> forced her finger on Touch ID per the warrant
She was not forced, and the warrant does not state that she could be forced. The warrant, almost certainly deliberately, uses far milder language.
> forced her finger on Touch ID per the warrant
She was not forced, and the warrant does not state that she could be forced. The warrant, almost certainly deliberately, uses far milder language.
The warrant is the force, current jurisprudence largely says warrant do compel people to provide biometric unlocks because it's not speech the same way giving up a password/passcode would be. Blocking or not complying with a signed warrant from a judge is it's own crime and the only safe way to fight them is with a lawyer in court not with the officer holding the paper (and gun/taser/etc with the power of the state behind them).
What do you think warrants are? You think they get a warrant and they say, "Can you put your finger on the device?" You say, "No," and that's it? If all they wanted to do was ask you, they would just ask you without the warrant.
I think you should simply try to read the warrant in question.
Perhaps you should? From pages 20 and 22:
> 52. These warrants would also permit law enforcement to obtain from Natanson the display of physical biometric characteristics (e.g., fingerprint, thumbprint, or facial characteristics) in order to unlock devices subject to search and seizure pursuant to the above referenced warrants
> 60. Accordingly, if law enforcement personnel encounter a device that is subject to search and seizure pursuant to the requested warrants and may be unlocked using one of the aforementioned biometric features, the requested warrants would permit law enforcement personnel to (1) press or swipe the fingers (including thumbs) of the Subject to the fingerprint scanner of the device(s); or (2) hold the devices in front of the Subject's face for the purpose of attempting to unlock the device(s) in order to search the contents as authorized by the warrants
So yes law enforcement had the right to grab her hand and press it against the laptop to unlock before seizing it if that's what they had to do.
[0] https://www.rcfp.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/2026-01-30-I...
>From pages 20 and 22:
From pages 20 and 22 of ... not the warrant:
It'd certainly be a good first step to figure out how to identify whether or not the PDF you're linking to is in fact a warrant at all before trying to educate others on them.
So post a link to the warrant.
This document is specifically asking for the right to force biometric access. It seems based on reporting that biometric access was granted.
If you're claiming the warrant doesn't force biometric access despite it being request, you need to substantiate the claim.
"...the requested warrants would permit law enforcement personnel to (1) press or swipe the fingers (including thumbs) of the subject to the fingerprint scanner of the devices..."
You're citing an affidavit produced by a FBI agent, the author is most likely not even a lawyer.
They're merely presenting a wishlist to the judge.
By definition a warrant is force backed by state violence
You’re saying she complied willingly?
If the police get the warrant you either allow them to take it or you face an obstruction charge. The only safe way to fight a warrant like that when signed is after the gathering is done in court or at trial.
You would at the very least make them guess which finger, there's no indication that happened here.
The court can compel you to make your fingers available, it can not force you to disclose which finger or the manner in which you touch that finger on the fingerprint sensor. Apple devices allow only limited attempts.
If you're not being actively helpful, the investigators may end in a rather awkward position.
I'd be wary of trying this as it reeks of "one neat trick" thinking applied to law based on a small technicality where law is often subject to the spirit instead of strictly hewing to the most favorable interpretation the exact wording for the citizen. The warrant can just state you're required to unlock the system not simply "make your fingers available".
It's fun to try to find places where the rules seem to leave holes but it's important to remember the courts don't have to hew precisely to how you read the law. I see that a lot on tech centric boards where the law is treated like it's strictly, precisely, and impartially interpreted down to the exact words (though often not using the legal meaning of words which have decades of caselaw and interpretation informing their legal meaning).
No, it's literally based on existing boilerplate language that's already commonly associated with these warrants based on previous litigation.
Making your body parts available is not testimonial, answering "Which finger?" undoubtedly is.
> answering "Which finger?" undoubtedly is.
Unless that's already established in your circuit you're counting on the court agreeing with your interpretation because the cops/courts certainly think they can compel that.
All I'm doing is cautioning you and anyone else reading against DIY legal interpretations. Have a lawyer.
From the warrant:
>During the execution of the search of HANNAH NATANSON as described in Attachment A-3, law enforcement personnel are authorized to (1) press or swipe the fingers (including thumbs) of HANNAH NATANSON to the fingerprint scanner of the device; (2) hold a device found during the search in front of the face of HANNAH NATANSON and activate the facial recognition feature, for the purpose of attempting to unlock the device in order to search the contents as authorized by this warrant.
>While attempting to unlock the device by use of the compelled display of biometric characteristics pursuant to this warrant, law enforcement is not authorized to demand that an occupant state or otherwise provide the password or identify the specific biometric characteristics (including the unique fingers) or other physical features), that may be used to unlock or access the device(s). Nor does the warrant authorize law enforcement to use the fact that the warrant allows law enforcement to obtain the display of any biometric characteristics to compel an occupant to state or otherwise provide that information. However, the voluntary disclosure of such information by an occupant is permitted. To avoid confusion on that point, if agents in executing the warrant ask an occupant for the password to any device(s), or to identify which biometric characteristic (including the unique fingers) or other physical features) unlocks any device(s), the agents will not state or otherwise imply that the warrant requires the person to provide such information, and will make clear that providing any such information is voluntary and that the person is free to refuse the request.
Link? I've not seen the warrant till now only the affidavit supporting it's granting. That's different as the warrant specifically limits it.
I do not think anyone has made the entire warrant public yet.
Also FWIW that's boilerplate language commonly used on these warrants across multiple federal districts, google "While attempting to unlock the device by use of the compelled display" and see for yourself.
Sounds like it, yeah.
Touch ID allows only limited attempts, so odds are the FBI wouldn't just try to wrestle her to attempt different fingers on the spot even if they were allowed to do so.