Oregon Supreme Court· 1/28/2021

State v. Pittman

Citations

367 Or. 498
479 P.3d 1028

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).

Judges: Walters

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

36 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.