Balancing Self-Incrimination and Public Safety: A Comparative Analysis of Compelled Smartphone Unlocking in Brazilian and U.S. Legal Systems
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v9i3.867Keywords:
Digital Evidence, Smartphone, Compelled unlocking, Privacy, Self-IncriminationAbstract
This study compares how the laws in the United States and Brazil handle the use of digital evidence from smartphones in initial criminal investigations. The main goal is to understand the challenges when trying to protect the right to avoid self-incrimination while also ensuring public safety. By looking at court decisions from 2014 to 2023, the study explores how the legal systems in both countries deal with arguments for and against law enforcement being able to unlock smartphones against the will of the owner. The main issue being examined is the balance between respecting citizens' privacy rights and making sure defendants get fair treatment in the legal process. The research question driving this study is: How do Brazil and the U.S. manage the situation where law enforcement needs to unlock smartphones, while also respecting constitutional rights and public safety? To answer this question, the study looks at recent court cases from both countries and identifies important arguments about forced smartphone unlocking. The findings show problems in these legal proceedings, particularly when it comes to protecting the privacy of smartphone users and defendants' rights. A key point that comes out is that when law enforcement examines suspects' phones, it can jeopardize the proper handling of evidence and the right against self-incrimination that's protected by the Constitution. The study highlights shortcomings in the responses of the Supreme Courts of Brazil and the United States. This suggests a need for a more detailed framework that can address these challenges better and solve disagreements in lower courts. In essence, this article discusses the conflict between privacy rights and self-incrimination on one hand, and the government's duty to maintain public safety and prevent illegal evidence on the other. In conclusion, this article explores the legal issues around forced smartphone unlocking in Brazil and the United States. It not only emphasizes the importance of balancing individual rights with public safety but also calls for a more comprehensive legal approach to deal with these challenges effectively.
Downloads
References
AL-KHATEEB, H.; EPIPHANIOU, G.; DALY, H. Blockchain for modern digital forensics: The chain-of-custody as a distributed ledger. Em: Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications. [s.l.] Springer, 2019. p. 149–168.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11289-9_7
ANTONIALLI, D. M. et al. “Stop and frisks”, searches incident to arrest, and law enforcement access to cellphones: overview and analysis of state courts case law. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Criminais, v. 154, p. 177–214, abr. 2019.
BADARÓ, G. Editorial dossier “Criminal evidence: Epistemological and juridical foundations”. Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal, v. 4, n. 1, p. 43–80, 1 jan. 2018.
https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v4i1.138
BARMPATSALOU, K. et al. Current and future trends in mobile device forensics: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys, v. 51, n. 3, 1 abr. 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3177847
BARROSO, L. R. A americanização do direito constitucional e seus paradoxos: teoria e jurisprudência constitucional no mundo contemporâneo. Interesse Público, v. 59, n. 12, jan. 2010.
BRAZIL. Defensoria Pública do Estado da Bahia. O que você precisa saber sobre abordagem policial. , 2019. Disponível em: . Acesso em: 9 maio. 2023
https://doi.org/10.11606/d.2.2010.tde-25082011-142156
BRENNER, S. W. The Privacy Privilege: Law Enforcement, Technology, and the Constitution. Journal of Technology Law & Policy, v. 7, n. 2, p. 123–193, dez. 2002.
BRENNER, S. W. The Fourth Amendment in an Era of Ubiquitous Technology. Mississippi Law Journal, v. 75, p. 01–94, 2005.
BUFARAH, L. Brasil tem mais smartphones que habitantes: como democratizar aparelhos de ponta? Disponível em: . Acesso em: 29 mar. 2023.
https://doi.org/10.55232/202800.81
BUTLER, A. Get a Warrant: the Supreme Court’s new course for digital privacy rights after Riley v. California. Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy, v. 10, n. 1, p. 83–117, 2014.
CARDOSO, G. V. O Direito Comparado na Jurisdição Constitucional. Revista de Direito da Fundação Getúlio Vargas, FGV, v. 6, n. 2, p. 469–492, 2010.
https://doi.org/10.1590/s1808-24322010000200006
CARRIER, B.; SPAFFORD, E. H. Getting Physical with the Digital Investigation Process. International Journal of Digital Evidence Fall, v. 2, n. 2, p. 01–20, 2003.
CARTHEW, A. Searches and Seizures - Fourth Amendment and Reasonableness in General: protection of privacy in the Digital Age. North Dakota Law Review, v. 94, n. 1, p. 197–220, 2020.
