I think we should all be sick of all vertical power structures and the arbitrary hypocrisy they always practice. The one in question here is capitalism.
It was set up this way for a reason. To give you the illusion of freedom. But the masters had to make sure their will could always be enforced. So they gave their agents, the judges, the power to “interpret” the law. Laws could be written and enforced in such a way that leaves little to interpretation. But, then those on top could not bend the rules for themselves or change them at will. The so-called founding fathers were extremely clever, and they wanted to make sure the wealthiest citizens always retain the power. Most of the freedom, privilege and protection the law affords is a illusion. It only applies to the lower classes, but it is ethereal and meaningless when it comes to those with real pull.
But can use hard attacks to break it with the help of modern computing capabilities. Plus they can access the stuff inside the same methods the repairmen do it when they recover data for various clients who's phones met with a bad ending.
Not here. Note that the guy that determined this case was out on parole. Meaning he has essentially no Constitutional rights when it comes to random searches since he gave them up as a condition of parole. I seriously doubt this decision applies to the average citizen not on parole or probation.
Exactly. For most people, a phone knows more about you than a spouse does. Cops are also so fkn untrustworthy now, they'd check through the phones of girls just to see what thay can see.
I can agree to that to a point, however, why the hell would anyone keep any sort in incriminating evidence on their phone anyway? You can take my phone right now and look through it, there's nothing on there that would get me on trouble or cause embarrassment either. Naturally, why the hell would there be?
@@MysticKnight7 I mean why would anyone keep illegal substances inside their place of residence? Its convenient and people working within the law shouldnt be able to just randomly search your shit because of a cosmetic choice (Window Tint)
@@Abcwhatever I agree but your missing the point this guy was recently in prison. THEREFORE even though you did your time your STILL not an American with rights. THAT is why the LEO was able to get away with doing what they did. Also, the man knowing he was on probation did not fight the fact they did not have a warrant. They did this cause they could use the threat of incarceration against this man.
They’re super lawyers How wouldn’t they not be ? They’re not even peers, they’re people the system works for and always worked for. And how many more laws they gonna make ? New laws every year ??
Maybe read a little before only taking this video as your source. His terms of parole, signed by him, allowed searches of electronic devices without cause. That point didn’t seem to be made clear here
Also, as a part police accountability community, the tint as the reason for the stop rings all sorts of bells in my head. Im almost surprised there was no resisting or obstruction thrown at him for good measure.
Really.. Name one judge, cop, DA, politician, general, etc.. that has not failed to obey, support and defend the constitution against all enemies.. 😂😂😂
Why stop there, the Supreme Court is literally exchanging rulings for gifts and cash. Often they argue literal reading and intent of the founding fathers to next weeks “interpretation” of intent. In a capitalist based society everything is for sale including your rights and freedoms. Vote blue vote red but for christs sake vote freedom!
surprising enough they did just make a good free speech ruling.... MEINECKE vs Seattle street preacher assaulted by antifa, cops arrest preacher....didn't turn out so well for the city.
You should try the 5th circuit. Anything IP related, forget the facts, just rule in the favor of the one claiming the IP. Anything with the people vs government actors (police, etc) with video proof, the video is lying; the word of an officer is more reliable and trustworthy than the video evidence.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" The ninth circus must have missed that part
The person here was on court supervision, and as a provision of that was required to provide access to electronic devices. These kinds of provisions are part and parcel of supervision (probation and parole). Searches of the person and their residence are standard as well as submitting to random drug screens. For some offenses, access to electronic devices may make sense. So on the whole, this has no bearing on anyone other than those on some kind of supervision by the Court.
I just served on a jury for a murder case. The cops had access to the phone belonging to the state's star witness--she gave them permission--and didn't even try to retrieve deleted messages from her phone even after she admitted she'd deleted some of the defendant allegedly threatening her. The cop who testified said that it's possible to retrieve them but that they'd need an upgraded version of the program they're using or another program they aren't currently using. They got access to the defendant's phones a few days later when he was arrested. They didn't retrieve anything from them. No real explanation for that That wasn't the only problem with the investigation but it was a big one.
They may not tell the jury that information. I think hearings to suppress evidence are done without the jury present. The most absurd thing in our judicial system is the court can decide to keep information from the jury.
@@CognitiveHeatsink Well, the grand jury, as a member of that, you are responsible for interviewing the cops/witnesses and looking into the evidence, your job is to determine if there is sufficient evidence to even go to trial. So look out for it there. We threw out a case about drug possession, because the cop claimed it was x amount of y drug, but it turns out they never even tested it while in their possession and it disappeared before it made it to the lab...you bet your ass we didn't go ahead with that case regardless of his testimony. It was fun to ask him questions about it though. The attorney even thanked us after the fact, because she had no idea how she could try such a case. There were more like that, but that one stuck with me.
@@williamharshman9572 That's one way to permanently get removed from jury duty. I mentioned it way back in the 90s and got 60 days for polluting the jury pool for mentioning when questioned.
There is a HUGE difference between being finger printed once arrested and forcing someone to unlocke their phone without being under arrest! This is a horrible violation of our constitutional rights.
If someone is on parole, it's like being in jail but walking around isn't it? They can search your jail cell without a warrant. They agree to no rights when getting out on parole, they're still under sentencing.
Well if that’s the case we the people can corner a judge and force the password to their phone and see what they think when we use it to catch them in their illegal activities behind the bench…
The difference between getting your fingerprints taken for identification and using your fingerprint for opening your phone is gigantic. The judge needs to be barred from any courtroom.
To be able to use biometrics, and to avoid this from happening, you should also be able to use it together with a screen 3×3 grid pattern code, so only the fingerprint does not open, and the pattern does not open the phone without fingerprint, it is more annoying than just a fingerprint, but is safer against cases like these. Since the pattern requires cognitive thoughts. (Also using just the fingerprints could unlock just the hidden notifications, for convenience.
@@kiefgaming1701 That's easier said than done dude. Finger print access is a nice alternative to passwords, cause most ppl nowadays can't remember their password.
Our branches are supposed to be civic minded and working against each other to preserve liberty and freedom. Unfortunately our tripod has been a monopole for the past century.
Because people who become law enforcement are mostly made of individuals who yearn for power. They have no interest in protecting anyone. Their interests lie on fulfilling their own wet dream of telling others what to do.
When involved with police. For iPhone, You can hold the power button and volume button to enter the restart screen then cancel and your phone will REQUIRE a passcode and biometrics can’t be used to unlock. Then you can access your camera app to film the police without unlocking your phone.
ya with android you can just reboot your phone normally, but when it boots up, same things bio won't work, you must enter code. pro tip: when you see them lights behind you, reboot your phone and forget about it, or just turn it off. also make sure your phone memory and sd card are both encrypted.
Minnesota supreme court just decided recently that the inside of your car is considered public property when you're driving on public property. Zero trust in the courts to do the right thing.
That is a really stupid argument. So they are saying personal property becomes public property when it is no longer on private property. How can they enforce any theft charged with such a claim. It would be really nice if judges were actually required to have a brain outside of their ass.
Blood draw tells you only whats in a person's blood, searching their phone reveals someone's entire life. If a blood draw requires a warrant this absolutely should.
Your honor, the defendant reluctantly signed the confession. The defendant reluctantly opened the door to his house and then reluctantly showed us where the contraband was.
"Was this before or after the defendant reluctantly broke his right orbital bone and three teeth against the poor defenseless fists of the arresting officer?"
People on Probation DO NOT have the right to refuse. You guys keep thinking this guy is an American? HE'S NOT! He's is a released prisoner and does not have the same rights as we do. This is what America is like. The reason cops arrest black men so much is they know once they are in the system they can be controlled by our white leaning radical judicial system. Wake up people! This is no longer the America we once knew.
FYI most phones have a security settings called lock down mode you hold the power button like you're turning it off then it goes into this mode that requires you're pass code not fingerprint
The moment he said 9th I had to laugh. It'll be overturned by SCOTUS. Just like the overwhelming majority of decisions the r3t@rds in CA's 9th Circuit had rendered.
There's a huge difference between fingerprinting someone for database cataloging to keep track of prisoners and identify them, and forcibly using their digits to unlock their personal device to provide evidence against them. Definitely needs a warrant. That judge needs to be removed.
No need for a warrant to open your safe right? We will just mash your thumb on it if its got a fingerprint scanner... And you better hope you don't have a fingerprint lock on your house. We will just mash your finger anywhere it'll grant us access right?
I'd say, using his thumb to unlock the phone is the = fingerprinting is the equivalent to taking a suspects car key and searching the car = terry frisk
@@wurgel1 Id argue it's worse... Taking keys and opening a car with them is still an illegal search but its a illegal search with no physical contact, Using a fingerprint is the same search without consent or a warrant but it's also a search with forceful physical contact.
@@wurgel1 Keys are almost never on the person unless they have a newer car with remote start, and even still they are often in a bag or cupholder. getting the keys to unlock a car is a weird uncommon situation, so let me change the narrative and say the police want to search the locked trunk instead. They need the keys and the keys are more than likely not on the person, Means the only physical contact is the act of detaining them which in this story would have already happened.
Nothing in my phone is illegal , but that doesn't mean I am obliged to allow access to prove it. No court muppet is going to rummage through my personal information.
That’s the point tho. With over 7000 laws on the federal register one can’t possibly know which law if any has been broken. Then, while in custody for say doing a 1A audit, LE forces you to unlock your phone and you inadvertently tell on yourself for god knows what 😮
If you’re on parole, as this guy, you would have ‘literally’ signed away that right of privacy and in fact could be searched anytime and anywhere and for no reason at all.
