Every Android phone that I’ve used too, requires a passcode before it lets you use fingerprint or face.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.”
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?
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.
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.
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.