The Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a forceful opinion today holding that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects individuals from being forced to disclose the passcode to their devices to the police. In a 4-3 decision in Commonwealth v. Davis, the court found that disclosing a password is "testimony" protected by the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination. EFF filed an amicus brief in Davis, and we were gratified that the court's opinion closely parallels our arguments. The Fifth Amendment privilege prohibits the government from coercing a confession or forcing a suspect to lead police to incriminating evidence. We argue that unlocking and decrypting a smartphone or computer is the modern equivalent of these forms of self-incrimination.
Crucially, the court held that the narrow "foregone conclusion exception" to the Fifth Amendment does not apply to disclosing passcodes. As described in our brief, this exception applies only when an individual is forced to comply with a subpoena for business records and only when complying with the subpoena does not reveal the "contents of his mind," as the U.S. Supreme Court put it. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed with EFF. It wrote: "Requiring the Commonwealth to do the heavy lifting, indeed, to shoulder the entire load, in building and bringing a criminal case without a defendant's assistance may be inconvenient and even difficult; yet, to apply the foregone conclusion rationale in these circumstances would allow the exception to swallow the constitutional privilege. Nevertheless, this constitutional right is firmly grounded in the "realization that the privilege, while sometimes a shelter to the guilty, is often a protection to the innocent."
Crucially, the court held that the narrow "foregone conclusion exception" to the Fifth Amendment does not apply to disclosing passcodes. As described in our brief, this exception applies only when an individual is forced to comply with a subpoena for business records and only when complying with the subpoena does not reveal the "contents of his mind," as the U.S. Supreme Court put it. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed with EFF. It wrote: "Requiring the Commonwealth to do the heavy lifting, indeed, to shoulder the entire load, in building and bringing a criminal case without a defendant's assistance may be inconvenient and even difficult; yet, to apply the foregone conclusion rationale in these circumstances would allow the exception to swallow the constitutional privilege. Nevertheless, this constitutional right is firmly grounded in the "realization that the privilege, while sometimes a shelter to the guilty, is often a protection to the innocent."