you initially refuse.
Rating: 6 Votes
23 weeks ago
Before anyone gets too excited either way, remember this is just one judge, in one court, out of many thousands, and has no precedent value whatsoever.
Rating: 4 Votes
23 weeks ago
Yet they can hold you down and take a blood sample.
Rating: 4 Votes
23 weeks ago

What if somebody tattoos their fingerprints on their forehead? Does that mean they are protected (Face ID) or not (Touch ID)?


Brilliant.

And likewise, what if someone carves an exact miniature replica of their face into one of their fingers? :D
Rating: 3 Votes
23 weeks ago
Thank god someone rules this. It's absurd you can't force over a passcode but you can be forced to unlock with biometrics.

Hopefully it's upheld.
Rating: 3 Votes
23 weeks ago
TouchID and passcodes I get, but in practical terms, how can you stop someone from holding your phone in front of you?
Rating: 3 Votes
23 weeks ago
The basis of the denial was that the police wanted to unlock all the phones found at the residence, not just the phones belonging to two people in question ie: the request was too broad. Once the scope of the request was narrowed to the phones belonging to the people in question then the actual issue of whether biometric security is protected will be adjudicated.
Rating: 2 Votes

[ Read All Comments ]