Abstract
Imagine a person is lawfully stopped by police officers who are lawfully entitled to search through his smart-phone or tablet device. However, his device is protected by a fingerprint biometric device which the officers are not able to bypass in the immediate moment. They request that he grant them access. Should he comply? The United States Supreme Court in Schmerber v. California has held that the extraction of physical evidence from a person does not implicate the Fifth Amendment's Clause against Self-Incrimination. However that ruling taken almost fifty years ago cannot be mechanically applied to our situation. Equally so, other Court rulings and the original meaning of the Clause may provide for a broader application of its protection. Thus this Article argues that, the protection against Self-Incrimination should be broadened to include compulsion to comply with police electronic searches.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
