A judge of the Virginia Circuit Court ruled in a case that an individual is not required to reveal his passcode to authorities in order to unlock that person's smartphone. However, it will be legal for the police to demand the suspect to provide the fingerprint that unlocks the said smartphone.
The ruling also criticized the privacy of users with smartphones that feature Apple's TouchID system, which is a sensor that reads the fingerprints of ideally only one user to unlock the device.
The feature, which is currently found in Apple's iPhone 5s, iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus, can be turned off so that the device can be unlocked using the traditional passcode instead.
Apple has implemented several extra security measures to prevent issues on privacy for users that have the TouchID feature turned on, including the requirement to enter a pre-programmed passcode if the device has not been used for the previous 48 hours.
However, if suspects utilize the TouchID feature to unlock their smartphone, police could gain an opportunity to take advantage of the situation upon apprehension of the suspect.
The case over which the rulings were made involved David Baust, a man charged back in February for trying to strangle his girlfriend.
According to reports, the smartphone of Baust could have contained recorded videos of the incident. However, Baust's smartphone required a passcode to unlock the device, and his attorney argued that the suspect's passcode is under the protection of the Fifth Amendment.
The presiding judge agreed with the motion. However, he wrote that "giving police a fingerprint is akin to providing a DNA or handwriting sample or an actual key, which the law permits," as opposed to a passcode which will force the prosecuted to reveal information that the law protects.
The significance of the ruling lies in its portrayal of the legal difference between a person's identity and a person's knowledge. While the Fifth Amendment serves to protect the accused from being forced to become witnesses against their own doings, the TouchID feature of Apple is not protected under the same law.
"It's exactly what we thought it would happen when Apple announced its fingerprint ID," said Electronic Frontier Foundation staff attorney Hanni Fakhoury.
Fakhoury adds that the ruling should serve as a wake-up call to users that fingerprint sensors on their smartphones do not provide them with the legal protection that passcodes do.
The ruling made is not as binding as a decision by the Supreme Court, but it establishes legal precedent that other local courts can reference.
