this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
461 points (100.0% liked)
Privacy
5800 readers
2 users here now
A community for Lemmy users interested in privacy
Rules:
- Be civil
- No spam posting
- Keep posts on-topic
- No trolling
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The wrinkle in this case is that the thumb print giver was in parole. The conditions of parole stated that failure to divulge phone pass codes on phones could result in arrest and phone seizure "pending further investigation". The parole conditions didn't say anything about forcible thumb print taking.
So the logic here seems to be:
Yeah that's even less than what the standard is. That's just saying "you have to do what's in the conditions of your parole, and we won't accept sneaky technicalities."
But I suppose "appeals court rules that you have to obey the terms of your parole" is far less ragebaity.
The real story here is how terms of parole are often ridiculous and contribute heavily to our high recidivism rate. Not to mention stripping away rights.
I wasn't referring to the parole officers per se, just the parole stipulations. For example, a common one is that you must be employed. But then you also must make your regularly scheduled meetings with your parole officer, which are scheduled during working hours. The parole board will determine your address (usually as a stipulation of release, usually with family) but the parole office will be on the other side of the city. Public transit is unreliable, if you miss your bus you go to prison.
I had a friend of a friend who was getting released to a halfway house. Never saw the light of day. When they released his clothes to him, that he got arrested in seven years previously, they found Marijuana seeds in the pockets. Not bud, seeds. That's a parole violation, instant back to prison for 3 more years, minimum. The parole officer who was there told me about it (was also the officer of my friend, who I was giving a ride to).
Any time a cop has the legal authority to access the contents of your phone, you can be compelled to provide your fingerprint or face to unlock it if that will work. If your phone doesn't have those features enabled and relies on a PIN, they can't force you to tell them that outside of some unusual circumstances like parole obligations because you agree to those. They can still access your phone, but only to the extent that they can without the PIN. In this case, cops had the required authority because of his parole obligations, but they'd be equally able to force you to unlock by fingerprint or face if they got your phone as part of a search warrant and I think if you're arrested but only if your phone is relevant evidence. Maybe even if it's not, but I'm less sure about that.