Ryan,
Couldn't one (validly) argue that in case 1, the act of providing the "opening fingerprint" is causing the individual to validate ownership/dominion/control over the device? It seems akin to the LEO's finding a bag of child pornography and forcing the suspected owner/possessor to acknowledge ownership/dominion/control/access to the bag-o-porn? I guessing I am missing something here.
Russell
I believe implicit in Kerr's example of Case #1 is that the police know that it's the defendant's phone, which is what distinguishes it from Case #2. There is an exception to the warrant requirement -- the technical name escapes me -- for something that merely reveals what is already known. Now that's going to bug me all day until I can remember what the name of that exception is.
Comments
Ryan, Couldn't one (validly) argue that in case 1, the act of providing the "opening fingerprint" is causing the individual to validate ownership/dominion/control over the device? It seems akin to the LEO's finding a bag of child pornography and forcing the suspected owner/possessor to acknowledge ownership/dominion/control/access to the bag-o-porn? I guessing I am missing something here. Russell
I believe implicit in Kerr's example of Case #1 is that the police know that it's the defendant's phone, which is what distinguishes it from Case #2. There is an exception to the warrant requirement -- the technical name escapes me -- for something that merely reveals what is already known. Now that's going to bug me all day until I can remember what the name of that exception is.