Three Take-Aways from the Indiana Supreme Court Cell Phone Case
Indiana Supreme Court Cell Phone Case
Katelin Eunjoo Seo v. State of Indiana has raised questions of significant importance to the whole country about privacy rights and the reach of law enforcement. William Webster of Webster & Garino argued before the Indiana Supreme Court in defense of his client’s right to withhold the passcode to her iPhone 7 from criminal investigators. Mr. Webster cited her Constitutional Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to justify her silence.
He interpreted the state’s demand that she provide the passcode as a form of forced testimony. Many parties beyond Indiana, including multiple states and the American Civil Liberties Union, await the decision in the cell phone supreme court case because of its potentially massive influence on law enforcement’s approach to evidence collection in digital environments.
State Authorities Want Access to Private Digital Information
As the lawyers representing the State of Indiana showed, along with the amicus briefs filed by other states, governmental agencies want nearly unfettered access to people’s digital information. Their arguments in the cell phone court case reflected the belief that placing phone passcodes or other passwords under Fifth Amendment protection would erode authorities’ ability to collect evidence. Given the state, lawlessness would result. Arguments against Ms. Seo’s Fifth Amendment defense also asserted that her passcode represented a form of encryption. Her passcode was styled as somehow criminal although millions of people legitimately rely on encryption technology to protect private and financial data every day.
Authorities Think the Fifth Amendment Does Not Apply to Digital Information
The Indiana Supreme Court case illustrates the difficulties of applying long-established rights to new technologies. In the absence of established legal precedents applying directly to digital technologies, authorities appear willing to default to no legal protection from self-incrimination in regards to digital devices. To defend his client, Mr. Webster cited existing U.S. Supreme Court cases that indicated that Ms. Seo could expect to invoke the Fifth Amendment successfully. In United States v. Hubbell, the Supreme Court decided that a person could withhold answers that would provide a “link in the chain of evidence” that could result in self-incrimination.
Law Enforcement Remains Hostile to Privacy
The state acknowledges that it wants access to her iPhone to search for evidence of her criminal guilt. Her passcode would enable a wholesale examination of all files and location data on her iPhone. Because providing her passcode would open the door to so much of her private information, Mr. Webster argued that her passcode represented a form of testimony because it was stored in her memory. Law enforcement’s desire to compel her to reveal the contents of her memory shows little consideration for her privacy rights.
DISCLAIMER/ATTORNEY MESSAGE: The information contained in this website/webpage, including, but not limited to, written material, recorded material and/or video/visual material is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice on any matter. The transmission and receipt of information on or through this website, in whole or in part, or communication with Webster & Garino LLC via the Internet or e-mail through this website does not constitute or create an attorney-client relationship between us and any recipient. You should not send us confidential information in response to this website or webpage. Such responses will not create an attorney-client relationship, and whatever you disclose to us will not be privileged or confidential unless we agree to act as your legal counsel and you have signed an engagement letter with Webster & Garino LLC. The material on this website/webpage may not reflect the most current legal developments. The content and interpretation of the law addressed herein is subject to revision. We disclaim all liability with respect to actions taken or not taken based on any and all of the contents of the website/webpage to the fullest extent provided by law. Do not act or refrain from acting based upon this educational information only without seeking your own professional legal counsel.