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

[Trixanity]

Wow, it's kinda disturbing people are okay with this. 

[LAwLz]

32 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

Wow, it's kinda disturbing people are okay with this. 

It seems like morals and ethics are a foreign concept to a lot of people.

Their thought process seems to stop at "is it legal?" rather than "is this acceptable?".

 

 

 

Just thought of something. While dead people can't own property, they can own copyright. Wouldn't it be illegal to access the messages (things you write are automatically copyrighted) without some kind of warrant or other approval?

[elfensky]

Why are you so against using a dead man's fingerprint? Dude's dead, he doesn't care. They made use of available resources, instead of trying to recreate a fingerprint etc they saved time and money by just using the corpse's..

 

The issue here is lack of warrant and reason, not the act itself.

[mr moose]

30 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

It seems like morals and ethics are a foreign concept to a lot of people.

Their thought process seems to stop at "is it legal?" rather than "is this acceptable?".

 

Some people do think it is acceptable though.   

 

Quote

 

Just thought of something. While dead people can't own property, they can own copyright. Wouldn't it be illegal to access the messages (things you write are automatically copyrighted) without some kind of warrant or other approval?

Dead people can't own copyright, copyright is transferred like a commodity or investment, whoever takes custody of said copyright can do whatever they please with it.  However in this case the contents of the phone are evidence, so copyright or not while the police have custody of the phone they also (currently) are allowed to try and access it using the mans fingerprints.  

 

This just boils down to whether people care or not.   To me it borders on the same debate about not using a persons organs after they die. Should family be allowed to prevent them being donated if the dead person originally gave permission. Or more specifically in this case should the reverse be true?

[Trixanity]

General rule of thumb: don't mess around with or disturb dead people. 

It's why you can't reenact weekend at Bernie's and why you can't live out your necrophiliac fantasies - among other things.

 

If you show up at a funeral home and try to lift fingerprints you're probably not a decent human being. If the next of kin consents or a court order gives you the right then the prints can be obtained under supervision.

[LAwLz]

17 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Dead people can't own copyright, copyright is transferred like a commodity or investment, whoever takes custody of said copyright can do whatever they please with it. 

Yeah, I just looked into it and it's true. Copyright gets transferred when you die, just like other things like physical goods.

 

23 minutes ago, mr moose said:

This just boils down to whether people care or not.   To me it borders on the same debate about not using a persons organs after they die. Should family be allowed to prevent them being donated if the dead person originally gave permission. Or more specifically in this case should the reverse be true?

In these situations I think we should act under reasonable assumptions.

If someone said they wanted to donate their organs = The organs should be donated.

If someone said they didn't want their organs donated = The organs should not be donated.

If someone liked organ donations but never wrote down what they wanted = assume they would be OK with organs being donated.

If they had expressed things which would lead you to believe they would not want their organs donated = assume they would not be OK with it, and therefore not harvest their organs.

 

I think that sounds rather fair and reasonable, right?

[SpaceGhostC2C]

1 hour ago, ElfenSky said:

Why are you so against using a dead man's fingerprint? Dude's dead, he doesn't care. They made use of available resources, instead of trying to recreate a fingerprint etc they saved time and money by just using the corpse's..

 

The issue here is lack of warrant and reason, not the act itself.

Well, of course it's about the warrant. It's like saying "why are you so against searching somebody's house?": a warrant makes all the difference between rule of law and a police state.

 

On a different note, let me know when the police goes to a funeral house to use the deceased person's password to unlock their phone.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

Yeah, I just looked into it and it's true. Copyright gets transferred when you die, just like other things like physical goods.

 

In these situations I think we should act under reasonable assumptions.

If someone said they wanted to donate their organs = The organs should be donated.

If someone said they didn't want their organs donated = The organs should not be donated.

If someone liked organ donations but never wrote down what they wanted = assume they would be OK with organs being donated.

If they had expressed things which would lead you to believe they would not want their organs donated = assume they would not be OK with it, and therefore not harvest their organs.

 

I think that sounds rather fair and reasonable, right?

