In re Residence in Oakland, Cal.
354 F. Supp. 3d 1010
N.D. Cal.2019Background
- Law enforcement sought a search warrant for a premises and authority to compel any individual present and reasonably believed to be a device user to unlock digital devices using biometric features.
- Affidavit identified two suspects; request was not limited to particular persons or particular devices and sought to seize all digital devices at the premises.
- Court evaluated both Fourth Amendment probable-cause issues and whether compelling biometric unlocking would violate the Fifth Amendment.
- Government argued biometric unlocking is a practical alternative to compelled passcodes and sought broad authority to bypass passcode protections.
- The court considered technological differences between biometrics and traditional physical evidence (fingerprints, DNA) and applied recent digital-privacy precedents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause to search premises | Affidavit shows evidence will be found at Subject Premises | Search is lawful only if other constitutional rights are respected | Probable cause exists to search premises, subject to constitutional limits |
| Authority to compel biometric unlocking of any person present | Need to compel biometric unlocking to access device contents; biometrics bypass passcodes | Compelling biometrics is testimonial and violates Fifth Amendment | No probable cause to compel any person present to provide biometric features to unlock devices; request overbroad |
| Seizure of all digital devices at scene | Government may seize devices found during lawful search | Seizing devices of non-suspects exceeds scope; must be tied to suspects | Warrant application overbroad; may only seize devices reasonably believed to be owned/controlled by the two named suspects |
| Application of foregone-conclusion doctrine to compel access | Government may already know existence/possession of incriminating data, so unlocking is non-testimonial | Phones contain unforeseeable data; government lacks prior knowledge, so doctrine doesn't apply | Foregone-conclusion doctrine does not apply to compelled biometric unlocking of phones; unlocking is testimonial in context |
Key Cases Cited
- Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (Sup. Ct.) (courts must account for sophisticated systems and preserve privacy against technological advances)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (Sup. Ct.) (smartphones are minicomputers entitled to heightened privacy; searches reveal vast personal data)
- Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (Sup. Ct.) (distinguishes testimonial communications from production of physical evidence)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (Sup. Ct.) (compulsion to produce physical evidence like blood or fingerprints is not testimonial)
- United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (Sup. Ct.) (act of production can be testimonial when government lacks prior knowledge of existence or location)
- Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201 (Sup. Ct.) (discusses testimonial nature of revealing contents of the mind)
- In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Mar. 25, 2011, 670 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir.) (act of production may be testimonial if it concedes existence, possession, control, authenticity)
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (Sup. Ct.) (courts should account for developing technology when applying Fourth Amendment)
- Camara v. Mun. Court of City & Cty. of San Francisco, 387 U.S. 523 (Sup. Ct.) (Fourth Amendment protects privacy from arbitrary governmental invasions)