Will Webster Breaks Down the Seo vs State of Indiana
Will Webster Breaks Down Katelin Seo vs State of Indiana Case
Since April 2019, William Webster of Webster & Garino in Westfield, Indiana, has awaited the decision of the Indiana Supreme Court in Katelin Seo v. State of Indiana. He delivered oral arguments on behalf of the defendant, and recently took some time to explain the importance of the case to the public. He emphasized that the outcome of this Indiana cell phone case could influence the rights of anyone who has a mobile electronic device.
The cell phone Supreme Court case started when Mr. Webster represented Ms. Seo, who was being investigated for intimidation and harassment. A search warrant ordered her to unlock her iPhone 7 so that law enforcement could download its contents and look for evidence against her. Mr. Webster advised her to cite her Constitutional Fifth Amendment protection from self-incrimination and refuse to unlock the phone.
The local trial court found her in contempt, but the appellate court agreed with Mr. Webster’s use of the Fifth Amendment as well as Article 14 of the Indiana Constitution. The State then requested the transfer of the Indiana cell phone case to the Indiana Supreme Court.
Mr. Webster argued that the act of unlocking her phone represented testimony that qualified for Constitutional protection. To invoke the Fifth Amendment, a person must show that compulsion is taking place. The search warrant satisfied this condition. Secondly, someone must prove that the speech or other act serves as testimony. Mr. Webster cited the cases Doe v. United States and United States v. Hubbell that concluded that the act of assembling documents served as testimony. The act functions as testimony because it communicates that documents exist, they are authentic, and they are under the person’s control. The third requirement for invocation of the Fifth Amendment involves demonstrating that the testimony could lead to incriminating evidence.
The State countered Mr. Webster by applying the forgone conclusion doctrine. This doctrine allows law enforcement to overcome the Fifth Amendment when testimony would not add substantially to the evidence. Fisher v. United States presents an example of the forgone conclusion, but it involved tax return documents prepared by a third party.
Mr. Webster pointed out that the forgone conclusion exemption has always applied to documents known to exist and not testimony. Applying it in the Indiana cell phone case would be a misapplication, especially since the State did not show any knowledge that evidence existed on the phone.
Using the forgone conclusion doctrine against testimony, in Mr. Webster’s opinion, would grant law enforcement sweeping powers to force people to unlock their devices. He hopes that the Indiana Supreme Court will uphold protections from self-incrimination meant to protect people from “fishing expeditions” launched by law enforcement.
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.