It gets worse. If you leave the U.S. and return the CBP can require you to hand over your cellphone & password. They can copy it, download anything & it is perfectly legal without a warrant. Happens to Muslim Americans & many journalists often, particularly between Canada & Detroit. Consider buying a burner phone overseas or before travel. They can also detain you. They're conflating customs functions with suspension of Constitution based on whether you are formally in or outside of U.S. So much must be fixed after we vote to keep democracy.
I never used them because I know how easy it is to burn my thumb making French fries, welding or poking a campfire, but now biometric tech is so good, it can be used pretty reliably even through all that. Yes I know there has always been passcode backup for if you do burn your finger but it was never a perfect system in my opinion and could even be tricked by clever criminals. Now that it has become super reliable and mostly safe, there’s _THIS_ crap happening. So I still don’t use it. Too bad, too, because I love experimenting with new tech but in this case it’s just not worth the problems caused by a whole different set of criminals.
There is one judge in CA that was drunk driving and killed a guy. The guy was walking down the side of the road in a poorly lit area. The judge swerved and hit him than fled the scene. 3 Hours later he called the police to go find the guy and come give him a breath test, no blood draw was taken. At that time the judge still blew .12 so who knows what he was when he hit the guy. In court the judge got off completely free after he somehow argued the death was the result of the guy walking at night without proper protective gear.
Should be and hopefully will be. Sadly police can lie to us, but even now seemingly in reports, depositions, and testimony it is not only accepted, but applauded. "Reluctantly agreed" (while cuffed}, I'm losing all faith we can survive as a Republic.
@@W1ldt1m seems extreme, my daughters B-in-L was violated for making a phone call to his ex (dumb move, could cost him over 4 years back in prison), but window tint??
The sad thing is that they know what it says and they knowingly lie to get around it. I am a firm believer in supporting law enforcement, but I will never support liars.
Getting a warrant while they wait along the side of the road opens it up to even more abuse. Imagine having a judge on standby waiting to sign a warrant for the most trivial reasons.
On Android, if you longpress the power button one of the options is "Lockdown", which forces use of the PIN. My understanding is that you cant be compelled to provide a code without a warrant.
And their houses, don't forget that part, as long as there is evidence to justify the search after the fact. It's guilty till proven innocent in their court room, hold them to it too.
Smart folks use HOME phones for conversations that they want to keep private, as cell phones are NOT private, as they are radio transmitting and receiving devices, and the radio waves are PUBLIC DOMAIN.
if you look at the court's opinion, they mention that his parole conditions included that police and parole officers could search him and his property at any time without a warrant or probable cause. They often handcuff a person when they do this (the now-famous "officer safety")
@@TimothyWelty because it's still a popular opinion that "once a criminal, always a criminal." And that doing your legally-mandated time is somehow not enough. We've decided that any criminality means that it's ok to strip people of their rights. They can't vote, they can't have privacy, they are not entitled to minimum wage even when they are loaned out to private companies and receiving pay. It's all part of the larger plan to make being X illegal. They did it to liberals, hispanics, blacks, and the impoverished with weed. Take something that is legal from marginalized groups, make it illegal, and render that whole demographic as 'criminal' to silence them, stripping them of their rights and ways to fight back :/
@@yoretabio4537 People really have this thing on the brain too much, mostly due to Hollywood movies. They don't realize the mentality that is in America isn't Nazi Germany but Bolshevik Russia and Stasi Germany.
The judiciary is getting out of control with activist judges exercising their ideological beliefs in their court rooms instead of being impartial triers of fact.
@@AsaTrenchard1865you meant time for well-trained law obeying slaves to give consent, power, legitimacy, 💵 and weapons to gangsters to be their masters?? 😂😂😂
Biometric unlocking never has been a security feature, it's a convenience function. Just use a Pin and don't make online backups, that is what gives law enforcement access.
I got one more than that. I don't use a PIN at all! I use a password that is 16 characters long and uses Military Encryption Algorithm. I don't play now that AI is alive.
What are they going to do when I refuse? Torture me? Beat me to death? Call me bad names? Charge me with something? I would never use biometrics for exactly that reason. It's a no-brainer. Never, ever use biometrics for anything important.
Which rights? A judge deemed forcing a fingerprint on anything is Constitutional. I don't agree with it on phones, so I think there needs to be distinguishment in law. However, there's an argument to be made that taking a fingerprint could tie you to a crime so therefore could be considered self-incriminating evidence, and fingerprinting could be considered free speech.
@@watamatafoyu so, hypothetically, if you had a biometric lock on your house, the police could force your thumb onto it and search your home without a warrant? I don't think so. I think the key here is that he was on parole, and the us justice system doesn't believe criminals have rights.
I am not understanding the uproar on this. It is still not legal for them to do this to you unless you are also a parolee. He signed several forms just to be able to go on parole that allowed law enforcement to search both his property, including his phone, and any place he is staying and vehicle he is travelling in without a warrant. Heck, him just not wanting to unlock his phone would be grounds to be immediately remanded into the custody of the jail/prison and loss of parole status AND he would still be required to have his phone unlocked without a warrant. You give up a lot of freedoms when you are on parole since the only other option is to still be serving your sentence.
@@nathanc8478 the uproar is that this is what is known as a "precedent." If another court somewhere wants to do this to a non-parolee, this is something they can use as a means to say "it's ok" when it isn't.
@@GReaper that is not how precedence works. This will only mean that people on parole will not be able to secure their phones against searches (which they already were not). That is all this ruling will ever stand for. This case cannot be used for a cop breaking into your phone, and if a cop tires to then they will face a lawsuit since that is a clear 4th amendment violation where the courts have ruled on already (and upheld the rights of people to keep their phones secure from searches without a warrant).
I would argue that it’s not like taking my finger print. It’s like breaking into my house without a warrant. The government is getting to big and needs to be downsized by whatever means necessary.
Read the book INCOME TAX shattering the myths by Dave champion. Amazing book. Shows you how corrupt the government is and how we got here. Also shows you how to fix it Atleast as far as your personal life. He hasn’t paid income tax in 31 years. The government duped everyone into believing they owe an income tax. Thatsss how they are so big and so bloated now. They make trillions illegally off us every year.
Being a parolee is being a convict serving your time on the street. You ARE subject to searches by law enforcement at anytime without a warrant as a condition of release!
Both parties just renewed 911 removal of privacy and indefinite incarceration for precrime. I voted with my feet and left the USA for good. Best decision of my life!
This is sickening. As you pointed out, our phones these days have soooo much info on us. GPS tracking, contacts, photos, search history, etc. To think that any judge would think, "Eh, who needs a warrant?" is beyond incompetent.
@patrickfurlong4276 Lot's of people have their banking info on their phones, I have to do a great deal of work from my phone. I would say most people's banking data is on their phones to include cards and financial apps, as well as nudes various men/women sent them. The cops are simply the biggest gang of criminals, I wouldn't trust them with a pic of my grandmother.
The ability to gain access does not equal the permission to do so. If the door to my house is unlocked, that does not give the officer permission to search the house. Just because I got pulled over for rolling thru a stop sign, does not grant permission to search the trunk of my car. I don't see how this is any different. Digital property is still private property just like the trunk of your car or the interior of your house. I don't understand why it should be treated any differently.
Being on parole, on condition that you allow lawful searches, is the permission. Also, just like the trunk of your car, if the police turn up with a warrant to search your phone, you can unlock your phone or get arrested.
@@himagainstill That's a fair point. I didn't make this clear but, while I feel some lines may be blurred with the handling of this by the officers I don't have too much issue with the case itself. It's the distinction the judge made of gaining access to the phone's data like this being no different than taking the man's fingerprint. This feels like a bit of a dangerous elaboration.
@@atsernov Maybe I misunderstood this part, but my understanding is that the judge predicated that, along with most of the rest of the decision, on the suspect being a parolee, and that very little of what was decided was general.
Great video Mr. Lehto, I removed the biometric unlock from my phone immediately after watching. My privacy is important to me and I don't want my phone to be free real estate to cops.
I'm 46 years old and have moved all over the 48 states every year. I have seen nothing but Fascism from coast to coast my whole life. So what do you mean awfully close to?
Not only didn't they get Warrant for his Phone, but they also searched his House (according to the Read story) WITHOUT a Warrant. using the Keys they took off the man's Person. The 9th Circuit is the most overturned Circuit in the U.S. Legal System, cause MOST of those Judges refuse to follow the U.S. Constitution.
@@khatdubellthat sounds correct. I don’t remember the exact wording but you do lose some rights when on parole. Warrantless searches and seizures are not unconstitutional for parolees. I think it’s primarily the 4th that you lose. I need to look into that
Dude, he was on parole. A condition of parole is the cops can come and search your house day or night, any time, without any warrant. You are out on conditional release, and one of those conditions you agree to is giving up your right to privacy. Same for your phone. You agree to give them all passwords and everything when you go on parole.
Moral of the story is to disable facial unlock and fingerprint unlock. Law enforcement, as of 4-26-2024, cannot compel you to unlock your phone if you use a passcode or password.
You're forgetting that in this specific instance his parole terms required him to turn over any electronic devices and their password(s). Mind you, they still should've gotten a warrant, and it would've been a slam-dunk warrant due to the nature of those parole terms, so I would say that this case is not representative of most normal circumstances.