What's fair and reasonable to a dead person?   This is the issue people take, it is for the living to decide.  For some it is more important to respect the wishes of the dead and for others it is more reasonable to look after those who are alive.   I dare say the same thing occurs when someone dies with evidence on their phone, some will say it is disrespectful to sift through a dead mans private life,  while others will claim it is more important to protect the living if there is evidence on the phone that helps an investigation. 

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, Trixanity said:

Wow, it's kinda disturbing people are okay with this. 

If it's for identification purposes then I don't have an issue myself, what this story is about should really be illegal though. Not that you should have to unlock the phone to figure out who's it is, dial an emergency number and get the info that way through the service provider.

[LAwLz]

18 minutes ago, mr moose said:

What's fair and reasonable to a dead person?   This is the issue people take, it is for the living to decide.  For some it is more important to respect the wishes of the dead and for others it is more reasonable to look after those who are alive.   I dare say the same thing occurs when someone dies with evidence on their phone, some will say it is disrespectful to sift through a dead mans private life,  while others will claim it is more important to protect the living if there is evidence on the phone that helps an investigation. 

If you ask me, I think "don't do to the dead, what you wouldn't do to the living" as a pretty easy to follow, general moral guideline. (Obviously harvesting vital organs from a dead person is more acceptable than doing so from a living person).

If anything, the dead should be treated with more respect than the living. Drawing a dick on your passed out buddies chin is fine. Doing it to your dead buddy is not.

[ItsMitch]

2 hours ago, ElfenSky said:

Why are you so against using a dead man's fingerprint? Dude's dead, he doesn't care

Let's put another spin on it. Let's say you died and the police searched your home without a warrant and looked through all your things, Don't you think your family / next of kin / dog / cat would be rather upset the police broke into your house and did stuff to your personal property? 

[mr moose]

15 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

If you ask me, I think "don't do to the dead, what you wouldn't do to the living" as a pretty easy to follow, general moral guideline. (Obviously harvesting vital organs from a dead person is more acceptable than doing so from a living person).

If anything, the dead should be treated with more respect than the living. Drawing a dick on your passed out buddies chin is fine. Doing it to your dead buddy is not.

I dare say if you just discovered your buddy was dead and the first thing that  popped into your head was to draw a dick on his chin, then you probably have a few deep seeded issues that need addressing before tackling the more philosophical conundrums of deceased rights to ideological provisions.

[elfensky]

2 hours ago, SC2Mitch said:

Let's put another spin on it. Let's say you died and the police searched your home without a warrant and looked through all your things, Don't you think your family / next of kin / dog / cat would be rather upset the police broke into your house and did stuff to your personal property? 

But again - the issue is about the warrant, while many people are making the act of using a dead body's fingerprints itself out to be wrong.

[Sniperfox47]

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

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.

 

 

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

You don't think this is okay? Weren't you one of the people saying the FBI should have used the guys fingerprint to unlock the phone in the mass shooting a few months back? Or am I remembering incorrectly?

 

I mean as far as this potentially affecting other people or being used as evidence against an unrelated third party I totally understand being upset. There you're abusing the law to gain evidence you shouldn't otherwise have.

 

But in this case they were unlocking it for evidence to use against him... and he's dead so it's not like he cares... I get that it creates the precedent that this kind of thing is okay, and I get that doing it at the funeral home was in poor taste, but where's the issue in this? His rights? He's a corpse, nothing more than a rotting sack of flesh. He's no longer a person and no longer has any rights.

[ARikozuM]

18 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

But in this case they were unlocking it for evidence to use against him... and he's dead so it's not like he cares... I get that it creates the precedent that this kind of thing is okay, and I get that doing it at the funeral home was in poor taste, but where's the issue in this? His rights? He's a corpse, nothing more than a rotting sack of flesh. He's no longer a person and no longer has any rights.

He was killed by the police. I don't think they had a warrant before the shooting, but they should have filed for one afterwards if they were looking for evidence. Side-stepping the law should be prohibited before habits are formed among law enforcement officials. Even though the deceased no longer has any cares of those alive, evidence on the phone could cause distress and to make the deceased look lesser in the eyes of the law and potential jury. 

