The Minnesota Supreme Court heard arguments in a case where a man was ordered to turn over biometric information to unlock his cellphone, TwinCities.com reports. Law enforcement obtained a warrant to search Matthew Diamond's phone, only to find it needed his fingerprint to unlock the device. However, the wording of the warrant opened up questions in the case. Public Defender Steven Russett argues Diamond’s Fifth Amendment rights were violated when investigators asked which fingerprint was used to unlock the device, rather than instructing him to give a fingerprint, knowledge, he said, that acted as self-incriminating testimony, the report states. "If the order said, 'You may take his fingerprints,' I wouldn't be here," Russett said.
If you want to comment on this post, you need to login.