# Quick question on police forcing unlock of facial recognition **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 8, 2025, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-question-on-police-forcing-unlock-of-facial-recognition/1014036 "2025-02-08T02:38:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2025, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-question-on-police-forcing-unlock-of-facial-recognition/1014036/21 "2025-02-09T23:46:18Z")
> [@Eyebrows\_0f\_Doom](#): > > After you power off an iPhone it requires the passcode before it will default back to face recognition. Every Android phone that I’ve used too, requires a passcode before it lets you use fingerprint or face. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > How long does it take to take out and destroy the SIM and SD cards, btw, and would that do the trick? iPhones don’t have SD cards, Android phones are increasingly removing them too. SIM cards are on their way out in favor of eSIM, though not completely yet. SD cards only work as additional storage, so directly anything on the phone’s memory is different. You also usually need to remove any case, and need a tool to remove the card, though a paper clip in your cupholder can do the trick in a pinch. Both types of cards are trivially easy to break by hand. ---
**Author:** ![Crafter\_Man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crafter_man/32/458_2.png) [@Crafter\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crafter_Man)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2025, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-question-on-police-forcing-unlock-of-facial-recognition/1014036/22 "2025-02-10T00:57:03Z")
If you power off your phone, it means you’re not filming the police. But during any encounter you _should_ film them. Just something to think about. ---
**Author:** ![md-2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@md-2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md-2000)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2025, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-question-on-police-forcing-unlock-of-facial-recognition/1014036/23 "2025-02-10T06:54:51Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > How long does it take to take out and destroy the SIM and SD cards, btw, and would that do the trick? Keep in mind, though - if you actively _destroy_ something because you think it is evidence in an investigation of a crime, that’s obstruction. Turning off your phone has not destroyed anything. Case back in the days of phone phreaking - a fellow was arrested with a Radio Shack programmable dialer. He pulled the batteries out, and in the days before persistent RAM, that erase to contents of the dialer which may have included sequences of codes to enable free long distance. He was charged with obstruction. As I read it, the police left him in the interrogation room with his dialer. I suspect they _wanted_ him to do that, as it was more of a slam-dunk case with a longer sentence than trying to prove stealing long distance. ---
**Author:** ![md-2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@md-2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md-2000)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2025, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-question-on-police-forcing-unlock-of-facial-recognition/1014036/24 "2025-02-10T06:55:24Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > If you power off your phone, it means you’re not filming the police. But during any encounter you _should_ film them. Just something to think about. The camera works without unlocking the phone, AFAIk. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2025, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-question-on-police-forcing-unlock-of-facial-recognition/1014036/25 "2025-02-10T13:54:17Z")
So when I used to work in the “collecting electronic evidence business” like 15+ years ago, typically you needed some sort of court order to collect laptops and other electronic devices. IANAL but as I recall if you were on the court order, you could be compelled to provide any passwords, etc. Even if you didn’t (or couldn’t because sometimes people legitimately forget passwords on files sitting on their computer for years), we would just run the files or even the entire drive through some password cracking software. I’m not sure I see the point of the police having you show them your phone at some sort of random traffic stop. What actual evidence would they be looking for? And am not sure if that would even hold up in court as there is a whole chain of custody process for collecting and presenting electronic evidence. It’s not just some officer shows up to the stand and says “I saw a text from his drug dealer to come pick up the drugs.” ---