@@Razmoudahany attempt to open my phone results in about 5 seconds or less for it to erase itself. You need my password to shut it down. The battery does not remove. We need to get rid of this mindset that you need to have something to hide in order to want your privacy and security I have it backed up to an encrypted system at a location that is not at my house. It takes one wrong entry of my passcode. It also knows if somebody's trying to open it with any software or hardware that the police typically use. There are people that know a lot about phones everyone should find one and they should make sure people encrypt their devices to the highest possible modern encryption.
Excellent point. The Constitution merely states rights we would have had regardless of it, or any of its amendments, being enacted. Our Constitution merely makes it very hard for our governments to abridge those rights.
*This is why I don’t use any biometric features on any devices. I use a custom alpha-numeric password that I tend to forget when I get a little stressed out. Call me “old fashioned”* 🤷🏼
Yeah if I was a juror and I heard the defendant had been searched without a warrant that would sway me towards a not guilty verdict and it would take some pretty serious evidence for me to find them guilty. The Judge might say you can't consider whether or not they had a warrant but then I'd think of some other excuse to find them not guilty.
@@Weathernerd27 Jurors do NOT have to give an explanation why they say guilty or not guilty. Not to the judge, not to the court, not to either the prosecutor or the defense attorney. If the jury trial requires all jurors to say guilty, 1 juror saying not guilty does set the person free. it ends in hung jury and "possibly" a retrial with a knew jury.
I had a couple of thoughts listening to this: 1. Judges should pay a price every time they get reversed by a higher court. I like the "three strikes and you're out" rule from baseball. You get reversed three times, and you're barred from being a judge for life. 2. As Ayn Rand pointed out, you can't force a mind. Remove the fingerprint on your phone. They can't force your PIN code.
I had the same thought, only my belief is that if three rulings are overturned on a Constitutional basis, a judge should be dismissed and barred from being a judge for life. The quality of our court rulings would improve significantly.
@@mikewillett5076 Because of the stressful situation of being forced, this is entirely plausible 😊... Or if you can't tell them the code because it's more muscle memory (in my case) rather than actually remembering the numbers/digits, you may mistype 10x until the phone wipes its backside 😂
@@alli3219 . Yeah, or just before you hand it to them you do a complete reboot of your phone. Sure you have to reinstall all of your apps but if it thwarts those goons, it's worth it!
@@timothy4664 That's the tricky part, isn't it. There's functionally very little oversight of the judicial system. I think that questionable cases concerning constitutional rights should lead to an impeachment inquiry of the judges to determine whether or not they violated their oathes to the constitution. Judges have a legitimate role in interpreting the constitution, but if their judicial judgement strays this far from the plain language of the constitution they should be subject to the impeachment process.
@@userac-xpgthe code doesn't need to be completely random, it just needs to be memorable and not simple. For example 2653589793 is going to be hard to guess but it's not really random either. I'm not going to explain why this is memorable to me.
He was on parole. The terms and conditions he agreed to allow them to search anything he owns any time of day or night with or without a warrant. It usually called a 5 way search. Person, home, vehicle, place of work, electronic devices.
That may have been how this started, but now that the circuit court has ruled that its no different than them being Fingerprinted, Anyone under arrest could be subjected to this. That's the point.
There’s a difference between submitting a device to them and actively participating in the search of that device. In this case the officers overstepped by forcing the man’s “cooperation”
How OLD are these judges that they don't understand the difference between a fingerprint and a thumbprint lock?! It's a kind of lock, not an identifier! They would've needed a warrant to force him to give them a number code to unlock it!
Exactly! When they get your finger prints it's making a copy of your biometrics, it unlocks nothing. It might tell them who you are but nothing else about you. A biometric fingerprint on a phone is used as a key in a description algorithm to un-encrypt the data. Its existence as a physical part of you, as opposed to an ethereal memory in your head, is irrelevant. What is important is its purpose and function. The government, or anyone else by that matter, would not have any extended rights to your house if it was secured by a thumb print reader, a card reader, or a conventional key, as they are all being used to obviously secure your private property.
You’re assuming those judges are being honest about their reasoning. It seems more likely they actually want to allow this to help those cops stay out of trouble, and allow more cops to easily get evidence.
If you were paying attention, you'd have noticed that they didn't need a warrant because the guy was on parole and part of his parole conditions was consenting to searches.
@@himagainstill That is a common condition, but not in all states! (I forget what state this case is in.) Did Steve mention that and where? I find it hard to believe that he would miss that detail.
I agree with you. I have been considering the possibilities of Guyana, Northern Africa, and Northern India as alternative places to live based on the cost of living in those regions.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." How could any court not consider a phone as papers and effects?
Under long established precedent, a search immediately after arrest is considered a reasonable search, regardless of whether there is a warrant. The defense didn't even argue 4th amendment issues. The issue in the case was the 5th amendment prohibition on compelled self-incrimination. It would be nice if the search incident to arrest exemption were limited to making sure the arrestee didn't have anything dangerous on his or her person when being taken into custody, but alas the courts have never supported that idea.
@@nightbreed7222 I mean.. Many stops are targeted. They use whatever reason they want, you think you're talking to a traffic cop, but it's really a narcotics cop who believes you have ties to XYZ drug activities. Traffic law is so convoluted that any driver could be pulled over for any number of reasons. It's created a system in which a fishing expedition is entirely legal when they pull you over for other reasons despite the fact that it should be illegal to pull you over under what amounts to trumped up charges. All they need is you doing 36 in a 35 and they can harass you endlessly for their drug bust.
On an I-phone, going to the shut down screen (even if it's canceled) will disable all biometrics (fingerprint or facial recognition) until the (alpha-) numeric pass code is entered. Not sure how others work.
Hasn't since Tricky Dicky started his unconstitutional "war on (some) drugs "and some people" and Ronnie Ray guns expanded the "war on drugs" and Bush the elder started his war for oil, and Bush the dumber tore up what was left of the constitution with his (un)Patriot Act and comrade Trumpski lined his depends with the remnants while felating Chaiman Kim and comrade Putin...
Just set the phone to erase itself after too many failed password attempts then enter the wrong password until that happens. Nobody can prove you forgot or mistyped it.
The reasoning the courts have used to ERRONEOUSLY allow searches of vehicles without warrants is that 'cars are not 'repositories of personal information', except they sometimes are. So, now, the police and courts have gotten so used to violating the 4th Amendment, they have blown past the reasoning they were using and are now just saying they don't have to follow the 4th if they don't want to.
The problem is from what Lehto read that isn't the precedent that was set. The Judge compared it to fingerprinting which is something most if not all of us would be compelled to do if arrested
This is precisely why I use a code instead of thumbprint. I recall years back one of the courts (don't know if it was Texas or Supreme Court) saying that police can make you open with a fingerprint, but for a code, they have to have a search warrant. I don't have anything illegal on my phone, but that doesn't mean they can look through it for free; same goes for my house.
I know the feeling. I once was stopped and they asked to search my vehicle because they "smelled" something. I informed him his "sniffer" was broken. Then I very patiently waited over 45 minutes for the drug dog. (Yes, I know I didn't have to wait that long.I had plenty of time) I just sat under the shade of a tree drink a Coke and played games on my phone. Then when the drug dog "hit" on the car I informed him that the dog's sniffer must be as broken as his. They spent over an hour searching the car. Naturally, they didn't find a damn thing. So, I filed a complaint with the Police chief. Then I had a private conversation with each and every city council member. In the end every cop was required to attend an updated "retraining" course. All 23 of them.
Good on ya... 😂 👩🏻🦰🇦🇺🩷🇺🇸 They'll always try to pin $#!√ on anyone, even if no reasonable suspicion. Unlock your phone, they'll find something, for sure... 😮
Of course, parole is not a right, they are still under the jurisdiction of the system until they complete their sentence. This might be a story if not for the parole part, otherwise it's a nothing-burger.
It's very common for them to inflate suspended sentences for this reason. Sure you did 6 months in jail but you have 20 years suspended so whether you're supervised or not they just grease you up whenever they please
I'm ok with a lesser expectation of privacy when on parole. You are still serving your sentence. I am not ok with being forced to unlock your phone without a search warrant. Though being on parole I suspect getting a warrant is a pretty easily done thing. "Your honor, he's on parole" ... "warrant granted". Probation and suspended sentence it seems to my you should have to show just cause. You may still be serving a sentence and good behavior is expected but you are also in a situation where you are more restored to society than when on parole.
You give up your constitutional rights when you contract with the government by signing the parole, probation papers.. probation and parole is lucrative for the government. This is why you see people given short sentences with long probation periods to follow. It's all a racket. Prison industrial complex.
i JUST DELETED MY FINGERPRINTS till that gets thrown out! They would never get me to give my passcode!. Watch out for corrupt judges and lets weed them out one way or another!
“Anything you say or DO” can be used against you so unlocking the phone should be doing something that’s protected and would violate the 5th amendment. Absolutely!💯
The man is on parol; He no longer has a 4th amendment. He lost those rights when he showed he couldn't be trusted with them after trying to kill someone
If this stands then Law enforcement has the right to make me open my door to my home without a warrant. The ruling will Undoubtedly be overturned. Either lawfully through SCOTUS or lawfully through Rebellion against tyranny, one way or another this unlawful injustice will not stand.
