Seo v. State - 148 N.E.3d 952 (Ind. 2020)

Rule:

The compelled production of an unlocked smartphone is testimonial and entitled to Fifth Amendment protection—unless the State demonstrates the foregone conclusion exception applies.

Facts:

When Katelin Seo was placed under arrest, law enforcement took her iPhone believing it contained incriminating evidence. A detective got a warrant to search the smartphone, but he couldn't get into the locked device without Seo's assistance. The detective got a second warrant that ordered Seo to unlock her iPhone. She refused, and the State moved to hold her in contempt. At the ensuing hearing, Seo argued that forcing her to unlock the iPhone would violate her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The trial court disagreed and held Seo in contempt, concluding that the act of unlocking the phone did not rise to the level of testimonial self-incrimination. 

Issue:

Did the trial court correctly hold Seo in contempt based on her refusal to unlock her cellphone? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court held that the trial court erred in holding Seo in civil contempt because under the facts of the case, forcing her to unlock the phone would violate her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The foregone conclusion exception to the privilege against self-incrimination did not apply because, inter alia, unlocking Seo’s cellphone would provide law enforcement with information it did not already know, which the State could then use in its prosecution against her. In addition, U.S. Supreme court precedent and the foregone conclusion exception's limited application counseled against extending it further.