State v. Pittman, 452 P.3d 1011

Police seized an iPhone from Pittman’s purse after a single-vehicle accident and obtained a warrant to search it, but could not unlock the device without its passcode.
Law enforcement testified that brute‑force decryption would be infeasible and that iPhones can auto‑erase after multiple wrong passcode entries.
The state moved to compel Pittman to disclose/enter the passcode; the trial court applied the “foregone conclusion” doctrine and ordered her to enter the code.
Pittman attempted two incorrect entries while in court; the court found her in contempt and sentenced her to 30 days in jail.
On appeal Pittman argued that ordering her to enter the passcode violated Article I, §12 of the Oregon Constitution and the Fifth Amendment; the court held the act is testimonial but affirmed under the foregone‑conclusion framework (state had to prove passcode knowledge was a foregone conclusion, not the phone’s contents).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ordering defendant to enter the iPhone passcode violates the privilege against self‑incrimination (Art I, §12 and Fifth Amendment)	The compelled entry is not protected because the act is covered by the foregone‑conclusion doctrine (state already knows defendant controls/knows the passcode).	Entering the passcode is testimonial (reveals knowledge/ownership) and cannot be compelled unless the state proves more (defendant’s knowledge and/or phone contents are foregone conclusions).	Entering a passcode is testimonial and a court order is compulsion, but the foregone‑conclusion doctrine applies; the state needed to prove the defendant’s knowledge of the passcode was a foregone conclusion (it did not need to prove the phone’s contents) — affirming the order.
Whether the contempt judgment for willful failure to comply was plain error	(State) The contempt finding was valid because defendant willfully failed to follow a lawful court order.	(Pittman) The contempt finding lacked sufficient evidence of willfulness.	Plain‑error review rejected the challenge to the contempt determination (no written discussion required).

Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976) (articulates the “foregone conclusion” exception to the Fifth Amendment act‑of‑production doctrine)
United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000) (rejects foregone‑conclusion where government lacks independent knowledge of existence/location/authenticity)
State v. Fish, 321 Or 48 (1995) (Oregon precedent on testimonial acts and the privilege against self‑incrimination)
Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582 (1990) (testimonial acts include communications of fact, belief, or state of mind; the ‘‘trilemma’’ framework)
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (distinguishes compelled testimonial evidence from nontestimonial physical evidence)
Commonwealth v. Jones, 481 Mass 540 (2019) (applies foregone‑conclusion reasoning to compelled decryption: the relevant foregone conclusion is the defendant’s knowledge of the password)
State v. Langan, 301 Or 1 (1986) (Oregon discussion of protections against compelled testimony)