**Author:** ![Machine\_Elf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2025, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-question-on-police-forcing-unlock-of-facial-recognition/1014036/26 "2025-02-10T14:33:35Z")
> [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > The police _already_ had the right to search any of the guy’s property, with or without cause, as condition of his parole. The real only question is whether use of the biometrics represented a violation of his privilege against self-incrimination. And, fairly obviously, it wasn’t. He was also obligated to give up any lock codes, which under normal circumstances _would_ violate the right to self-incrimination, except that again this was a condition of his parole. > > They’d certainly have the right to take a house/car/safe key off his person, for instance. Biometrics hardly seems much different. Please stop saying the police have a _right_ to do things to you. They may have the _authority_ to do those things, but they don’t have a right. > **[Rights vs. Authority: The Ethical Application of Official Power - PA TIMES...](https://patimes.org/rights-vs-authority-the-ethical-application-of-official-power/)** > > Public sector leadership must create the proper perspective in their employees—that as public officials their authority is granted to serve the community, not manage it. > No public administrator in the United States, regardless of their discipline, has any “right” associated with their official position. Public administrators have authority beyond that of members of society, in a manner narrowly prescribed. This authority is based upon the enabling legislation creating their public agency and their official position, and this authority will be limited to that which is considered necessary and appropriate to conduct their formal role. The framework for this is often further specified in organizational policies and procedures. > > . > . > . > Public sector leaders must ensure employees understand the differences between rights and authorities, and that they are prepared to exercise their authorities appropriately. If you hear a public official speaking of their official “rights” based on their public role, this should be a red flag, and appropriate action should be taken without pause. ---
**Author:** ![Machine\_Elf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2025, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-question-on-police-forcing-unlock-of-facial-recognition/1014036/27 "2025-02-10T14:42:04Z")
> [@md-2000](#): > > The camera works without unlocking the phone, AFAIk. Can’t speak for the iPhone, but for Android, yes, double-clicking the wake-up button fires up the camera for photos or video. You won’t be able to view/delete photos or videos taken before you double-clicked, but you will be able to delete photos/videos you too after you double-clicked, without having to enter a PIN or fingerprint. I don’t have facial recognition on my Android phone, but if you botch the fingerprint read a few times, it will require a PIN. A cop trying to compel you to unlock your phone wouldn’t know which finger you normally use to unlock your phone, so it would be easy to deliberately use a wrong finger a few times without notice, and then just say “oops, I guess we’re screwed now.” ---
**Author:** ![rbroome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/838e76/32.png) [@rbroome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rbroome)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2025, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-question-on-police-forcing-unlock-of-facial-recognition/1014036/28 "2025-02-11T00:47:10Z")
I think this is relevant-why don’t the police have the authority to order a suspect to type in a passcode WITHOUT revealing it to the police? Given that the suspect must use his finger to activate a fingerprint reader. Yes, there is some thinking required to type in the passcode, but there is some (unconscious) thinking required to put one’s finger on a reader or look at a camera for facial recognition. Are the courts willing to attempt to define when some amount of thinking is too much, but minimal thinking is constitutionally OK? ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2025, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-question-on-police-forcing-unlock-of-facial-recognition/1014036/29 "2025-02-11T00:59:01Z")
> [@Machine\_Elf](#): > > Please stop saying the police have a _right_ to do things to you. They may have the _authority_ to do those things, but they don’t have a right. Sure, fine. That seems like a very narrow legalistic distinction that is really only relevant to one in the public service, and that in non-technical speech “right” is a perfectly fine synonym for authority, but I’ll keep it in mind nevertheless. In fact I might say they had the “authorization” instead, since “authority” carries a certain moral weight that I don’t entirely agree with. ---
**Author:** ![MW\_Degen\_Gamblr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ec9cab/32.png) [@MW\_Degen\_Gamblr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MW_Degen_Gamblr)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2025, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-question-on-police-forcing-unlock-of-facial-recognition/1014036/30 "2025-02-11T17:19:34Z")
> [@Beckdawrek](#): > > I got that. > > Who cares what’s on YOUR phone? > If you are not doing crime, why do you care who sees it? > > I’d turn mine over in an instant > I ain’t arguing that point on the side of the road traffic stop. > > Dumb criminals put crap in phones that is just painfully stooooopid. > > Watch a couple RL crime stories. Phones catch them up everytime. > > Don’t store you seekrits. Don’t write it down. Don’t take pix of crimes, don’t post on Tik-tok or Facebook. I agree that you shouldnt put incriminating stuff on your phone, but American citizens have the right to privacy. Do you poop with the door open, in public spaces? I assume you don’t. But why not…you have nothing to hide? ---