Don't assume it will....this is a drug case, and in the past 50 years, with almost zero exceptions, the courts have destroyed the 4th amendment on drug cases
Do NOT use biometrics for security. It is not secure and never has been secure. It is something you are and that means if it is compromised you are screwed. You leave this information behind you as you go through your day.
No, if this stands then law enforcement has the right to make you open your door to your home without a warrant if you've agreed in advance that you will open your door to your home without a warrant. The suspect was on parole, and the conditions of his parole included agreeing to be searched. The judge was explicit that this doesn't create a blanket right to conduct a warrantless nonconsensual search.
I’m so sick of judges picking and choosing which parts of the constitution they want to enforce.
Sick enough to do anything?
Activist judges (a.k.a. DEMs) have always hated the Constitution and the Bill of Rights so will do anything to undermine them.
I think we should all be sick of all vertical power structures and the arbitrary hypocrisy they always practice. The one in question here is capitalism.
It was set up this way for a reason. To give you the illusion of freedom. But the masters had to make sure their will could always be enforced.
So they gave their agents, the judges, the power to “interpret” the law.
Laws could be written and enforced in such a way that leaves little to interpretation. But, then those on top could not bend the rules for themselves or change them at will.
The so-called founding fathers were extremely clever, and they wanted to make sure the wealthiest citizens always retain the power.
Most of the freedom, privilege and protection the law affords is a illusion. It only applies to the lower classes, but it is ethereal and meaningless when it comes to those with real pull.
Not me I love this government and this administration so happy😢@@jayrowe6473
They can try. I won't use biometrics for security for this reason. They cannot get my pass code out of my head.
when u get a tyrant cop you will change your way of thinking
Yea unfortunately some aps i have to use for work need the thumb confirmation, so i cant really remove this type of authentication from my options :(
Really.. But what's in your head if you played the STUPID game of VOTING for gangsters to be your masters repeatedly?? 😂😂😂
@@jpnewman1688 I did not vote for these gangsters. What's in your head?
But can use hard attacks to break it with the help of modern computing capabilities.
Plus they can access the stuff inside the same methods the repairmen do it when they recover data for various clients who's phones met with a bad ending.
We are losing all of our Constitutional Rights every day.
If someone can take them away, they're not rights. Simply privileges from your rulers. Time to wake up.
Our rights are not constitutional rights, they are God given, unalienable rights and our governments are self serving POS.
James Madison warned us but we didn't listen.
WE ARE GIVING IT AWAY.
Not here. Note that the guy that determined this case was out on parole. Meaning he has essentially no Constitutional rights when it comes to random searches since he gave them up as a condition of parole. I seriously doubt this decision applies to the average citizen not on parole or probation.
Cellphones are so personal and private they should be covered under the 5th amendment. It’s like compelling a spouse to testify.
Exactly. For most people, a phone knows more about you than a spouse does. Cops are also so fkn untrustworthy now, they'd check through the phones of girls just to see what thay can see.
I can agree to that to a point, however, why the hell would anyone keep any sort in incriminating evidence on their phone anyway? You can take my phone right now and look through it, there's nothing on there that would get me on trouble or cause embarrassment either. Naturally, why the hell would there be?
@@MysticKnight7 It's simply none of their fkn business more than anything.
@@MysticKnight7 I mean why would anyone keep illegal substances inside their place of residence? Its convenient and people working within the law shouldnt be able to just randomly search your shit because of a cosmetic choice (Window Tint)
@@Abcwhatever I agree but your missing the point this guy was recently in prison. THEREFORE even though you did your time your STILL not an American with rights. THAT is why the LEO was able to get away with doing what they did. Also, the man knowing he was on probation did not fight the fact they did not have a warrant. They did this cause they could use the threat of incarceration against this man.
Abolish judicial immunity. Judges are more corrupt than ever!
It's called treason at this point. And it needs to be addressed in a public hearing.
They’re super lawyers
How wouldn’t they not be ?
They’re not even peers, they’re people the system works for and always worked for.
And how many more laws they gonna make ? New laws every year ??
USA starting to feel like Nazi Germany
Like the whole system.@@UncleSam-7.62
Maybe read a little before only taking this video as your source. His terms of parole, signed by him, allowed searches of electronic devices without cause. That point didn’t seem to be made clear here
The fact that they lied about "reluctantly" tells you they know it's a bad search.
yes should of been thorn odd when the lie was reveled
Yes! Police lied because they knew what they were doing was wrong and illegal. And Ninth Circuit said, Whoops. No it's not.
Conditions of his parole said he had to give up unlock for his phone. He gave up his rights when he signed the paper.
Also, as a part police accountability community, the tint as the reason for the stop rings all sorts of bells in my head. Im almost surprised there was no resisting or obstruction thrown at him for good measure.
It's all in the way the report is written. We need to hire third parties to write the police reports so that there isn't any bias.
The ninth circuit needs to be disbanded, disbarred, and replaced by judges that have read, understood, and desire to follow the Constitution.
Really.. Name one judge, cop, DA, politician, general, etc.. that has not failed to obey, support and defend the constitution against all enemies.. 😂😂😂
@@Gangsta1168so replace them all?! Great idea!
With the exception of Saint Benitez.
Btw, the 9th Circuit is the most overturned of all the Circuit courts.
Why stop there, the Supreme Court is literally exchanging rulings for gifts and cash. Often they argue literal reading and intent of the founding fathers to next weeks “interpretation” of intent. In a capitalist based society everything is for sale including your rights and freedoms. Vote blue vote red but for christs sake vote freedom!
It’s not those who hold the seats that are the problem. It’s the existence of that seat of power that is the problem
I suggest the courts start publishing these rulings in Russian, since they are so fond of the legal practices of the former Soviet Union.
The ninth circuit is a fucking circus.
Kangaroo court
surprising enough they did just make a good free speech ruling.... MEINECKE vs Seattle
street preacher assaulted by antifa, cops arrest preacher....didn't turn out so well for the city.
here in my country The Free Repulic of Arifkknzona.... we strain under the boot of the 9th CIRCUS
You should try the 5th circuit. Anything IP related, forget the facts, just rule in the favor of the one claiming the IP. Anything with the people vs government actors (police, etc) with video proof, the video is lying; the word of an officer is more reliable and trustworthy than the video evidence.
It's better than it was, thanks to recent appointments to its bench. Maybe this was an unlucky draw for a three judge panel.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
The ninth circus must have missed that part
The person here was on court supervision, and as a provision of that was required to provide access to electronic devices. These kinds of provisions are part and parcel of supervision (probation and parole). Searches of the person and their residence are standard as well as submitting to random drug screens. For some offenses, access to electronic devices may make sense. So on the whole, this has no bearing on anyone other than those on some kind of supervision by the Court.
They miss nearly everything. They are the most reversed circuit.
Reasonableness is almost entirely dependent upon how society views the victim.
I is the ninth circuit after all..:)
Not under the current SCOTUS
Remember this when you serve on a jury and disregard any evidence obtained that way.
I just served on a jury for a murder case. The cops had access to the phone belonging to the state's star witness--she gave them permission--and didn't even try to retrieve deleted messages from her phone even after she admitted she'd deleted some of the defendant allegedly threatening her. The cop who testified said that it's possible to retrieve them but that they'd need an upgraded version of the program they're using or another program they aren't currently using.
They got access to the defendant's phones a few days later when he was arrested. They didn't retrieve anything from them. No real explanation for that
That wasn't the only problem with the investigation but it was a big one.
They may not tell the jury that information. I think hearings to suppress evidence are done without the jury present. The most absurd thing in our judicial system is the court can decide to keep information from the jury.
Also remember Jury nullification
@@CognitiveHeatsink Well, the grand jury, as a member of that, you are responsible for interviewing the cops/witnesses and looking into the evidence, your job is to determine if there is sufficient evidence to even go to trial. So look out for it there.
We threw out a case about drug possession, because the cop claimed it was x amount of y drug, but it turns out they never even tested it while in their possession and it disappeared before it made it to the lab...you bet your ass we didn't go ahead with that case regardless of his testimony. It was fun to ask him questions about it though. The attorney even thanked us after the fact, because she had no idea how she could try such a case. There were more like that, but that one stuck with me.
@@williamharshman9572 That's one way to permanently get removed from jury duty. I mentioned it way back in the 90s and got 60 days for polluting the jury pool for mentioning when questioned.
There is a HUGE difference between being finger printed once arrested and forcing someone to unlocke their phone without being under arrest! This is a horrible violation of our constitutional rights.
If someone is on parole, it's like being in jail but walking around isn't it? They can search your jail cell without a warrant. They agree to no rights when getting out on parole, they're still under sentencing.
Well if that’s the case we the people can corner a judge and force the password to their phone and see what they think when we use it to catch them in their illegal activities behind the bench…
That judge needs to be disbarred
Never because YOU dont pick these judges. WE DO. ( The Federalists Society, google us)
By whom?? GODS?? 😂😂😂
@@3OBTPA really.. 😂😂😂
@@mayshacktheir lives
All the prisons are full I guess they must just be giving them new prisoners jobs in the system as judges and cops now.
The difference between getting your fingerprints taken for identification and using your fingerprint for opening your phone is gigantic. The judge needs to be barred from any courtroom.
To be able to use biometrics, and to avoid this from happening, you should also be able to use it together with a screen 3×3 grid pattern code, so only the fingerprint does not open, and the pattern does not open the phone without fingerprint, it is more annoying than just a fingerprint, but is safer against cases like these. Since the pattern requires cognitive thoughts. (Also using just the fingerprints could unlock just the hidden notifications, for convenience.
