Largo Detectives use Dead Man's Finger to Unlock his Phone

[Atra1n2]

This just disgusted me when I came across it, but apparently detectives tried to use the fingerprints from the corpse of Linus Phillip, 30,  to unlock his phone and use the information from it to aid in an investigation into a seperate inquiry into drugs involving Phillip. Phillip was shot by a police officer a month prior when he tried to escape police, shortly before they were going to attempt to search him. When the detectives came to the funeral home, the fiance of the deceased suspect also happened to be there. There was no search warrant for the detective(s) to attempt to gather the data from the phone. Personally, the bigger problem here seems to be that law enforcement were willing to use a corpse fingerprint to try to gain access to the phone, however warrantless searching, and the disregard for the rights of the deceased are also disturbing. The article does cite a 2014 Supreme Court ruling:

Quote

A 2014 Supreme Court ruling established that warrantless search of a cellphone during an arrest is unconstitutional.

However, with the suspect deceased, this becomes a possible legal gray-area. 

 

The article goes on with input from a Stetson law professor: 

Quote

A deceased person can’t assert their Fourth Amendment protections because, well, you can’t own property when you’re dead, said Rose, the Stetson Law professor. If those rights do continue, they would apply to whoever inherits it.

In spite of this, we haven't encountered a case like this before. What privacy rights, if any, do the deceased have? Are these rights passed down to next-in-kin with their property? Aside from that, how disturbing is it that police actually went to the funeral home after the body was released by the state and attempted to use the dead person's finger to unlock the device, with or without warrant or right to do so?

 

http://www.tampabay.com/cops-used-dead-man-s-finger-unlock-phone-legal-but-ghoulish-florida

[W-L]

@Atra1n2 Please don't forget to include a quote relevant to the article post. Once updated the post will be reinstated in Tech News. 

 

 

[Syntaxvgm]

if anyone gave a shit about warrantless searching of cell phones in this country, stingrays would be illegal for LEOs to use.

[Guest]

I mean, they would probably conduct an autopsy which might be considered a little more invaisive. 

[TetraSky]

If I remember correctly, the moment you die, laws stop protecting you against unreasonable search, hence why they could do this without a warrant.

But yeah, this is probably more of a grey area and they should've done this before giving the body back to the family, as if most likely the case most of the time.

[aisle9]

This is disgusting and terrifying on many levels. The phone becomes the property of next-of-kin, and a warrant is required to search it. Unless she gave consent for some idiotic reason. Even if we put the legal ramifications of this aside, it's still, imo, desecrating a corpse to abuse it in such a way.

[dizmo]

He's dead. I see no problem with this.

[ARikozuM]

Shouldn't this require a warrant? Next thing we know the cops will shoot anyone and immediately unlock phones for more information. 

[Syntaxvgm]

Just now, ARikozuM said:

Shouldn't this require a warrant? Next thing we know the cops will shoot anyone and immediately unlock phones for more information. 

im pretty sure using murder to get away with warrentless search is not....uh...lesser? 

Anyway not that they don't get away with both 

[Ertman]

I am less concerned with the use of a corpse’s fingerprints to access the phone then that it was attempted where it leads to disrespecting the family.

[wasab]

Don’t see any ethic and morale issues in this.

[Atra1n2]

8 hours ago, W-L said:

@Atra1n2 Please don't forget to include a quote relevant to the article post. Once updated the post will be reinstated in Tech News. 

 

 

@W-L Done. Thanks!

[Arika]

8 hours ago, Atra1n2 said:

When the detectives came to the funeral home,

wait, they did it at the funeral home? that's in bad taste. I dont care that they tried to do it, but where and when they did it is fucked up

[dalekphalm]

Here are my thoughts:

The authorities using a dead persons finger to unlock a device does not bother me. Doing so without a warrant does.

 

As long as the authorities go through the proper motions to protect civil rights, by convincing a judge of the necessity, and protecting the privacy of a person, then there is no problem.

