People v. Sneed

Defendant was charged with two counts of forgery and the State filed a motion to compel production of his cell phone passcode. The circuit court held that the privilege against self-incrimination prevented it from granting the motion to compel as the information sought would constitute testimonial communication. The appellate court disagreed and reversed the circuit court’s order. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court, finding that compelling the act of producing the passcode to a cell phone is testimonial only to the extent that performing the act of entering the passcode implicitly asserts that the person entering it has the ability to unlock the phone. The court further held that the foregone conclusion test is applicable in the context of compelled production of cell phone passcodes and applied as an exception to the fifth amendment under the facts of the case. (THEIS, HOLDER WHITE, CUNNINGHAM, and ROCHFORD, concurring. NEVILLE, dissenting. O’BRIEN took no part in the decision)