Overview
Judge Westmore makes the ruling that law enforcement should not be able to unlock a person’s phone with their face or fingerprint because it against their rights as a citizen. She furthers the situation by saying their was no specific focus of the search but rather it was broad concerning both the person and the device. Meaning they didn’t want to search just one person and one phone, but everyone’s in the room.
She believes that they have no right to do it because that is their new security system. They can’t force a passcode out of someone’s mouth so they should not be able to use someone’s body against their will either.
Why I Chose this Article?
Since I was young, I have always been fascinated by the legal system. It seems to move slower than anything else in this world because most people don’t want to touch it with a 12 foot pole. They want to believe that our forefathers covers the basis. The problem is that our world is nothing like theirs. We have changed in every possible way at this point, so the law has to catch up some time. With my legal background, I know just how long it takes to catch up so I was greatly intrigued by Judge Westmore’s ruling and her viewpoint on why her ruling was justified.
The Argument
My argument is this: Is it right for law enforcement to use your personal information against you? You re told you have the right to remain silent, yet your personal phone is all access?
Support
Fourth and Fifth Amendment! Honestly, if you know your rights, I shouldn’t have to explain anymore. You have the right to your privacy and you have a right to a fair trial. Meaning, your personal information, that you technically did not give permission to being searched, should not be permissible in court. Not only that, but law enforcement should not be allowed to even search through it.
“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,” [Westmore] wrote (PC Mag). Providing a passcode to law enforcement means willingly providing information that could help incriminate you– because of that, most people will not provide their passcode. You can’t really hide your face or lose your fingerprint, but that still does not mean that it should be used against you.
Against
It is next to impossible to find anything revolving why this ruling is a bad thing. It protects civil liberties and helps guarantee your fourth and fifth amendment rights! HOWEVER, there is one significant thing that no website/article I could find focuses on: is it life or death? Now imagine with me… you are a police officer who is searching for a seven year old girl. The abductors have given you 48 hours and you have used up 42 of them. You get a lead. You learn that the guy you have in custody has the location you need on his phone. Due to this Northern California ruling by Judge Westmore, you can’t get access to this guy’s phone. You are at a dead end and so is that little girl. You could have saved her life if you were just able to hold that phone up to his face.
Conclusion
Judge Westmore cited Carpenter in concluding that “technology is outpacing the law” (PC Mag). Technology will always outpace everything because it is the primary focus of everyone. The best anyone can do is try to keep up. Therefore, I believe that Westmore was fair in making her ruling. I’m reminded of the feminist saying, “My body, my choice.” It seems to apply well to this situation, as well. Law enforcement should not be allowed to use someone’s body against themselves.
Society and Information 