Smith v. State of Florida

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that “[t]he testimonial information that the act [of production] communicates . . . does not include information about the phone’s content,” and “what the state must demonstrate it already knows” is merely that “the defendant knows the phone’s passcode”
• holding a state constitutional protection against self-incrimination did protect against compelled disclosure of a passcode
• stating that “[t]he state could not compel defendant to reveal the passcode to the phone” because “[r]equiring her to do so would compel her to make an express verbal or written statement”
• noting that, because the defendant in prior case did not make the argument that the defendant in Pittman had made, this court “had no occasion to address” the issue and therefore considered it afresh
• consistent with Article I, section 12, a defendant may be compelled to enter a passcode into a phone, a testimonial act, provided, among other things, evidence of the defendant doing so cannot be introduced at trial or used for any reason other than open- ing the phone
• unlocking phone using biometrics is testimonial

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).