[rideontime]

I don’t see how that precedent applies. I can already easily answer their question without unlocking my device, and if they want evidence, they can get a warrant.

Even the breathalyzer requirement seems irrelevant, considering that it only requires you to submit to a breathalyzer performed by a police officer, rather than mandating that your BAC be available to anybody with physical access to your property.

[acdha]

> I can already easily answer their question without unlocking my device, and if they want evidence, they can get a warrant.

You can’t answer their question with anything but hearsay. This is why I brought up the DUI checks because we know some people are going to lie, and hard evidence can easily be acquired to sidestep that issue. The suggestion above would be similar in terms of having minimal privacy concern and because it’s cheap and easy it’d actually be done in non-egregious cases.

[rideontime]

I reject your insistence that making an activity log, however opaque, visible to anybody with physical access to a device is a "minimal privacy concern." Repeating it as though it is settled fact does nothing to convince anybody. Perhaps if you'd ever had to deal with an abusive partner you'd see the obvious implications.

I also reject the comparison to DUI checks on the basis that those must be performed ASAP in order not to lose the evidence, thus necessitating urgency; the same doesn't apply to phones. As we've seen in, for example, the case of the Uber self-driving car operator who was using her phone when she killed a pedestrian, they were easily able to determine this after the fact, without such intrusive features.

[sokoloff]

Your testimony about your own behavior is not hearsay.