The Minnesota Court of Appeals has 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 phoneDiamond wants his burglary and theft convictions overturned in connection with a 2014 robbery in Chaska, a Minneapolis suburb.Te 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.”By being ordered to produce his fingerprint … Diamond was not required to disclose any knowledge he might have or to speak his guilt,” the appeals court found.”Instead, the task that Diamond was compelled to perform – to provide his fingerprint – is no more testimonial than furnishing a blood sample, providing handwriting or voice exemplars, standing in a lineup, or wearing particular clothing,” the judges ruled.However, the court noted that it was making no opinion on whether compelling a defendant to provide a cellphone password would violate the Fifth Amendment.Last May, A federal judge signed a warrant to compel a woman to unlock her iPhone's fingerprint security mechanism.While the Fifth Amendment would prevent a person from having to give their passcode, biometric methods are not similarly protected.

Also in the news:

Default ThumbnailRealNetworks appoints Jay Burrell Default ThumbnailJetBlue testing face recognition for flight boarding at Logan Default ThumbnailHong Kong Monetary Authority to explore biometric ATM options