However, the panel said the evidence from his phone was lawfully acquired “because it required no cognitive exertion, placing it in the same category as a blood draw or a fingerprint taken at booking…"
If the precedent is that unlocking the phone is the same category as fingerprint taking, well, what happens if you refuse to be “coerced” into having your prints taken? Even if the legal precedent isn’t fully understood, it looks like the reasoning here isn’t based on whether there was physical force applied, but whether the search required the contents of the person’s mind.
In many (if not most) US jurisdictions, operating a vehicle under a driver’s license specifically implies consent to a blood draw when under suspicion of impaired driving.
If the precedent is that unlocking the phone is the same category as fingerprint taking, well, what happens if you refuse to be “coerced” into having your prints taken? Even if the legal precedent isn’t fully understood, it looks like the reasoning here isn’t based on whether there was physical force applied, but whether the search required the contents of the person’s mind.
I do t know about fingerprints but I thought a blood draw required cooperation or court order
In many (if not most) US jurisdictions, operating a vehicle under a driver’s license specifically implies consent to a blood draw when under suspicion of impaired driving.