CAUTHEN, R. H. The Fifth Amendment and Compelling Unencrypted Data, Encryption Codes, and Passwords. American Journal of Trial Advocacy, v. 41, n. 119, p. 119–140, 2017.
CHASE, A. Secure the Smartphone, Secure the Future: Biometrics, Boyd, a Warrant Denial and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Poverty Law Journal Hastings Race and Poverty Law Journal, v. 17, n. 2, p. 577–604, 2020.
COHEN, A.; PARK, S. Compelled decryption and the Fifth Amendment: exploring the technical boundaries. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, v. 32, n. 1, p. 170–234, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3117984
COULON, J. Privacy, Screened Out: Analyzing the Threat to Individual Privacy Rights and Fifth Amendment Protections in State v. Stahl. Boston College Law Review, v. 59, n. 9, p. 225–244, 2018.
DAVENPORT, V. E. Investigative Police Stops—Necessary or Insidious? A Practitioner’ s ViewpointPublic Administration Review - The American Society for Public Administration. [s.l: s.n.].
DEE, M. Getting Back to the Fourth Amendment: Warrantless Cell Phone Searches. New York Law School Law Review, v. 56, p. 1129–1163, 2011.
DEZEM, G. M. A busca e apreensão em celulares: algumas ponderações em torno da proteção de dados, da privacidade e da eficiência do processo. Cadernos Jurídicos, São Paulo, v. 53, n. 21, p. 35–48, mar. 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1590/s0102-88392002000300007
ECKART, J. P. The Department of Justice Versus Apple Inc.: The Great Encryption Debate Between Privacy and National Security. Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology, v. 27, n. 2, p. 1–71, 2019.
FAYET, F. A.; CARVALHO, A. V. WhatsApp, sigilo de dados e prova ilícita: para dizer o óbvio. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Criminais, v. 140, n. 26, p. 247–296, 2018.
FELDENS, L.; CEOLIN, G. F. Direito à autodeterminação informativa e o processo penal. Disponível em: . Acesso em: 23 maio. 2023.
https://doi.org/10.22533/at.ed.6252316014
FERRAZ JÚNIOR, T. S. Sigilo de dados: o direito à privacidade e os limites à função fiscalizadora do Estado. Revista da Faculdade de Direito, Universidade de São Paulo, v. 88, p. 439–459, 1993.
https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2318-8235.v88i0p439-459
FORCHESATTO, R.; SILVA, D. N. DA. Possibilities of relativization of rights in police activity: access to data from electronic devices. Revista Ordem Pública e Defesa Social, v. 10, n. 1, p. 13–32, jan. 2018.
Fourth Amendment. Search and Seizure. Searching Cell Phones Incident to Arrest. Riley v. California. Harvard Law Review, v. 128, n. 1, p. 251–260, 2014.
FREEMAN, L.; VAZQUEZ LLORENTE, R. Finding the signal in the noise: International criminal evidence and procedure in the digital age. Journal of International Criminal Justice, v. 19, n. 1, p. 163–188, 1 mar. 2021.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqab023
GELDENHUYS, K. Cellphones: evidence that does not lie. Servamus Community-based Safety & Security Magazine, p. 10–15, out. 2022.
GIACOMOLLI, N. J.; AMARAL, M. E. A. A cadeia de custódia da prova pericial na Lei no 13.964/2019. Revista Duc In Altum Cadernos de Direito, v. 12, n. 27, p. 67–100, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.22293/2179-507x.v12i27.1305
GIZZI, M. C.; CURTIS, R. C. The Fourth Amendment in Flux: the Roberts Court, Crime Control, and Digital Privacy. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 2016.
https://doi.org/10.1017/s1537592718002451
GLOECKNER, R. J.; EILBERG, D. D. Busca e apreensão de dados em telefones celulares: novos desafios frente aos avanços tecnológicos. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Criminais, v. 156, n. 27, p. 353–392, 2019.
HERRERA, A. Biometric Passwords and the Fifth Amendment: How Technology Has Outgrown the Right to Be Free From Self-Incrimination. UCLA Law Review, v. 66, p. 778–817, 2019.
HINCKLEY, M. V. An Unreasonable Expectation? Warrantless Searches of Cell Phones. Brigham Young University Law review, p. 1.363-1.394, 2013.
HOBBIE JR., N. Reconsidering the Foregone Conclusion Doctrine: Compelled Decryption and the Original Meaning of Self-Incrimination. The University of New Hampshire Law Review, v. 20, n. 1, p. 51–96, 12 jan. 2021.
