People v. Manganiello
2025 NY Slip Op 03873
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2025Background
- Spencer Manganiello was convicted after a guilty plea to possessing child sexual abuse material found on his cell phone, after police executed a search warrant.
- Police received Google tips and conducted an investigation linking a Google account (with child abuse material) to Manganiello's residence and identity.
- The search warrant authorized police to compel Manganiello to unlock devices using his biometric data (finger/facial scan).
- During execution, Manganiello was restrained, compelled to unlock his phone using his fingerprint, and incriminating evidence was found.
- Manganiello moved to suppress the evidence, alleging violation of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, specifically self-incrimination.
- The County Court denied suppression, found no violation, and accepted a guilty plea; Manganiello appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Manganiello's Argument | People’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether compelled biometric unlocking of a device is testimonial under the Fifth Amendment | Argued unlocking the phone with a fingerprint amounted to testimonial self-incrimination | Claimed the act was merely physical, not proof of ownership, and thus not testimonial | Held: Compelled unlocking was testimonial and violated the Fifth Amendment |
| Whether the warrant lacked particularity under the Fourth Amendment | Implicit—warrant overbroad in allowing compelled unlocking | Warrant sufficiently specific for search and seizure | Held: Warrant was sufficiently particular; no Fourth Amendment violation |
| Suppression of all derivative evidence from testimonial act | All evidence from unlocking act must be suppressed | No suppression required because no violation | Held: Evidence obtained through the compelled testimonial act must be suppressed |
| Distinction from Ninth Circuit precedent (Payne) | Facts distinguishable because ownership/control wasn’t conceded before unlocking | Ownership/facts similar enough to Payne so no testimonial aspect | Held: Distinguished Payne; acts here were testimonial due to lack of preexisting concession of control |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000) (establishes act of production doctrine for testimonial communication)
- Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201 (1988) (defines testimonial communications for Fifth Amendment)
- United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967) (physical characteristic evidence not inherently testimonial)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (distinguishes between physical samples and testimonial acts)
- Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976) (physical act may be testimonial based on what it communicates)