I only use a passcode I've known this for along time
Don't use your finger print for a password whomp whomp
@@kiefgaming1701
That's easier said than done dude. Finger print access is a nice alternative to passwords, cause most ppl nowadays can't remember their password.
correct ,so does thousand , yakking doesn't solve anything
Again I ask, why do so many of our "protectors" spend so much time, effort, and money trying to circumvent our protections.
Because it's not about protecting its about control
Well said.....unfortunately. next stop Berlin
Our branches are supposed to be civic minded and working against each other to preserve liberty and freedom.
Unfortunately our tripod has been a monopole for the past century.
America!!! land of the lost.
Because people who become law enforcement are mostly made of individuals who yearn for power. They have no interest in protecting anyone. Their interests lie on fulfilling their own wet dream of telling others what to do.
When involved with police. For iPhone, You can hold the power button and volume button to enter the restart screen then cancel and your phone will REQUIRE a passcode and biometrics can’t be used to unlock. Then you can access your camera app to film the police without unlocking your phone.
Or, how about this, don't do anything that leads to having to deal w/ cops. 😅 In 29 years of driving I think I was pulled over 3 times, 2 at least.
@@MysticKnight7 And how do you know when you might get stopped by a cop for nothing you did? You never know.
ya with android you can just reboot your phone normally, but when it boots up, same things bio won't work, you must enter code. pro tip: when you see them lights behind you, reboot your phone and forget about it, or just turn it off. also make sure your phone memory and sd card are both encrypted.
Also, you can press the power button 6 times and it will require the passcode.
When your phone is locked this way, it is ENCRYPTED
@@MysticKnight7that’s a very naive idea in this day and age of government thugs run amok
Minnesota supreme court just decided recently that the inside of your car is considered public property when you're driving on public property. Zero trust in the courts to do the right thing.
Really? Ugh. I'm embarrassed to be a MN resident....
That is a really stupid argument. So they are saying personal property becomes public property when it is no longer on private property. How can they enforce any theft charged with such a claim. It would be really nice if judges were actually required to have a brain outside of their ass.
In most large demorat cities the inside of your vehicle IS public property, easily accessed by breaking a window.
So that means that if I break into a car without causing destruction, I'm not breaking the law?
Holy moly I missed this ty
Blood draw tells you only whats in a person's blood, searching their phone reveals someone's entire life. If a blood draw requires a warrant this absolutely should.
You can probably access their medical records from the phone including blood draw history.
Stop putting aps on your phone. At least put them on your home computer.
@@bertroost1675that makes no sense for many of us. I have a phone for the apps. I don’t even have a computer 😂
Yes well said ty❤
not a good idea to take pics of your stash as well
Your honor, the defendant reluctantly signed the confession.
The defendant reluctantly opened the door to his house and then reluctantly showed us where the contraband was.
Exactly.
Honestly them lying about that should have ended the case. It should taint the evidence that comes after it.
"Was this before or after the defendant reluctantly broke his right orbital bone and three teeth against the poor defenseless fists of the arresting officer?"
People on Probation DO NOT have the right to refuse. You guys keep thinking this guy is an American? HE'S NOT! He's is a released prisoner and does not have the same rights as we do. This is what America is like. The reason cops arrest black men so much is they know once they are in the system they can be controlled by our white leaning radical judicial system. Wake up people! This is no longer the America we once knew.
FYI most phones have a security settings called lock down mode you hold the power button like you're turning it off then it goes into this mode that requires you're pass code not fingerprint
Right. And they will never get my pass code.
People forget judges are just as guilty of treason as police.
Much much worse. They have ACTUALLY studied the law.
Were the elements for treason met, that may be correct. Yet, they're not and it isn't.
Treason? That's absolutely ridiculous. Do you even know what it means?
And should face the penalty for doing so.
What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 60? "Your honor".
Is anyone surprised? The 9th Circuit is a kangaroo court.
9th Circus you mean.
Don't tell me, you trust the SCOTUS though? The whole legal/court system is a "kangaroo court", it isn't just one facet or section.
The moment he said 9th I had to laugh. It'll be overturned by SCOTUS. Just like the overwhelming majority of decisions the r3t@rds in CA's 9th Circuit had rendered.
@@scipher99 The 9th Circuit is a court which will do whatever possible to avoid obeying the Supreme Court.
@@richinoregon Yes I 100% aware of that and it is run just like a circus of the likes P.T. Barnum would be proud. Full of clowns.
There's a huge difference between fingerprinting someone for database cataloging to keep track of prisoners and identify them, and forcibly using their digits to unlock their personal device to provide evidence against them. Definitely needs a warrant. That judge needs to be removed.
No need for a warrant to open your safe right? We will just mash your thumb on it if its got a fingerprint scanner... And you better hope you don't have a fingerprint lock on your house. We will just mash your finger anywhere it'll grant us access right?
I'd say, using his thumb to unlock the phone is the = fingerprinting is the equivalent to taking a suspects car key and searching the car = terry frisk
@@wurgel1 Id argue it's worse... Taking keys and opening a car with them is still an illegal search but its a illegal search with no physical contact, Using a fingerprint is the same search without consent or a warrant but it's also a search with forceful physical contact.
@@towtruckaj how do you get the keys from the suspect without physical contact?
@@wurgel1 Keys are almost never on the person unless they have a newer car with remote start, and even still they are often in a bag or cupholder. getting the keys to unlock a car is a weird uncommon situation, so let me change the narrative and say the police want to search the locked trunk instead. They need the keys and the keys are more than likely not on the person, Means the only physical contact is the act of detaining them which in this story would have already happened.
Impeach these judges...
Nothing in my phone is illegal , but that doesn't mean I am obliged to allow access to prove it.
No court muppet is going to rummage through my personal information.
That’s the point tho. With over 7000 laws on the federal register one can’t possibly know which law if any has been broken. Then, while in custody for say doing a 1A audit, LE forces you to unlock your phone and you inadvertently tell on yourself for god knows what 😮
What good is the 4th amendment if I only use it to shield myself from criminal activities? Innocent people have rights too.
If you’re on parole, as this guy, you would have ‘literally’ signed away that right of privacy and in fact could be searched anytime and anywhere and for no reason at all.
It gets worse. If you leave the U.S. and return the CBP can require you to hand over your cellphone & password. They can copy it, download anything & it is perfectly legal without a warrant. Happens to Muslim Americans & many journalists often, particularly between Canada & Detroit. Consider buying a burner phone overseas or before travel. They can also detain you. They're conflating customs functions with suspension of Constitution based on whether you are formally in or outside of U.S. So much must be fixed after we vote to keep democracy.
cowardly preface
This is why I never use biometric locks
I always use passwords, and always in a foreign language 👍
Agreed
I never used them because I know how easy it is to burn my thumb making French fries, welding or poking a campfire, but now biometric tech is so good, it can be used pretty reliably even through all that.
Yes I know there has always been passcode backup for if you do burn your finger but it was never a perfect system in my opinion and could even be tricked by clever criminals.
Now that it has become super reliable and mostly safe, there’s _THIS_ crap happening. So I still don’t use it. Too bad, too, because I love experimenting with new tech but in this case it’s just not worth the problems caused by a whole different set of criminals.
@@heatshieldI also do not use face unlock.
If doing away with our biometrics, could they the same make us enter our password?
This is not right. The judges should be removed from office and their licenses to practice law revoked.
it was a condition of his parole.
People don't listen?@@kevincornell1439
Basically he was free but had to behave like he was in jail
Judges, law enforcement & lawyers will never turn on even the WORST of their own.
There is one judge in CA that was drunk driving and killed a guy. The guy was walking down the side of the road in a poorly lit area. The judge swerved and hit him than fled the scene. 3 Hours later he called the police to go find the guy and come give him a breath test, no blood draw was taken. At that time the judge still blew .12 so who knows what he was when he hit the guy. In court the judge got off completely free after he somehow argued the death was the result of the guy walking at night without proper protective gear.
@@redtiger7268 another skilled application of blame the v1ct1m.
The guy was on parole. He can be searched at any time. So this needs to go to a higher court.
Should be "Fruit from the poisonous tree".
The 9th circuit circus.
Should be and hopefully will be. Sadly police can lie to us, but even now seemingly in reports, depositions, and testimony it is not only accepted, but applauded. "Reluctantly agreed" (while cuffed}, I'm losing all faith we can survive as a Republic.
I want to know how they got from window tint to arrested and in the back of a police car.
@@W1ldt1m seems extreme, my daughters B-in-L was violated for making a phone call to his ex (dumb move, could cost him over 4 years back in prison), but window tint??
All judges should be removed from the bench when 30% or more of their decisions are overturned
Was close friends with a retired, 3-letter Agency, employee. He once contemptuously said "I've got no use for the Constitution."
I'm glad you said "was close friends...". Doesn't sound like a good friend to have.
The sad thing is that they know what it says and they knowingly lie to get around it. I am a firm believer in supporting law enforcement, but I will never support liars.
Sounds like someone I wouldn't want to associate with.
Law Enforcement agents should be charged with treason for violating Constitutional rights.....
Getting a warrant while they wait along the side of the road opens it up to even more abuse. Imagine having a judge on standby waiting to sign a warrant for the most trivial reasons.
This is why you NEVER use anything other than a PIN to unlock your phone. No fingerprint, no facial recognition, only a PIN you memorize.
On Android, if you longpress the power button one of the options is "Lockdown", which forces use of the PIN. My understanding is that you cant be compelled to provide a code without a warrant.
