The court allowed the FBI to require the suspect to unlock the smartphone using a fingerprint.
The FBI used one of its most controversial methods to obtain information about the activities of the man accused of participating in the capture of the Capitol on January 6, 2021 and the attack on police officers with the use of pepper spray.
According to Forbes, on February 4 this year, FBI agents received a search warrant at the suspect's residence in the city of Uniontown (Pennsylvania, USA) and unblocked devices using his fingerprints, face or other biometric data. Once inside, they discovered that suspect Peter Schwartz had used a thumbprint to unlock his Samsung S10.
"In accordance with the wording of the order authorizing the use of biometrics to unlock digital devices on premises, FBI agents used Schwartz's fingerprint to unlock a Samsung Galaxy S10 cell phone," the order said.
The FBI is now hoping to extract all possible useful data from the smartphone. After the device was seized in February, the bureau admitted that it was not possible to conduct a forensic examination. However, the agents were still able to view messages on the smartphone, in which Schwartz sent photos from Capitol Hill and claimed that he and others were ready to die during the riots.
At present, the public's attitude to such searches using biometric unlocks is very controversial. In cases of suspects' refusal to comply with the order to unlock devices, a number of judges in different states have referred to the fourth and fifth amendments to the US Constitution, which protect citizens from unnecessary searches and incriminating themselves.
In some previous cases, judges thwarted attempts by the authorities to force suspects to share their password to unlock the device, but unlocking using biometric data was often considered acceptable. This is because fingerprints, iris, or face were not considered "evidence" because the suspects did not disclose their password.
However, as one California judge noted in 2019, “If a person cannot be forced to reveal a password because it is evidence, then they cannot be forced to provide their finger, iris, face, or other biometrics to unlock. the same device ".
The FBI used one of its most controversial methods to obtain information about the activities of the man accused of participating in the capture of the Capitol on January 6, 2021 and the attack on police officers with the use of pepper spray.
According to Forbes, on February 4 this year, FBI agents received a search warrant at the suspect's residence in the city of Uniontown (Pennsylvania, USA) and unblocked devices using his fingerprints, face or other biometric data. Once inside, they discovered that suspect Peter Schwartz had used a thumbprint to unlock his Samsung S10.
"In accordance with the wording of the order authorizing the use of biometrics to unlock digital devices on premises, FBI agents used Schwartz's fingerprint to unlock a Samsung Galaxy S10 cell phone," the order said.
The FBI is now hoping to extract all possible useful data from the smartphone. After the device was seized in February, the bureau admitted that it was not possible to conduct a forensic examination. However, the agents were still able to view messages on the smartphone, in which Schwartz sent photos from Capitol Hill and claimed that he and others were ready to die during the riots.
At present, the public's attitude to such searches using biometric unlocks is very controversial. In cases of suspects' refusal to comply with the order to unlock devices, a number of judges in different states have referred to the fourth and fifth amendments to the US Constitution, which protect citizens from unnecessary searches and incriminating themselves.
In some previous cases, judges thwarted attempts by the authorities to force suspects to share their password to unlock the device, but unlocking using biometric data was often considered acceptable. This is because fingerprints, iris, or face were not considered "evidence" because the suspects did not disclose their password.
However, as one California judge noted in 2019, “If a person cannot be forced to reveal a password because it is evidence, then they cannot be forced to provide their finger, iris, face, or other biometrics to unlock. the same device ".