HOCHSTRASSER, D. Encryption and the privilege against self-incrimination: what happens when a suspect refuses to divulge a password. UNSW Law Journal, v. 45, n. 3, p. 1185–1219, 2022.
https://doi.org/10.53637/olrx1009
HORSMAN, G. Digital evidence and the crime scene. Science and Justice, v. 61, n. 6, p. 761–770, 1 nov. 2021.
HUNT-BLACKWELL, S. You Have the Right to Remain Private: Safeguarding Biometric Identifiers in Civil and Criminal Contexts. Tulane Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, v. 24, p. 205–222, 2022.
IACP SUMMIT REPORT. Data, Privacy, and Public Safety. A law enforcement perspective on the challenges of gathering electronic evidence. [s.l: s.n.]. Disponível em: . Acesso em: 31 mar. 2023.
IBRAHIM, T. M. et al. Recent advances in mobile touch screen security authentication methods: A systematic literature review. Computers and Security, v. 85, p. 1–24, 1 ago. 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2019.04.008
JACOBSEN, K. M. Game of Phones, Data Isn’t Coming: Modern Mobile Operating System Encryption and Its Chilling Effect on Law Enforcement. The George Washington Law Review, v. 85, n. 2, p. 566–612, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2856603
JANSEN, W.; AYERS, R. P. Guidelines on PDA forensics. Gaithersburg, MD: [s.n.]. Disponível em: .
KENNEDY, E. Protecting the Fifth Amendment: Compelled Decryption in Indiana. Indiana Law Review, v. 54, n. 691–717, 2021.
https://doi.org/10.18060/26037
KERR, O. S. Compelled Decryption and the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination. Texas Law Review, v. 97, p. 767–799, 2019.
KNIJNIK, D. A trilogia Olmstead-Katz-Kyllo: o art. 5o da Constituição Federal do Século XXI. Em: SILVA, Â. R. I. DA et al. (Eds.). Temas de direito penal, criminologia e processo penal. Porto Alegre, RS: Livraria do Advogado, 2014. p. 173–190.
https://doi.org/10.55232/1085002.32
LARICCHIA, F. Smartphones in the U.S. - Statistics & Facts. Disponível em: . Acesso em: 2 abr. 2023.
LOPES JR., A. Direito Processual Penal. 9a ed. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2012.
LOPES JR, A.; FERREIRA, R. R. P. Validade do consentimento que recepciona a violação do direito à privacidade do indivíduo: do lar ao celular. Revista Liber, v. 1, n. 2, p. 06–39, 2022.
LUZ, D.; GIACOMOLLI, N. J. Jurisdição criminal brasileira e as Cortes Internacionais de Direitos Humanos: diálogos necessários. Revista de Direitos e Garantias Fundamentais, v. 19, n. 1, p. 91–122, 31 out. 2018.
https://doi.org/10.18759/rdgf.v19i1.942
MENA, C. Another Katz moment?: Privacy, Property, and a DNA Database. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, v. 55, p. 729–757, 2022.
https://doi.org/10.36646/mjlr.55.3.another
MENDES, C. H. C. F. Dado informático como fonte de prova penal confiável (?): apontamentos procedimentais sobre a cadeia de custódia digital. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Criminais, v. 161, n. 27, p. 131–161, 2019.
MENDES, C. H. C. F. Tecnoinvestigação criminal. Entre proteção de dados e a infiltração por software. Salvador: JusPodivm, 2020.
MENEZES, I. A. DE; BORRI, L. A.; SOARES, R. J. Evidence chain of custody break and its effects in the Brazilian criminal proceeding. Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal, v. 4, n. 1, p. 277–300, 1 jan. 2018.
METZ, H. “Your Device is Disabled”: How and Why Compulsion of Biometrics to Unlock Devices Should be Protected by the Fifth Amendment Privilege. Valparaiso University Law Review, v. 53, n. 2, p. 427–466, 2019.
MONSERRAT, C. C. ¿Están prohibidos los engaños policiales que no se encuentran expresamente permitidos? Infiltraciones policiales, agentes encubiertos y derechos fundamentales. Política Criminal, v. 17, n. 33, p. 173–198, jul. 2022.
https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-33992022000100173
MOORE, R. Search and Seizure of Digital Evidence. Criminal Justice ed. [s.l.] LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2005.
MOSKOVITZ, M. A Rule in Search of a Reason: An Empirical reexamination of Chimel and Belton. Golden Gate University School of Law. GGU Law Digital Commons, p. 657–697, 2002.
NEUBAUER, K. “Unlock your phone and let me read all your personal content, please”: the First and Fifth Amendments and border searches of electronic devices. Southern California Law review, v. 92, n. 1275, p. 1274–1317, 2019.