Agreed, but I'd give you the thumbs up anyway just for not putting the redundant "number" after PIN. 😺
Don’t use the number PIN. That is vulnerable to a brute-force attack. You want to use an Alphanumeric Password, preferably a lengthy password.
With face recognition.
Just close your eyes, it won’t work
@@HariSeldon913 Agreed!
All the judges in the 9th circuit should be forced to give up access to their cell phones.
Right there with the Supreme Court.
And their houses, don't forget that part, as long as there is evidence to justify the search after the fact. It's guilty till proven innocent in their court room, hold them to it too.
They should be forced to give up their oxygen privileges.
Are all the judges in the 9th Circuit on active parole?
Smart folks use HOME phones for conversations that they want to keep private, as cell phones are NOT private, as they are radio transmitting and receiving devices, and the radio waves are PUBLIC DOMAIN.
I would 100% donate to appealing this outrageous decision. Those judges ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Judges have god complexes and lack shame
GOA
Equating a thumb scan on a phone to fingerprinting for an Arrest is beyond egregious, it’s completely absurd.
@@carstenrobbins557 ?
That judge messed up. Once someone with money or in a position of power goes through the same thing, a judge willl say no they cannot.
What people don't understand is the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the judges.
You mean Judges and Cops don't understand this. Or they do, but don't care.
@@jeffm6342 Both; Judges and cops, and Lawyers are strictly bound by the statues of the state, which is a different from the Constitution.
You are the one who doesn't understand! The Constitution that doesn't exist anymore doesn't send people with guns to kill you!
@@CharlesWilson-zs3vd and who decides what the Constitution says/means?
I feel like you failed high school civics.
Why was he in handcuffs for tinted windows? A vehicle infraction is NOT a parole violation. There is more to this story than we are being told.
if you look at the court's opinion, they mention that his parole conditions included that police and parole officers could search him and his property at any time without a warrant or probable cause. They often handcuff a person when they do this (the now-famous "officer safety")
@adrianmizen5070 and how this isn't harassment is mind boggling.
@@TimothyWelty Because when you are on parole or probation, you inherently give up certain rights, it's how it works.
@@TimothyWelty because it's still a popular opinion that "once a criminal, always a criminal." And that doing your legally-mandated time is somehow not enough. We've decided that any criminality means that it's ok to strip people of their rights. They can't vote, they can't have privacy, they are not entitled to minimum wage even when they are loaned out to private companies and receiving pay. It's all part of the larger plan to make being X illegal. They did it to liberals, hispanics, blacks, and the impoverished with weed. Take something that is legal from marginalized groups, make it illegal, and render that whole demographic as 'criminal' to silence them, stripping them of their rights and ways to fight back :/
@@adrianmizen5070 So this is just clickbait? If he was parole, then yea they should be allowed to search his phone.
The job of the courts is as a check and balance to insure the Constitution is followed - NOT TO INVENT WAYS TO CIRCUMVENT IT!
Not in the USSA the land of no freedom!
Steve lehto here is a Question. What if I had a finger print lock on my home, would they be able to make me open it up to search also?
Need to hold judges criminally accountable
Hire a PI to investigate all of them.
1939 Germany is unfolding around us. The Government is Out of Control.
USSR 1922-91, DDR 1948-90
Is it time yet?
@@yoretabio4537 People really have this thing on the brain too much, mostly due to Hollywood movies. They don't realize the mentality that is in America isn't Nazi Germany but Bolshevik Russia and Stasi Germany.
The judiciary is getting out of control with activist judges exercising their ideological beliefs in their court rooms instead of being impartial triers of fact.
@@AsaTrenchard1865you meant time for well-trained law obeying slaves to give consent, power, legitimacy, 💵 and weapons to gangsters to be their masters?? 😂😂😂
They have voted themselves to be exempt from ALL OF THIS TOO .
It's time we change that.
This is what living in a police state looks like!
Of course they are exempt!
@@harmonicamanrandyhow?
Biometric unlocking never has been a security feature, it's a convenience function. Just use a Pin and don't make online backups, that is what gives law enforcement access.
I got one more than that. I don't use a PIN at all! I use a password that is 16 characters long and uses Military Encryption Algorithm. I don't play now that AI is alive.
What are they going to do when I refuse? Torture me? Beat me to death? Call me bad names? Charge me with something? I would never use biometrics for exactly that reason. It's a no-brainer. Never, ever use biometrics for anything important.
As Lehto mentioned, once there is a warrant, they can throw you in jail for contempt of court until you comply.
@@adrianmizen5070they can only keep you for 6 months
Contempt of court is truth.
That's a *HUGE* violation of rights.
He was on parole. We got it. 👍
What rights?
He’s on parole.
To an extent. If he's on parole, he doesn't have many right s as you and I.
Which rights? A judge deemed forcing a fingerprint on anything is Constitutional. I don't agree with it on phones, so I think there needs to be distinguishment in law. However, there's an argument to be made that taking a fingerprint could tie you to a crime so therefore could be considered self-incriminating evidence, and fingerprinting could be considered free speech.
@@watamatafoyu so, hypothetically, if you had a biometric lock on your house, the police could force your thumb onto it and search your home without a warrant? I don't think so. I think the key here is that he was on parole, and the us justice system doesn't believe criminals have rights.
The 9th Circuit needs a refresher course in Constitutional Law.
Can you imagine how bad they will get when lawyers don't have to pass the bar exam there?
They don’t care.
I am not understanding the uproar on this. It is still not legal for them to do this to you unless you are also a parolee. He signed several forms just to be able to go on parole that allowed law enforcement to search both his property, including his phone, and any place he is staying and vehicle he is travelling in without a warrant. Heck, him just not wanting to unlock his phone would be grounds to be immediately remanded into the custody of the jail/prison and loss of parole status AND he would still be required to have his phone unlocked without a warrant. You give up a lot of freedoms when you are on parole since the only other option is to still be serving your sentence.
@@nathanc8478 the uproar is that this is what is known as a "precedent." If another court somewhere wants to do this to a non-parolee, this is something they can use as a means to say "it's ok" when it isn't.
@@GReaper that is not how precedence works. This will only mean that people on parole will not be able to secure their phones against searches (which they already were not). That is all this ruling will ever stand for. This case cannot be used for a cop breaking into your phone, and if a cop tires to then they will face a lawsuit since that is a clear 4th amendment violation where the courts have ruled on already (and upheld the rights of people to keep their phones secure from searches without a warrant).
That's why the phones providers set the phones up with this feature. To help the gov't.
I would argue that it’s not like taking my finger print. It’s like breaking into my house without a warrant. The government is getting to big and needs to be downsized by whatever means necessary.
Read the book INCOME TAX shattering the myths by Dave champion. Amazing book. Shows you how corrupt the government is and how we got here. Also shows you how to fix it Atleast as far as your personal life. He hasn’t paid income tax in 31 years. The government duped everyone into believing they owe an income tax. Thatsss how they are so big and so bloated now. They make trillions illegally off us every year.
Yeah the finger print part is irrelevant. Even if the phone was unlocked it should be an illegal search.
I agree, By Whatever Means.
Just wait until biometrics unlock locks to a house
@@kfin45 A finger print vs using the finger to unlock a phone is akin to surgery vs a stabbing. Same actions, same tools, very different purposees.
The constitution will be toilet paper eventually.
Basically there. Today's courts just don't care about a long-held precedent. They just use it as toilet paper just like the Constitution.
Eventually?
Will be? 😂
"Always has been"
Don't insult toilet paper like that. Toilet paper will at least remain useful.
The whole “being a parolee “ is what got him hemmed up.
Our government’s way of instilling fear into its citizens is second to none.
North Korea joins the chat.
Right. Being a parolee alone isn’t a crime. Why would window tint be more than a fine?
Being a parolee is being a convict serving your time on the street. You ARE subject to searches by law enforcement at anytime without a warrant as a condition of release!
Yeah If the guy didn't want to follow the rules of parole he could just stay in jail, Where you also don't have a right to privacy.
Both parties just renewed 911 removal of privacy and indefinite incarceration for precrime.
I voted with my feet and left the USA for good. Best decision of my life!
The Court / Judiciary is wrong! Do not comply to unjust rulings or laws.
This is sickening. As you pointed out, our phones these days have soooo much info on us. GPS tracking, contacts, photos, search history, etc. To think that any judge would think, "Eh, who needs a warrant?" is beyond incompetent.
Yeah it's malicious. Not incompetent.
This is why you have a second amendment.
@patrickfurlong4276 Lot's of people have their banking info on their phones, I have to do a great deal of work from my phone. I would say most people's banking data is on their phones to include cards and financial apps, as well as nudes various men/women sent them. The cops are simply the biggest gang of criminals, I wouldn't trust them with a pic of my grandmother.
I don't care what these constitutional traitors say. I know my rights.
Good luck with that, but yeah I feel ya.... Fascism, fuck ya!!
Everybody thinks they know their rights but I’m willing to bet they almost always DO NOT.
Your rights are whatever the government currently says they are, and those judges are the ones who can change which rights you have.
First Amendment they don't like at all 😂
@@mackenziepenny1335 it's illegal to change any constitutional & American amendment rights
The ability to gain access does not equal the permission to do so.
If the door to my house is unlocked, that does not give the officer permission to search the house. Just because I got pulled over for rolling thru a stop sign, does not grant permission to search the trunk of my car. I don't see how this is any different.
