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.
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.