A minor was in juvenile court for being in an accident under the influence. The police wanted the contents of his cell phone. The juvenile court’s order for him to disclose the password to his cell phone is quashed because it’s testimonial. The trial court’s conclusion the contents of the phone was known was a “foregone conclusion” was rejected. G.A.Q.L. v. State, 2018 Fla. App. LEXIS 15240 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct. 25, 2018):
Two passcodes stand in the way of the state accessing the contents of a phone alleged to belong to a minor. The state sought, and the trial court agreed, to compel the minor to provide two passcodes, finding that “the act of producing the passcodes is not testimonial because the existence, custody, and authenticity of the passcodes are a foregone conclusion.” We disagree. The minor is being compelled to “disclose the contents of his own mind” by producing a passcode for a phone and a password for an iTunes account. Further, because the state did not show, with any particularity, knowledge of the evidence within the phone, the trial court could not find that the contents of the phone were already known to the state and thus within the “foregone conclusion” exception. We grant the minor’s petition for writ of certiorari and quash the trial court’s order compelling the disclosure of the two passcodes.