**Author:** ![MW\_Degen\_Gamblr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ec9cab/32.png) [@MW\_Degen\_Gamblr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MW_Degen_Gamblr)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2025, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-question-on-police-forcing-unlock-of-facial-recognition/1014036/31 "2025-02-11T17:21:03Z")
> [@md-2000](#): > > > [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > > > If you power off your phone, it means you’re not filming the police. But during any encounter you _should_ film them. Just something to think about. > > The camera works without unlocking the phone, AFAIk. Also, dashcams can be used. Just turn it around. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2025, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-question-on-police-forcing-unlock-of-facial-recognition/1014036/32 "2025-02-11T18:18:40Z")
> [@MW\_Degen\_Gamblr](#): > > But, if you’re being pulled over, power off your iphone immediately. Whenever you turn your phone back on, it will default back to password mode. Just deny that you have facial recognition set up. They still need a warrant to force the use of facial recognition even in a traffic stop. ---
**Author:** ![Beckdawrek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beckdawrek/32/3647_2.png) [@Beckdawrek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beckdawrek)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2025, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-question-on-police-forcing-unlock-of-facial-recognition/1014036/33 "2025-02-11T18:32:05Z")
I poop in private, mainly for the comfort of others. NoBody wants to see that. My shit don’t stink but it also doesn’t contain potentially incriminating evidence. No one cares about _my_ opinion on phones/police and information they could get to. Or if its legal. It will come down to a judge whether the phone owner has a good lawyer and if evidence found could be used to charge and prosecute. It’s a slippery slope. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2025, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-question-on-police-forcing-unlock-of-facial-recognition/1014036/34 "2025-02-11T18:36:04Z")
> [@Omar\_Little](#): > > > [@MW\_Degen\_Gamblr](#): > > > > But, if you’re being pulled over, power off your iphone immediately. Whenever you turn your phone back on, it will default back to password mode. Just deny that you have facial recognition set up. > > They still need a warrant to force the use of facial recognition even in a traffic stop. Yes to get into your phone you either need consent or a warrant. In practical terms it’s not much of an issue on the roadside. For the most part incriminating electronic evidence would have to be obtained forensically. Not something a cop could do on the side of the road although he could see something that could lead to probable cause for a later warrant. The fact that you need a warrant to gain access to the contents of a phone is pretty settled law. I’ve been out of the game for a few years but what isn’t settled law is what the court can do to compel you to give up access to your electronic devices other than hand it over. One big issue is technology changes a lot quicker than caselaw makes it through the system. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2025, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-question-on-police-forcing-unlock-of-facial-recognition/1014036/35 "2025-02-11T18:47:16Z")
> [@Beckdawrek](#): > > I having guiding principal: Don’t do crime. > > Nothing to hide, here. Some people don’t want unauthorized people just thumbing through their private stuff for fun. It’s nothing to do whether I committed a crime or not. My personal/private stuff is my personal/private stuff, it doesn’t belong to the cops or anyone else. You also have no idea how the cops might twist your information to fit some other criminal theory. Just as it’s extremely foolish to answer questions without a lawyer, it’s extremely foolish to let the police thumb through the contents of your phone without a lawyer. I have no right to stop you from being foolish. If you have no business letting the government browse through all your personal and private stuff, fine, waive your right. But understand that’s your personal decision, and totally irrelevant to what everyone else’s rights ought to be. ---
**Author:** ![Beckdawrek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beckdawrek/32/3647_2.png) [@Beckdawrek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beckdawrek)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2025, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-question-on-police-forcing-unlock-of-facial-recognition/1014036/36 "2025-02-11T19:12:38Z")
Exactly. IMO. There are times to stand up and refuse on principle. My phone is not that time. YMMV. Arguing with a cop on a traffic stop is not ever gonna end in your favor. ---
**Author:** ![md-2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@md-2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md-2000)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2025, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-question-on-police-forcing-unlock-of-facial-recognition/1014036/37 "2025-02-11T22:18:42Z")
> [@Beckdawrek](#): > > My shit don’t stink but it also doesn’t contain potentially incriminating evidence. Hmmm… sometimes customs officials at international airports might have a different opinion. > [@Omar\_Little](#): > > They still need a warrant to force the use of facial recognition even in a traffic stop. I assume you mean they still need a warrant to look at the contents of your phone. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-question-on-police-forcing-unlock-of-facial-recognition/1014036.md?page=1)