Source: https://www.newjerseycriminalattorney-blog.com/can-cops-make-you-unlock-your-cell-phone-with-your-finger-print-in-new-jersey/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 21:23:54+00:00

Document:
As a New Jersey criminal defense attorney, I couldn’t disagree with the judge more (though admittedly my opinion is probably in the legal minority). The question is one of Constitutionally protected privacy, and requires a bit of legal analysis. The judge, in essence, was basing his opinion on the notion that you do not have an expectation of privacy with respect to your fingerprints, but you have a Fifth Amendment right not to testify against yourself, and therefore cannot be compelled to verbally tell police your pass code. The difference is semantic at best, and in my professional opinion, the judge failed to properly identify the thing that is protected. Namely, the content of the cell phone. That is, after all, why we have pass codes or biometric security; so we can protect the contents of the phone from the public. It is a lock, just like a lock on a briefcase (which would require a warrant to open), and it should make no difference what type of lock it is. It is an expression of your expectation of privacy, and it is that which should be protected.
The Fifth Amendment provides that “[n]o person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” U.S. CONST. Amend. V. However, “the Fifth Amendment does not independently proscribe the compelled production of every sort of incriminating evidence.” Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 408, 96 S.Ct. 1569, 1579, 48 L.Ed.2d 39 (1976). Instead, “the privilege protects a person only against being incriminated by his own compelled testimonial communications.” Id., 96 S.Ct. at 1580. Although the privilege applies typically to verbal or written communications, an act that implicitly communicates a statement of fact may be within the purview of the privilege as well. United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043, 147 L.Ed.2d 24 (2000); Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201, 209, 108 S.Ct. 2341, “[a]lthough the contents of a document may not be privileged, the act of producing the document may be.” United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605, 612, 104 S.Ct. 1242, 1242, 79 L.Ed.2d 552 (1984) (Doe I). Production itself acknowledges that [a] document exists, that it is in the possession or control of the producer, and that it is authentic. Hubbell, 120 S.Ct. at 2043. In United States v. Kirschner, the court found that forcing a defendant to reveal his password requires a defendant to share ‘knowledge’ dissimilar to the production of a handwriting sample or a voice exemplar. United States v. Kirschner, 823 F. Supp 2d 665, 669 (2010). The court considered this to be “extortion of information” which forced him to “disclose the contents of his own mind” in a way that implicated the fifth amendment. Id.
So, does this apply to scenarios in New Jersey? Hard to say, as New Jersey has typically afforded citizens greater privacy protection than the United States Constitution, however this is a trend which appears to be changing as of late. Based on a 2013 State Supreme Court case, technically no. But it is not something I would personally count on, as the cases are not completely analogous. If a person found themselves in this situation with say, their iPhone, powering the phone down prior to seizure would be the best method to prevent access. When the phone powers back on, it will require a pass code to be entered, even if you have the biometric fingerprint security enabled. Better safe than sorry.

References: V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.