[Egg-Roll]

23 hours ago, Syntaxvgm said:

im pretty sure using murder to get away with warrentless search is not....uh...lesser? 

Anyway not that they don't get away with both 

All the cop needs to do is say they claimed they had a gun and went reaching in their pocket. It happens here and in the USA, they don't even need to state they claimed, all they have to do is "suspect" they have a gun or another form of lethal weapon...

 

23 hours ago, VegetableStu said:

where are the lines in this? (e.g. if suspect dies after act of crime does that count as "his" or not) o_o

That would require a search and seizure order if not on his/her body at the time of death. Plus if they are a suspect the police/courts can withhold any ownership title change till a investigation is concluded, tho this could be challenged in court afaik, esp large value items as homes.

[Syntaxvgm]

3 minutes ago, Egg-Roll said:

All the cop needs to do is say they claimed they had a gun and went reaching in their pocket. It happens here and in the USA, they don't even need to state they claimed, all they have to do is "suspect" they have a gun or another form of lethal weapon...

 

That would require a search and seizure order if not on his/her body at the time of death. Plus if they are a suspect the police/courts can withhold any ownership title change till a investigation is concluded, tho this could be challenged in court afaik, esp large value items as homes.

but they get away with warrantless search anyway, murder is a bit more risky for no reason 

[Egg-Roll]

1 hour ago, Syntaxvgm said:

but they get away with warrantless search anyway, murder is a bit more risky for no reason 

But those usually can be/get thrown out, by killing them first however and the reason given gets accepted... Recall the poor person who got killed from the CoD Swatting a few months ago. 100% innocent but got killed just because the cops had a reason.

[Bcat00]

uhhh, i don't know how the hell they even came up with this idea. Normal logic would tell people this is going to go down really bad.

[DoctorWho1975]

Obviously they feared for their lives so it was fine.

[Syntaxvgm]

2 hours ago, Egg-Roll said:

But those usually can be/get thrown out, by killing them first however and the reason given gets accepted... Recall the poor person who got killed from the CoD Swatting a few months ago. 100% innocent but got killed just because the cops had a reason.

fuck that made me so mad. Shine a light in his eyes, too far away for him to hear, shoot him dead as soon as his hands moved 

[mr moose]

If I read that article right, the law does not protect a dead man, the phone was taken as evidence so is not the property of the family and the only grey area was that they did it after the body was turned over to the funeral parlor from state custody.    Which means normally they would have attempted to unlock the phone earlier had they had the chance and this would have been standard procedure and not even reported. 

[asus killer]

i have no problem with this, they were investigating the mans death and i can't see how his privacy was in any way on the table, he was of course dead. If someone was investigating my death for sure i would be happy they did it. As long as they stick to police business and don't use the the phone for anything else.

[Bananasplit_00]

A bit tasteless to do it like they did, but otherwise I don't really care much. Seems like something that would require a warrant but idk how stuff is passed down enough to really know

[LAwLz]

4 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Here are my thoughts:

The authorities using a dead persons finger to unlock a device does not bother me. Doing so without a warrant does.

 

As long as the authorities go through the proper motions to protect civil rights, by convincing a judge of the necessity, and protecting the privacy of a person, then there is no problem.

I would agree with you, if it weren't for the fact that the warrant system is completely broken.

The judges handing out warrants generally don't give two shits about protecting civil rights. Just look at the FICO court warrants.

 

 

3 hours ago, Bcat00 said:

uhhh, i don't know how the hell they even came up with this idea. Normal logic would tell people this is going to go down really bad.

Just look at this thread and the people saying it is totally fine. "Normal logic" is not to so common anymore.

[Canada EH]

On 4/22/2018 at 9:09 PM, ARikozuM said:

Shouldn't this require a warrant? Next thing we know the cops will shoot anyone and immediately unlock phones for more information. 

Then claim they thought they saw a gun, and there is no body cameras