[theoreticalmal]

While this is good info, it should also be known that in the USA, a judge (maybe and police officer?) can legally command you to unlock your phone via biometrics, but they cannot legally command you to unlock via password or passphrase. “Legally command” = command you to do something with the force of law, and legally punish you if you resist

[Terr_]

IANAL, but I think the distinction is that "give us the password that unlocks this" is forcing you to testify against yourself, producing something from your own memory and forcing you to admit ownership/control of the object. (Which might not even be yours.)

In contrast, "the device opened in response to the same fingerprint/face that the suspect has" is a form of world-evidence which doesn't infringe on your mind, much like "the key found in your pocket unlocked the safe."

[kevindamm]

The reasoning behind this is that your fingerprints and face etc. are public knowledge. Whereas you can retain your right to remain silent (about your password/PIN), failing to provide these aspects of your person can be viewed as not cooperating.

[gruez]

>The reasoning behind this is that your fingerprints and face etc. are public knowledge.

Not really. You can be compelled to give blood sample for alcohol testing, but your blood is hardly "public knowledge". Same thing with strip searches.

[briHass]

That is usually due to 'implied consent' laws. Most states have it written into what you sign to get your license that you must submit to DUI testing. Generally, you can refuse, but the penalty for refusal is worse than the DUI penalty.

[HeatrayEnjoyer]

How does that mix with making direct eye contact

[mattnewton]

It’s not speech, ie not protected. I would assume they can force that in practice.