• Case of Note

State v. Pittman

Docket number
SC S067312

Ruled that state may only compel a defendant to unlock a phone if the state has a warrant, already knows the information the act of unlocking would communicate, and cannot use that act against the defendant. Specifically, the court held, “[t]o comply with the Oregon Constitution, a court order compelling a defendant to unlock a cell phone so that the state may execute a valid search warrant (1) could issue only if the state already knows the information that the testimonial aspects of the act will communicate and (2) must prohibit the state from using the testimonial aspects of that act against the defendant for any purpose. Those prohibited uses would include, but not be limited to, use as evidence at the defendant’s trial, use to seek additional search warrants, use to obtain an indictment, or use in sentencing.”

Sole footer logo

A project of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law