FL1: Recognizing conflict in many courts on compelled password production, court takes a middle ground: state must show what it wants with “reasonable particularity”

“To what extent does the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination protect a suspect in a criminal case from the compelled disclosure of a password to an electronic communications device in the state’s possession? Courts differ in their legal analysis of this question, resulting in no consensus in state and federal courts; indeed, different approaches currently exist between two Florida appellate courts on the topic. In this case, we conclude that the proper legal inquiry on the facts presented is whether the state is seeking to compel a suspect to provide a password that would allow access to information the state knows is on the suspect’s cellphone and has described with reasonable particularity.” Here they did not, and the order is quashed. Pollard v. State, 2019 Fla. App. LEXIS 9667 (1st Dist. June 20, 2019).

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Privileges. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.