Digital property is still private property just like the trunk of your car or the interior of your house. I don't understand why it should be treated any differently.
Right! And don't use your thumb print for unlocking it. Use the 4 digit code. "I forgot the code, guess cause I'm so nervous". 😡
@@mikewillett5076 Use more digits... 😂
Being on parole, on condition that you allow lawful searches, is the permission.
Also, just like the trunk of your car, if the police turn up with a warrant to search your phone, you can unlock your phone or get arrested.
@@himagainstill That's a fair point. I didn't make this clear but, while I feel some lines may be blurred with the handling of this by the officers I don't have too much issue with the case itself. It's the distinction the judge made of gaining access to the phone's data like this being no different than taking the man's fingerprint. This feels like a bit of a dangerous elaboration.
@@atsernov Maybe I misunderstood this part, but my understanding is that the judge predicated that, along with most of the rest of the decision, on the suspect being a parolee, and that very little of what was decided was general.
Great video Mr. Lehto, I removed the biometric unlock from my phone immediately after watching. My privacy is important to me and I don't want my phone to be free real estate to cops.
Man, between the courts and the cops, we are skirting awfully close to fascism.
@michaelgarrity6090, skirting? We are almost there. It's just haven't revealed itself.
I'm 46 years old and have moved all over the 48 states every year. I have seen nothing but Fascism from coast to coast my whole life. So what do you mean awfully close to?
Nah, we’re full blown there
It's not fascism and it's not communism, it's anarcho-tyranny.
@@RipMinnerif you think that, you have never experienced real fascism. Consider yourself lucky and fight against REAL fascism. Like trump will bring.
Not only didn't they get Warrant for his Phone, but they also searched his House (according to the Read story) WITHOUT a Warrant. using the Keys they took off the man's Person. The 9th Circuit is the most overturned Circuit in the U.S. Legal System, cause MOST of those Judges refuse to follow the U.S. Constitution.
Pretty sure parolees don't have to get a warrant to have their homes searched.
Part of the conditions of their release.
@@khatdubellthat sounds correct. I don’t remember the exact wording but you do lose some rights when on parole. Warrantless searches and seizures are not unconstitutional for parolees. I think it’s primarily the 4th that you lose. I need to look into that
How are we ever going to have a true justice system if judges are not held accountable?
Dude, he was on parole. A condition of parole is the cops can come and search your house day or night, any time, without any warrant. You are out on conditional release, and one of those conditions you agree to is giving up your right to privacy. Same for your phone. You agree to give them all passwords and everything when you go on parole.
@@Yerocco lose some Rights? No you basically lose all your rights.
So much for the Constitutional Republic we're supposed to live in.
That was overthrown in 2020
He is on parol. They do not have the same constitutional rights anymore
Just keep a burner phone, with no texts or photos on it, with you at all times. “My phone? Sure. No problem. Here ya go officer.”
We do not live in the same America any longer. This is a dystopia.
Always has been, we just have better news sources now.
Is it time yet?
You've just now realized what has always been true.
Yes we do. This has happened to Black people all the time. Now it’s everyone!
@@JS-pe7uc It has not always been this way. Try some history.
Moral of the story is to disable facial unlock and fingerprint unlock. Law enforcement, as of 4-26-2024, cannot compel you to unlock your phone if you use a passcode or password.
You're forgetting that in this specific instance his parole terms required him to turn over any electronic devices and their password(s). Mind you, they still should've gotten a warrant, and it would've been a slam-dunk warrant due to the nature of those parole terms, so I would say that this case is not representative of most normal circumstances.
@@Razmoudahany attempt to open my phone results in about 5 seconds or less for it to erase itself. You need my password to shut it down. The battery does not remove.
We need to get rid of this mindset that you need to have something to hide in order to want your privacy and security
I have it backed up to an encrypted system at a location that is not at my house. It takes one wrong entry of my passcode. It also knows if somebody's trying to open it with any software or hardware that the police typically use.
There are people that know a lot about phones everyone should find one and they should make sure people encrypt their devices to the highest possible modern encryption.
@@Razmoudah I mean, we'll see how quickly it'll set a precedent to affect other people in other circumstances.
@Not_that_Brian_Jones Oh, I agree that the way things are worded in the judgment is very poor and far to open to being abused.
@@Razmoudah what if you really just forgot your pin?
What a utterly RIDICULOUS ruling!!! 😡
He is on parol. They do not have the same rights as law-abiding citizens.
@@JayRSwan Understood. And I think it’s spelled “parole”.
@@mumblesbadly7708 lol you right!
They can lawfully order me to do it. They can even get a judge to sign off on it.
But they don't have any right to make me do anything
Excellent point. The Constitution merely states rights we would have had regardless of it, or any of its amendments, being enacted. Our Constitution merely makes it very hard for our governments to abridge those rights.
They can hold you at gunpoint to do it.
@@Loku242 o well FUCK THE ALL !
I think the judge's point is that the man performed no action. He didnt "do anything". Someone else moved him.
if there's a warrant, they do have the right to throw you in jail and keep you there until you comply
Take your country back people. THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE.
Your country?? 😂😂😂
You first.
That just asking for the chaff to be grinded why you laugh at the minerals.
Vote blue 💙💙💙💙
@@Subject_Keter ITS ON ITS WAY TRUST ME
@@Gangsta1168 YUP I TOOK THE OATH
I foresee a number of cases of suspects being knocked unconscious and their phones magically being found unlocked.
Well...we no longer have the right to remain silent.🤦🙄💩
*This is why I don’t use any biometric features on any devices. I use a custom alpha-numeric password that I tend to forget when I get a little stressed out. Call me “old fashioned”* 🤷🏼
4Sure
That's why I don't use biometrics.
This was very much wrongly decided, I can't believe that actual jurists signed off on this.
Yeah if I was a juror and I heard the defendant had been searched without a warrant that would sway me towards a not guilty verdict and it would take some pretty serious evidence for me to find them guilty. The Judge might say you can't consider whether or not they had a warrant but then I'd think of some other excuse to find them not guilty.
the jurors do not take part in that suppression hearing.
@@Weathernerd27 Jurors do NOT have to give an explanation why they say guilty or not guilty. Not to the judge, not to the court, not to either the prosecutor or the defense attorney. If the jury trial requires all jurors to say guilty, 1 juror saying not guilty does set the person free. it ends in hung jury and "possibly" a retrial with a knew jury.
* note that the word "jurist" generally refers to a lawyer or judge... I guess I wasn't clear in my choice of wording
Unlawful search and seizure
I had a couple of thoughts listening to this:
1. Judges should pay a price every time they get reversed by a higher court. I like the "three strikes and you're out" rule from baseball. You get reversed three times, and you're barred from being a judge for life.
2. As Ayn Rand pointed out, you can't force a mind. Remove the fingerprint on your phone. They can't force your PIN code.
I had the same thought, only my belief is that if three rulings are overturned on a Constitutional basis, a judge should be dismissed and barred from being a judge for life. The quality of our court rulings would improve significantly.
Yep. "Sorry officer, I just can't remember it."
@@mikewillett5076 Because of the stressful situation of being forced, this is entirely plausible 😊...
Or if you can't tell them the code because it's more muscle memory (in my case) rather than actually remembering the numbers/digits, you may mistype 10x until the phone wipes its backside 😂
@@alli3219 . Yeah, or just before you hand it to them you do a complete reboot of your phone. Sure you have to reinstall all of your apps but if it thwarts those goons, it's worth it!
This is why we need to drastically curtail judicial immunity. Violating the Constitution should be a jailable offense.
Violating your rights is treason 😊
Are you just typing at random? How would they be held accountable? Who would judge an appellate court as a body?
Who decides
@@timothy4664 That's the tricky part, isn't it. There's functionally very little oversight of the judicial system. I think that questionable cases concerning constitutional rights should lead to an impeachment inquiry of the judges to determine whether or not they violated their oathes to the constitution. Judges have a legitimate role in interpreting the constitution, but if their judicial judgement strays this far from the plain language of the constitution they should be subject to the impeachment process.
@@JuicetheeunuchHow was king george held accountable?
Thats why I always use a code. No face, no thumbs, no fingers.
Never use biometrics unless one of the steps includes a password.
Absolutely. I use a 10-digit code of randomly selected numbers. No thumbprints or facial recognition on any of my devices.
How would you remember a random 10 digit code?
@@userac-xpgthe code doesn't need to be completely random, it just needs to be memorable and not simple.
For example 2653589793 is going to be hard to guess but it's not really random either. I'm not going to explain why this is memorable to me.
@@userac-xpg It's no more difficult than remembering a phone number.
He was on parole. The terms and conditions he agreed to allow them to search anything he owns any time of day or night with or without a warrant. It usually called a 5 way search. Person, home, vehicle, place of work, electronic devices.
I was looking for someone to mention this. I don’t see an issue now.
That may have been how this started, but now that the circuit court has ruled that its no different than them being Fingerprinted,
Anyone under arrest could be subjected to this. That's the point.
There’s a difference between submitting a device to them and actively participating in the search of that device.
In this case the officers overstepped by forcing the man’s “cooperation”
How OLD are these judges that they don't understand the difference between a fingerprint and a thumbprint lock?! It's a kind of lock, not an identifier! They would've needed a warrant to force him to give them a number code to unlock it!
Exactly! When they get your finger prints it's making a copy of your biometrics, it unlocks nothing. It might tell them who you are but nothing else about you.
