https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/10/police-cant-demand-you-reveal-your-phone-passcode-and-then-tell-jury-you-refused Skip to main content * About + Contact + Press + People + Opportunities * Issues + Free Speech + Privacy + Creativity and Innovation + Transparency + International + Security * Our Work + Deeplinks Blog + Press Releases + Events + Legal Cases + Whitepapers * Take Action + Action Center + Electronic Frontier Alliance + Volunteer * Tools + Privacy Badger + HTTPS Everywhere + Surveillance Self-Defense + Certbot + Atlas of Surveillance + Cover Your Tracks + Crocodile Hunter * Donate + Donate to EFF + Shop + Other Ways to Give + Membership FAQ * Donate + Donate to EFF + Shop + Other Ways to Give * Search form Search [ ] --------------------------------------------------------------------- Email updates on news, actions, and events in your area. Join EFF Lists * Copyright (CC BY) * Trademark * Privacy Policy * Thanks Electronic Frontier Foundation Donate Electronic Frontier Foundation * About + Contact + Press + People + Opportunities * Issues + Free Speech + Privacy + Creativity and Innovation + Transparency + International + Security * Our Work + Deeplinks Blog + Press Releases + Events + Legal Cases + Whitepapers * Take Action + Action Center + Electronic Frontier Alliance + Volunteer * Tools + Privacy Badger + HTTPS Everywhere + Surveillance Self-Defense + Certbot + Atlas of Surveillance + Cover Your Tracks + Crocodile Hunter * Donate + Donate to EFF + Shop + Other Ways to Give + Membership FAQ * Donate + Donate to EFF + Shop + Other Ways to Give * Search form Search [ ] Police Can't Demand You Reveal Your Phone Passcode and Then Tell a Jury You Refused DEEPLINKS BLOG By Andrew Crocker October 21, 2021 [mobile-pri] Police Can't Demand You Reveal Your Phone Passcode and Then Tell a Jury You Refused Share It Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Copy link [mobile-privacy] The Utah Supreme Court is the latest stop in EFF's roving campaign to establish your Fifth Amendment right to refuse to provide your password to law enforcement. Yesterday, along with the ACLU, we filed an amicus brief in State v. Valdez, arguing that the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination prevents the police from forcing suspects to reveal the contents of their minds. That includes revealing a memorized passcode or directly entering the passcode to unlock a device. In Valdez, the defendant was charged with kidnapping his ex-girlfriend after arranging a meeting under false pretenses. During his arrest, police found a cell phone in Valdez's pocket that they wanted to search for evidence that he set up the meeting, but Valdez refused to tell them the passcode. Unlike many other cases raising these issues, however, the police didn't bother seeking a court order to compel Valdez to reveal his passcode. Instead, during trial, the prosecution offered testimony and argument about his refusal. The defense argued that this violated the defendant's Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, which also prevents the state from commenting on his silence. The court of appeals agreed, and now the state has appealed to the Utah Supreme Court. As we write in the brief: The State cannot compel a suspect to recall and share information that exists only in his mind. The realities of the digital age only magnify the concerns that animate the Fifth Amendment's protections. In accordance with these principles, the Court of Appeals held that communicating a memorized passcode is testimonial, and thus the State's use at trial of Mr. Valdez's refusal to do so violated his privilege against self-incrimination. Despite the modern technological context, this case turns on one of the most fundamental protections in our constitutional system: an accused person's ability to exercise his Fifth Amendment rights without having his silence used against him. The Court of Appeals' decision below rightly rejected the State's circumvention of this protection. This Court should uphold that decision and extend that protection to all Utahns. Protecting these fundamental rights is only more important as we also fight to keep automated surveillance that would compromise our security and privacy off our devices. We'll await a decision on this important issue from the Utah Supreme Court. Related Cases Andrews v. New Jersey Share It Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Copy link Join EFF Lists Join Our Newsletter! Email updates on news, actions, events in your area, and more. Email Address [ ] Postal Code (optional) [ ] Anti-spam question: Enter the three-letter abbreviation for Electronic Frontier Foundation: [ ] Don't fill out this field (required) [ ] [Submit] Thanks, you're awesome! Please check your email for a confirmation link. Oops something is broken right now, please try again later. Join Our Newsletter! Email updates on news, actions, events in your area, and more. Email Address [ ] Postal Code (optional) [ ] Anti-spam question: Enter the three-letter abbreviation for Electronic Frontier Foundation: [ ] Don't fill out this field (required) [ ] [Submit] Thanks, you're awesome! Please check your email for a confirmation link. Oops something is broken right now, please try again later. Share It Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Copy link Related cases Andrews v. New Jersey Back to top EFF Home Follow EFF: * twitter * facebook * instagram * youtube * flicker * rss Contact * General * Legal * Security * Membership * Press About * Calendar * Volunteer * Victories * History * Internships * Jobs * Staff * Diversity & Inclusion Issues * Free Speech * Privacy * Creativity & Innovation * Transparency * International * Security Updates * Blog * Press Releases * Events * Legal Cases * Whitepapers * EFFector Newsletter Press * Press Contact Donate * Join or Renew Membership Online * One-Time Donation Online * Shop * Other Ways to Give * Copyright (CC BY) * Trademark * Privacy Policy * Thanks JavaScript license information *