[Sniperfox47]

1 minute ago, ARikozuM said:

He was killed by the police. I don't think they had a warrant before the shooting, but they should have filed for one afterwards if they were looking for evidence. Side-stepping the law should be prohibited before habits are formed among law enforcement officials. Even though the deceased no longer has any cares of those alive, evidence on the phone could cause distress and to make the deceased look lesser in the eyes of the law and potential jury. 

Yeah... But he's dead... Why does it matter if he looks lesser...? He's dead... Whether he's found guilty or innocent he's still dead. Whether the evidence upsets his family or not he's still dead.

 

And how exactly are they sidestepping getting a warrant? If he's on public display I understand taking his fingerprint being a faux paux but it's hardly something you need special legal permission for. And the phone is already police evidence, so it's not like they're sizing property.

 

Like I absolutely think they should have used his fingerprint before handing him over as a courtesy thing from an image perspective, but it's not like they're doing anything wrong.

[LAwLz]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

I dare say if you just discovered your buddy was dead and the first thing that  popped into your head was to draw a dick on his chin, then you probably have a few deep seeded issues that need addressing before tackling the more philosophical conundrums of deceased rights to ideological provisions.

Well, the dick on chin thing was just an example where the dead gets extra respect compared to the living. One example where something that seems normal to do to a living person is very disrespectful when done to a dead person.

 

 

41 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

You don't think this is okay? Weren't you one of the people saying the FBI should have used the guys fingerprint to unlock the phone in the mass shooting a few months back? Or am I remembering incorrectly?

No, I don't think this is OK.

I don't remember which thread you are referring to, sorry (there have been a lot of mass shootings recently).

Maybe I said it was possible but made no judgement whether or not it was a morally right thing to do?

Maybe the situation were different, for example they might have had a warrant in that case?

Maybe I have changed my mind about it?

 

 

46 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

I mean as far as this potentially affecting other people or being used as evidence against an unrelated third party I totally understand being upset. There you're abusing the law to gain evidence you shouldn't otherwise have.

Well, even if that doesn't happen in this case this might, as you said, set a dangerous precedence. Also, it might actually be exactly what is happening in this case, since the article says they accessed the phone for another inquiry. So the reason why he was shot and the reason for accessing his phone were not the same crimes.

 

56 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

He's a corpse, nothing more than a rotting sack of flesh. He's no longer a person and no longer has any rights.

26 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Like I absolutely think they should have used his fingerprint before handing him over as a courtesy thing from an image perspective, but it's not like they're doing anything wrong.

I disagree. I think dead people deserve respect and some level of rights too. I mean, a lot of countries has outlawed necrophilia as well as grave robbery.

In Sweden it is actually illegal to move, harm or treat a corpse/ashes opprobriously, unless you are authorized to do so (not sure who gives authorization though).

Some might disagree, but at the end of the day we as a society has decided that it is not appropriate. We still see a corpse as a human to some degree. We don't see the as inanimate objects just because they are dead. Take my dick drawing as an example. Would you agree that there is a major difference between drawing a dick on the cheek of a dead person, vs let's say drawing a dick on a piece of paper?

[Sniperfox47]

5 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Take my dick drawing as an example. Would you agree that there is a major difference between drawing a dick on the cheek of a dead person, vs let's say drawing a dick on a piece of paper?

Not really. In both cases you're drawing a dick on an inanimate object. I mean personally I'd see it as way more offensive if you draw it in graffiti on a public sculpture that's going to be in the public eye than drawing it on a corpse that's going to get burried or incinerated and then never looked at again.

 

Drawing it on the cheek of a dog I could see as offensive because there you're being a jackass to the dog, another living creature, but the dead are just that. Dead. No different from a piece of furniture you're throwing out because it's broken, or a dead computer you're taking to the ecostation.

[asus killer]

like said before they can go trough is wallet, they can go trough his pockets, if he ha a diary they could read it, go trough his car if we was in a car, they can do a autopsy, does it make any sense to stop at looking at a phone?

