Indiana Supreme Court Disagrees State May Force Users to Unlock Smartphones
Indiana disagrees with "some aspects" of a state Supreme Court ruling that individuals may refuse to unlock their phones for law enforcement to avoid self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, a spokesperson for Attorney General Curtis Hill (R) said Wednesday. "We…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
are carefully reviewing it to determine how it will impact future criminal investigations involving electronic devices." The court ruled against the state Tuesday in Katelin Seo v. Indiana (18S-CR-00595), reversing a trial court that held Seo in contempt for refusing to unlock her iPhone. “By unlocking her smartphone, Seo would provide law enforcement with information it does not already know, which the State could then use in its prosecution against her,” wrote Chief Justice Loretta Rush, who seemed to bristle at April 2019 oral argument in which Indiana said individuals may not refuse (see 1904180025). Indiana argued if the compelled act doesn't give the government additional information, the result is a “foregone conclusion” not protected by the Fifth Amendment, but Rush said that exemption doesn’t apply in this case and possibly others involving smartphones due to their “unique ubiquity and capacity." Justices Mark Massa and Geoffrey Slaughter dissented. The case “was mooted when the underlying criminal case was dismissed,” wrote Massa. “And this now-moot case shouldn’t be resolved under our ‘great public interest’ exception because doing so could -- in violation of the core principles of federalism -- leave our Court as the final arbiter of our nation’s fundamental law.” State courts have split on smartphone encryption. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court sided with law enforcement, while the Pennsylvania Supreme Court supported Fifth Amendment protections. The New Jersey Supreme Court held argument on a similar case in January (see 2001210053). The Constitution's individual privacy protection is important, but the document "also recognizes society’s equally important interest in investigating crime and holding criminals responsible," said the Indiana AG spokesperson said. "These legal issues are difficult, and courts all across the county are struggling with how to strike the right balance when modern technology is concerned. Our argument in this case has always been that police followed the proper procedures to obtain a court order and Ms. Seo should have also followed proper court procedures rather than first openly flaunting her contempt for the trial court." The Electronic Frontier Foundation is “gratified by the ruling, and we’re watching for courts in New Jersey, Oregon and elsewhere to continue the trend of protecting against compelled decryption,” blogged Senior Staff Attorney Andrew Crocker.