PEREIRA, E. DA S. Teoria da Investigação Criminal. Coimbra, Portugal: Edições Almedina, S.A,., 2010.
PRADO, G. Prova penal e sistema de controles epistêmicos: A quebra da cadeia de custódia das provas obtidas por métodos ocultos. 1a ed. São Paulo, SP: Marcial Pons, 2014.
PRADO, G. A cadeia de custódia da prova no processo penal. 1. ed. São Paulo: Marcial Pons, 2019.
PRAYUDI, Y.; ASHARI, A.; PRIYAMBODO, T. K. The framework to support the digital evidence handling: A case study of procedures for the management of evidence in Indonesia. Journal of Cases on Information Technology, v. 22, n. 3, p. 51–71, 1 jul. 2020.
https://doi.org/10.4018/jcit.2020070104
PRICE, M.; SIMONETTI, Z. Defending Device Decryption Cases. The Champion, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, p. 42–63, jul. 2019.
QUEIROZ, R. M. R.; PONCE, P. P. Tércio Sampaio Ferraz Júnior e Sigilo de dados: o direito à privacidade e os limites à função fiscalizadora do Estado: o que permanece e o que deve ser reconsiderado. Internet & Sociedade, v. 1, n. 1, p. 64–90, 2020.
https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2318-8235.v88i0p439-459
RAJ, M.; MARSHALL, R. Examining the legitimacy of police powers to search portable electronic devices in Queensland. University of Queensland Law Journal, v. 38, n. 1, p. 99–123, 2019.
ROSITO, F. Teoria dos Precedentes Judiciais: racionalidade da tutela jurisdicional. Tese de Doutorado em Direito—Porto Alegre: Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, UFRGS. , 2011.
https://doi.org/10.32467/issn.2175-3628v23n1a14
SACHAROFF, L. Unlocking the Fifth Amendment: Passwords and Devices. Fordham Law Review, v. 87, n. 1, p. 203–250, 2018.
SHWEIKI, O.; LEE, Y. Compelled Use of Biometric Keys to Unlock a Digital Device: Deciphering Recent Legal Developments. Journal of Federal Law and Practice, v. 67, n. 1, p. 23–41, fev. 2019.
SILVA, G. B. P.; MOURA, T. Prisão em flagrante e acesso a dados de celular: desafios entre a privacidade e a investigação criminal. Em: Proteção de dados pessoais e investigação criminal. Associação Nacional dos Procuradores da República. Brasília: ANPR, 2020. p. 399–430.
https://doi.org/10.22350/9786559171934
SOFGE, E. What Personal Data Stays on a Phone? Disponível em: . Acesso em: 26 mar. 2023.
SOUBHIA, F. A.; MUNIZ, G. R. G. Poder investigatório e o direito à intimidade. Disponível em: . Acesso em: 31 mar. 2023.
https://doi.org/10.22456/2317-8558.51261
TOKSON, M. The Carpenter Test as a Transformation of Fourth Amendment Law. University of Illinois Law Review, n. 2, p. 507–535, 2023.
URESK, C. A. Compelling Suspects to Unlock Their Phones: Recommendations for Prosecutors and Law Enforcement. Brigham Young University Law Review, v. 46, n. 2, p. 601–655, 2021.
U.S. COURTS. What Does the Fourth Amendment Mean? Disponível em: . Acesso em: 18 abr. 2023.
VEDODATO, L. R.; ZEDES, L. The cellphone of a man is his castle: privacy and smartphones in the criminal investigation. Revista de Direito e Garantias Fundamentais, v. 20, n. 2, p. 65–92, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.18759/rdgf.v20i2.1109
VERDELHO, P. Obtaining digital evidence in the global world. European Law Journal, v. 5, n. 2, p. 136–145, jul. 2019.
WILSON, S. Compelling Passwords from Third Parties: Why the Fourth and Fifth Amendments Do Not Adequately Protect Individuals when Third Parties Are Forced to Hand Over Passwords. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, v. 30, n. 1, p. 01–38, 2015.
WINN, P. Katz and the Origins of the Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Test Recommended Citation. McGeorge Law Review, v. 40, n. 1, p. 01–12, 2016.
ZIV, M. Riley v. California: can you hear the equilibrium now? Berkeley Technology Law Journal, v. 30, n. 385, p. 1283–1315, 2015.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Rafael Francisco França
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
As of 2022, articles published in the RDPP are licensed under Creative Commons Atribuição 4.0 Internacional. rticles published until 2021 adopted the Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial 4.0 Internacional.
How to Cite
