US Court of Appeals rules that a defendant can be legally compelled to reveal his passwords

In what is a landmark ruling that will set quite the precedent, a Florida Court of Appeals ruled that a defendant can be legally compelled to reveal the passcode to his phone. Defendants were not originally so obliged as protecting the password was seen as protecting a defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, as per the U.S. constitution, reports ZDNet. Specifically, the ruling states, “Providing the passcode does not ‘betray any knowledge [the defendant] may have about the circumstances of the offenses’ for which he is charged. Thus, ‘compelling a suspect to make a nonfactual statement that facilitates the production of evidence’ for which the state has otherwise obtained a warrant based upon evidence independent of the accused’s statements linking the accused to the crime does not offend the privilege.” The Washington Post outlines the facts of the case as follows: A man called Stahl was arrested for allegedly taking photographs up the skirt of a female shopper. Police arrested Stahl and seized his phone, which they believe to be the one used to take the photos, but were unable to access the contents of the phone as it was locked by a passcode. When asked to provide the passcode, Stahl refused to comply. The court case that followed was an argument on whether the court could compel Stahl to reveal his password. The case hinged on a doctrine called “Forgone conclusion”, which states that the government must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence they seek is on the device in question. If they can’t prove that, the Fifth Amendment protects the defendant. If not, the defendant can be compelled to reveal the passcode, which the government must prove that the defendant knows. While some courts originally ruled in favour of the defendant, stating that the conditions for the doctrine weren’t met, the Florida Court of Appeals ruled otherwise. In its ruling, Judge Black, who presided over the case, stated that (in legalese of course) that the government had indeed proved that the phone belonged to Stahl and that the police “knew” that this was the phone involved in the crime. Furthermore, the statement reads that the police are not looking for the other contents of the phone such as other photos or contacts and that the police know exactly what they’re looking for and where it exists. Considering this, the State needs the defendant’s passcode to unlock the phone and the defendant must provide it. The Washington Post’s Orin Kerr writes, “the court here recognized that disclosing or using a passcode does not imply any testimony about the contents of the phone.” This is the first time that such a ruling has been made, and the definition could extend to other password-protected services as well.