Megan Graham
@megankgraham.bsky.social
Asso. Clinical Prof. + Director of the Technology Law Clinic
at University of Iowa College of Law. Expect tech + public defense, general enthusiasm. Views are (likely) mine. she/her
at University of Iowa College of Law. Expect tech + public defense, general enthusiasm. Views are (likely) mine. she/her
What an excellent piece of mail to get at the end of a very long day. Can’t wait to dig into @elienyc.bsky.social’s new book!!
March 25, 2025 at 11:32 PM
What an excellent piece of mail to get at the end of a very long day. Can’t wait to dig into @elienyc.bsky.social’s new book!!
2. The government didn't provide a developed argument about why the Fourth Amendment's good faith exception should be extended to the Fifth Amendment context.
January 17, 2025 at 6:11 PM
2. The government didn't provide a developed argument about why the Fourth Amendment's good faith exception should be extended to the Fifth Amendment context.
On good faith, the court said 2 things. 1. The warrant forbade the government from demanding passwords or biometric characteristics unless the agents were clear that disclosure was voluntary. And the agents didn't do that.
January 17, 2025 at 6:09 PM
On good faith, the court said 2 things. 1. The warrant forbade the government from demanding passwords or biometric characteristics unless the agents were clear that disclosure was voluntary. And the agents didn't do that.
On inevitable discovery, the court said no dice. The government had asked the accused for his password and a variation of what he provided opened the phone. But the court says the record isn't clear and there are disputed facts about when the accused was asked for his passwords.
January 17, 2025 at 6:07 PM
On inevitable discovery, the court said no dice. The government had asked the accused for his password and a variation of what he provided opened the phone. But the court says the record isn't clear and there are disputed facts about when the accused was asked for his passwords.
The court explained that testimonial acts are those that require no additional information to be incriminating. Unlocking the phone tells you the incriminating info (i.e., you know how to unlock it). A blood draw requires more info (e.g., an analysis of the sample before you can draw conclusions).
January 17, 2025 at 5:57 PM
The court explained that testimonial acts are those that require no additional information to be incriminating. Unlocking the phone tells you the incriminating info (i.e., you know how to unlock it). A blood draw requires more info (e.g., an analysis of the sample before you can draw conclusions).
And here's the key part of the opinion. The court says that forcing someone to open a phone with a biometric lock is the same as forcing someone to say "I can open that phone" or "this is the password," even though a biometric lock doesn't involve saying words out loud.
January 17, 2025 at 5:54 PM
And here's the key part of the opinion. The court says that forcing someone to open a phone with a biometric lock is the same as forcing someone to say "I can open that phone" or "this is the password," even though a biometric lock doesn't involve saying words out loud.
The court described the FBI agent's "normal process" as basically saying "want me to write down the number for you of someone you want to call from jail?" as a way to get them to unlock their phone to be investigated when the person otherwise says they don't want to unlock their phone.
![Highlighted text in D.C. Circuit opinion in United States v. Brown that says, "The agent testified that his “ordinary practice” was to ask whether the person in custody “wishe[d] to have any numbers accessed so that they c[ould] be provided” for use at the jail. The district court found that Agent Nealon “presumably” thought he followed that practice and that “Mr. Schwartz, in response to that request, did put his thumb on the telephone, thereby opening it.”"](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:7ubdo65cnzkw677tf6hh6fx4/bafkreihqn5fo6dfn252dza3cehakh3hkrk2fxx7qhw5ahoqqctopu4bgnm@jpeg)
January 17, 2025 at 5:35 PM
The court described the FBI agent's "normal process" as basically saying "want me to write down the number for you of someone you want to call from jail?" as a way to get them to unlock their phone to be investigated when the person otherwise says they don't want to unlock their phone.
Well, this is a good holding. media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/doc...
January 17, 2025 at 5:26 PM
Well, this is a good holding. media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/doc...
Feels like @karlthefog.bsky.social is on vacation in Iowa City this morning.
December 16, 2024 at 2:45 PM
Feels like @karlthefog.bsky.social is on vacation in Iowa City this morning.
Sometimes you learn the outcome of the SEC championship game from law professors... @kovarsky.bsky.social @anthonymkreis.bsky.social
December 8, 2024 at 1:14 AM
Sometimes you learn the outcome of the SEC championship game from law professors... @kovarsky.bsky.social @anthonymkreis.bsky.social