A biometric fingerprint on a phone is used as a key in a description algorithm to un-encrypt the data.
Its existence as a physical part of you, as opposed to an ethereal memory in your head, is irrelevant. What is important is its purpose and function.
The government, or anyone else by that matter, would not have any extended rights to your house if it was secured by a thumb print reader, a card reader, or a conventional key, as they are all being used to obviously secure your private property.
You’re assuming those judges are being honest about their reasoning.
It seems more likely they actually want to allow this to help those cops stay out of trouble, and allow more cops to easily get evidence.
If you were paying attention, you'd have noticed that they didn't need a warrant because the guy was on parole and part of his parole conditions was consenting to searches.
@@himagainstill That is a common condition, but not in all states! (I forget what state this case is in.) Did Steve mention that and where? I find it hard to believe that he would miss that detail.
Have little to no confidence in the justice system today and hope to find an alternative to this dystopian society.
I agree with you. I have been considering the possibilities of Guyana, Northern Africa, and Northern India as alternative places to live based on the cost of living in those regions.
@@priebess I’ll be looking at Malaysia and Chile for second passports.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
How could any court not consider a phone as papers and effects?
Because parolees have no papers and effects. They have no rights.
Under long established precedent, a search immediately after arrest is considered a reasonable search, regardless of whether there is a warrant. The defense didn't even argue 4th amendment issues. The issue in the case was the 5th amendment prohibition on compelled self-incrimination.
It would be nice if the search incident to arrest exemption were limited to making sure the arrestee didn't have anything dangerous on his or her person when being taken into custody, but alas the courts have never supported that idea.
@@adrianmizen5070 so he was arrested for dark tint....doesn't make sense....there is more to this
@@nightbreed7222 I mean.. Many stops are targeted. They use whatever reason they want, you think you're talking to a traffic cop, but it's really a narcotics cop who believes you have ties to XYZ drug activities. Traffic law is so convoluted that any driver could be pulled over for any number of reasons. It's created a system in which a fishing expedition is entirely legal when they pull you over for other reasons despite the fact that it should be illegal to pull you over under what amounts to trumped up charges. All they need is you doing 36 in a 35 and they can harass you endlessly for their drug bust.
@@panicwithcompulsion true
On an I-phone, going to the shut down screen (even if it's canceled) will disable all biometrics (fingerprint or facial recognition) until the (alpha-) numeric pass code is entered. Not sure how others work.
This is absolutely CRAZY!!! Does the constitution even apply in America anymore?
Hasn't since Tricky Dicky started his unconstitutional "war on (some) drugs "and some people" and Ronnie Ray guns expanded the "war on drugs" and Bush the elder started his war for oil, and Bush the dumber tore up what was left of the constitution with his (un)Patriot Act and comrade Trumpski lined his depends with the remnants while felating Chaiman Kim and comrade Putin...
Well, the Constitution Grants govt authority. So if they want to nullify it, then there goes their authority...
Never did for the serfs. Learn what the English language actually is and how to interpret what the words mean in those documents.
It protects corporations, the very wealthy, politicians, but you and me, no. A worthless piece of paper is all it is now.
He was on Parole, so required to cooperate to a greater extent than Joe Public.
This is outrageous. It's why i will NEVER use biometrics.
No here is what you do, still use biometrics, But have it on your pinky.
Just set the phone to erase itself after too many failed password attempts then enter the wrong password until that happens. Nobody can prove you forgot or mistyped it.
Same here.
My phone biometric will allow me to unlock the phone. But if I restart my phone biometrics will not unlock it. have to enter the passcode.
Frequently breaking the law?
I lost my passcode along with my firearms in that boating mishap.
Don’t forget it’s all about innocent until proven guilty. Our rights protect us from false prosecution!
The reasoning the courts have used to ERRONEOUSLY allow searches of vehicles without warrants is that 'cars are not 'repositories of personal information', except they sometimes are.
So, now, the police and courts have gotten so used to violating the 4th Amendment, they have blown past the reasoning they were using and are now just saying they don't have to follow the 4th if they don't want to.
Ah, ninth circuit. Will be overturned.
Certainly hope so!
@@zomie1 only in ninth circuit land. I live in the fifth circuit. It's not precedent here.
Almost always.
@@zomie1yeah.. Let's keep VOTING for gangsters to be your masters then BEG for CHANGE in the meantime.. 😂😂😂
@@kitsuneneko2567don't you know where CA goes, the rest of well-trained law obeying slaves follow?? 😂😂😂
If he is on parole, they have rights to search his person and property at any time. This should not be applicable to the general public.
Oops! precedent sure is a funny thing! now it'll get argued forever! Whoopsie! definitely not on purpose guys
Every 4,5,6 amendment case starts with the worst criminals, murderers, child predators etc, but the results are ultimately held against all people.
The problem is from what Lehto read that isn't the precedent that was set. The Judge compared it to fingerprinting which is something most if not all of us would be compelled to do if arrested
Regardless of being on parole or not he should have the rights the majority of people like to pretend to exist!
@@madhippy3 But he wasn't arrested, he was getting a traffic ticket for window tint.
Americans have every rights to defend themselves against tyranny
We used to!!!!
This is precisely why I use a code instead of thumbprint. I recall years back one of the courts (don't know if it was Texas or Supreme Court) saying that police can make you open with a fingerprint, but for a code, they have to have a search warrant.
I don't have anything illegal on my phone, but that doesn't mean they can look through it for free; same goes for my house.
I know the feeling.
I once was stopped and they asked to search my vehicle because they "smelled" something.
I informed him his "sniffer" was broken. Then I very patiently waited over 45 minutes for the drug dog.
(Yes, I know I didn't have to wait that long.I had plenty of time)
I just sat under the shade of a tree drink a Coke and played games on my phone.
Then when the drug dog "hit" on the car I informed him that the dog's sniffer must be as broken as his.
They spent over an hour searching the car.
Naturally, they didn't find a damn thing.
So, I filed a complaint with the Police chief.
Then I had a private conversation with each and every city council member.
In the end every cop was required to attend an updated "retraining" course.
All 23 of them.
Good on ya... 😂 👩🏻🦰🇦🇺🩷🇺🇸
They'll always try to pin $#!√ on anyone, even if no reasonable suspicion. Unlock your phone, they'll find something, for sure... 😮
@@windmillacres679well done 👍🏻✅
This is one reason why I will never use a finger prints or face scanner to unlock my phone. This ruling is b.s. to the nth degree.
If you're on parole or probation, they think they own you, and they pretty much do.
Of course, parole is not a right, they are still under the jurisdiction of the system until they complete their sentence. This might be a story if not for the parole part, otherwise it's a nothing-burger.
It's very common for them to inflate suspended sentences for this reason. Sure you did 6 months in jail but you have 20 years suspended so whether you're supervised or not they just grease you up whenever they please
I'm pretty sure the person has the right to reject the conditions of parole and remain in prison, but I doubt anyone has.
I'm ok with a lesser expectation of privacy when on parole. You are still serving your sentence. I am not ok with being forced to unlock your phone without a search warrant. Though being on parole I suspect getting a warrant is a pretty easily done thing. "Your honor, he's on parole" ... "warrant granted". Probation and suspended sentence it seems to my you should have to show just cause. You may still be serving a sentence and good behavior is expected but you are also in a situation where you are more restored to society than when on parole.
You give up your constitutional rights when you contract with the government by signing the parole, probation papers.. probation and parole is lucrative for the government. This is why you see people given short sentences with long probation periods to follow. It's all a racket. Prison industrial complex.
That's when you activate Purge mode. Good luck after that
this court is filled with traitors
"These courts are", rather.
This is CRAZY! I have permanently removed biometrics because of this. I been downloaded Attorney Shield, and I thank you for uploading this!
i JUST DELETED MY FINGERPRINTS till that gets thrown out! They would never get me to give my passcode!. Watch out for corrupt judges and lets weed them out one way or another!
Are you on parole?
there's basically only one way.
@@dianeladico1769 Nope. I deleted the phones memory of my finger prints. What did you think?
Great content & presentation! Thank you.
I am concerned. I would be absolutely outraged if this were not a part of a condition of parole agreement.
The way the police worded their report should be proof that they KNEW that they were violating the law.
Yes, the only way to stop this nonsense is prison time, under 18 USC 242.
They would rather be bullies and demonstrate dominance over somebody they feel free to abuse with impunity ...
“Anything you say or DO” can be used against you so unlocking the phone should be doing something that’s protected and would violate the 5th amendment. Absolutely!💯
The man is on parol; He no longer has a 4th amendment. He lost those rights when he showed he couldn't be trusted with them after trying to kill someone
Good point!
If this stands then Law enforcement has the right to make me open my door to my home without a warrant. The ruling will Undoubtedly be overturned. Either lawfully through SCOTUS or lawfully through Rebellion against tyranny, one way or another this unlawful injustice will not stand.
Don't assume it will....this is a drug case, and in the past 50 years, with almost zero exceptions, the courts have destroyed the 4th amendment on drug cases
Is it time yet?
Do NOT use biometrics for security. It is not secure and never has been secure. It is something you are and that means if it is compromised you are screwed. You leave this information behind you as you go through your day.
No, if this stands then law enforcement has the right to make you open your door to your home without a warrant if you've agreed in advance that you will open your door to your home without a warrant. The suspect was on parole, and the conditions of his parole included agreeing to be searched. The judge was explicit that this doesn't create a blanket right to conduct a warrantless nonconsensual search.