An Illinois judge has rejected efforts by the police to force anyone present in raids to unlock smartphones or tablets with their fingerprints.The decision came as part of a search warrant application related to case, first reported by Motherboard based on a court filing posted by a fellow at Stanford University.The search warrant application involved someone who was believed to be involved in trafficking child pornography.In his opinion, Judge M. David Weisman of the U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois writes that the government did establish probable cause for searching the residence.But he rejected a part of the warrant that would compel anyone at the residence to unlock their devices, which the government believes are either Apple iPhones or iPads. Weisman writes that the request is not compatible with the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, and the Fifth Amendment, which establishes the right against self-incrimination.The judges decision contrasts with the a decision by the Minnesota Court of Appeals in January.There, the court backed an earlier ruling by a judge which stated that police can demand that a suspect submit a fingerprint to unlock a smartphone.Matthew Diamond had complained that police violated Diamond's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by ordering him to provide his fingerprint to access information on his phone Diamond wants his burglary and theft convictions overturned in connection with a 2014 robbery in Chaska, a Minneapolis suburb.The appeals court examined whether the act of providing a fingerprint to unlock a cellphone is “testimonial communication.” The judges found that providing a fingerprint is not the same as forcing a defendant to testify against himself. They found it was also not the same as asking a defendant to provide information to decrypt a computer.The Fifth Amendment allows people to decline to provide evidence that is self-incriminating. The U.S. government argues here that producing a physical characteristic – i.e. a fingerprint – isn't “testimonial.” Generally, that premise agrees with other cases, albeit ones that far precede the smartphone era and biometric security advances.However, Weisman wrote: “By using a finger to unlock a phone's contents, a suspect is producing the contents on the phone ߪ With a touch of a finger, a suspect is testifying that he or she has accessed the phone before, at a minimum, to set up the fingerprint password capabilities, and that he or she currently has some level of control over or relatively significant connection to the phone and its contents.”