FL1: Foregone conclusion exception applies to compelling def’s cell phone password

The foregone conclusion exception applies to compelling defendant’s cell phone password, thus distinguishing Pollard v. State, 287 So. 3d 649 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). Varn v. State, 2020 Fla. App. LEXIS 12478 (Fla. 1st DCA Sept. 3, 2020):

The record in this case is a stark contrast to that in Pollard, in which the information sought was described only generally, broadly, and without specifics. Id. at 651-52. Here, the State already knew exactly what child pornography Petitioner received and viewed through the “Sexynelly16” account. Further, Petitioner admitted he had control over the phone and used it to access that account. While we do not hold that this level of specificity is always required to trigger the foregone conclusion exception—it is not—we find that on this record, the State’s discovery of the pertinent information on Petitioner’s cell phone is a foregone conclusion, falling within the exception to the Fifth Amendment.

That being the case, Petitioner has no legal right to prevent the State from obtaining his cell phone passcode. He cannot demonstrate irreparable harm as required to obtain certiorari relief, and we dismiss the Petition. See Amalgamated Transit Union, 264 So. 3d at 378.