• Home
  • Practice Areas
    • Estate Law
    • Personal Injury
    • Criminal Defense
    • Public Intoxication and Underage Drinking
    • Family Law
  • Fees
  • Law Blog
  • Client Login
  • STAFF LOGIN
  • About Us
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • contact us
  • Home
  • Practice Areas
    • Estate Law
    • Personal Injury
    • Criminal Defense
    • Public Intoxication and Underage Drinking
    • Family Law
  • Fees
  • Law Blog
  • Client Login
  • STAFF LOGIN
  • About Us
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • contact us
Brian M. Pierce, Attorney at Law
  • Home
  • Practice Areas
    • Estate Law
    • Personal Injury
    • Criminal Defense
    • Public Intoxication and Underage Drinking
    • Family Law
  • Fees
  • Law Blog
  • Client Login
  • STAFF LOGIN
  • About Us
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • contact us

BRIAN M. PIERCE
​ATTORNEY AT LAW

A NAME YOU CAN TRUST TO FIGHT FOR YOU

    Author

    This blog is written and managed by the Law Offices of Brian M. Pierce. Any information provided in this blog should not be construed as legal advice. If you have legal questions or concerns please consult with an attorney.

    Archives

    April 2020
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018

    Categories

    All
    Personal Injury

    RSS Feed

Back to Blog

Cell Phones in Indiana are still safe for now...

8/21/2018

 
In a divided opinion (2-1), the Indiana Court of Appeals recently held in Katelin Eunjoo Seo v. State of Indiana, 29A05-1710-CR-2466 that the State cannot compel a person to unlock their smarphone.  “The defendant was charged with invasion of privacy, stalking, intimidation and other charges stemming from the alleged harassment of another person.  As part of the criminal investigation, law enforcement obtained a warrant compelling the defendant to unlock her iPhone - either by unlocking the phone and removing the passcode feature or by changing the passcode to 1234.  When the defendant refused, the trial court held her in contempt and ordered the defendant to unlock the phone.

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the contempt finding and order to unlock the smartphone.  In doing so, the Indiana Court of Appeals held that the act of unlocking, and therefore decrypting the contents of the smartphone, would be akin to compelling testimony against oneself in violation of a defendant's 5th Amendment right not to incriminate oneself.

Because this is a case of first impression in the State of Indiana, it most certainly will be reviewed by the Indiana Supreme Court.  Stay tuned to see if the highest court in Indiana agrees with this decision.
read more

Comments are closed.