Balancing Self-Incrimination and Public Safety: A Comparative Analysis of Compelled Smartphone Unlocking in Brazilian and U.S. Legal Systems

Rafael Francisco França

doi:10.22197/rbdpp.v9i3.867

Autores/as

Rafael Francisco França Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4120-2931

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v9i3.867

Palabras clave:

Digital Evidence, Smartphone, Compelled unlocking, Privacy, Self-Incrimination

Resumen

Descargas

Los datos de descarga aún no están disponibles.

Biografía del autor/a

Rafael Francisco França, Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal

Doutorando em Direito na NOVA School of Law, Lisboa, Portugal (2022-2026). É mestre em Ciências Criminais pela PUC/RS (2014). Doutor pelo Programa de Pós-Graduação em Estudos Estratégicos Internacionais - UFRGS (2018), com estágio doutoral no Centre for International and Defence Policy - CIDP, financiado pelo Programa de Doutorado Sanduíche no Exterior - CAPES/MEC. Foi Professor de Direito Processual Penal na Universidade da Região da Campanha-URCAMP. Membro do International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP - alumni), programa do Departamento de Estado (EUA). Visitor Fellow no Centre for International and Defence Policy - CIDP, vinculado a Queen´s University, em Kingston/ON, Canadá. Delegado de Polícia Federal. Foi Chefe do Núcleo de Inteligência Policial da Delegacia de Polícia Federal em Foz do Iguaçu/PR entre 2020 e 2022.

Referencias

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.