This digital privacy looks more like extremist paranoia sometimes. I'm all for digital privacy but It seems like some crazy thing it's never allowed to be put in question, even when all else is. Reminds me of the gun discussion in America, no, it should never be an absolute line in the ground.

 

 

[BasicallyAMod]

On 4/22/2018 at 7:34 PM, TetraSky said:

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.

do you know what happens if they bring you back. if i died for 5 minutes and was brought back and in those 5 minutes i was unreasonably searched, what would happen?

[dalekphalm]

34 minutes ago, BasicallyAMod said:

do you know what happens if they bring you back. if i died for 5 minutes and was brought back and in those 5 minutes i was unreasonably searched, what would happen?

That entirely depends. There is a medical definition of dead.

 

When people "die" for a few minutes and are "brought back"? Medically speaking, usually they were never dead.

 

Though it can happen where you are declared medically dead and then are still resuscitated - but I cannot imagine it's very common for that to happen.

[Tech_Dreamer]

They should go to court with it , Good guy or bad guy , if the officers think having a badge & an attitude gives them authority above the law the ironically serve , then they should stand trial on an equal platform explaining it to the judge .

 

i get that he's a bad guy & the investigation might lead to a bigger catch , but should be done so in a proper manner & not done like the thugs would've done the same. Just imagine , remove their uniform & badge & let them act the same once again . what difference is there between them and the bad guys?

 

[LAwLz]

3 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Not really. In both cases you're drawing a dick on an inanimate object. I mean personally I'd see it as way more offensive if you draw it in graffiti on a public sculpture that's going to be in the public eye than drawing it on a corpse that's going to get burried or incinerated and then never looked at again.

 

Drawing it on the cheek of a dog I could see as offensive because there you're being a jackass to the dog, another living creature, but the dead are just that. Dead. No different from a piece of furniture you're throwing out because it's broken, or a dead computer you're taking to the ecostation.

Well you might think that way, but you are most likely in a very small minority.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

 

5 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

 I get that it creates the precedent that this kind of thing is okay, and I get that doing it at the funeral home was in poor taste, but where's the issue in this? His rights? He's a corpse, nothing more than a rotting sack of flesh. He's no longer a person and no longer has any rights.

It doesn't matter, though. The key question is whether what they did is a lawful procedure to obtain evidence for the relevant case. Just because a corpse it not a living being it doesn't mean that cops will necessarily have the right to do whatever they want with it. Just like they are not allowed to do whatever they want to, i don't know, a bicycle. And laws tend to treat corpses different than bicycles anyway.

 

4 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Not really. In both cases you're drawing a dick on an inanimate object. I mean personally I'd see it as way more offensive if you draw it in graffiti on a public sculpture that's going to be in the public eye than drawing it on a corpse that's going to get burried or incinerated and then never looked at again.

 

Drawing it on the cheek of a dog I could see as offensive because there you're being a jackass to the dog, another living creature, but the dead are just that. Dead. No different from a piece of furniture you're throwing out because it's broken, or a dead computer you're taking to the ecostation.

Well, then you should search for "corpse desecration", which, unlike graffiti, tends to be a criminal offense. Messing with a dead body can land you on the wrong side of the law pretty quickly.

 

 

[Atra1n2]

I know several have the mindset that since there is no law on the books that specifically says you can't pick up a corpse's finger and use it to unlock a phone, it's fine. But, the little information they would've recovered, was it worth disrespecting the family like that, (i.e. coming in to the funeral home, while the fiance is there)? Was it worth disturbing the deceased? Was it worth all of the uproar its going to cause and the lawsuit from the family that will likely arise? Was it a good idea to wait for the body to be released by the state to the family, before trying to use the print to unlock the phone? It just seems like the detectives and investigators thought of every misstep they could in handling this (i.e. waiting for the body to be released by the state, showing up at the funeral home, proceeding even though the fiance of the deceased was there, picking up the dead guy's cold, lifeless hand from the table, somehow thinking the fingerprint scanner would still scan a matched print). I don't know, I'm just disgusted by it, and its a clear royal screw-up by the investigators, and kind of an overreach into privacy and constitutional rights, depending who you ask of course..