cross-posted from: https://programming.dev/post/36109840
by Nikita Biryukov, New Jersey Monitor
August 19, 2025Police did not act improperly when an officer gained access to the phone of an individual detained for kidnapping, sex assault, and other serious charges after watching the man enter his cellphone passcode and committing it to memory, a New Jersey appeals court ruled Tuesday.
Tyrone Ellison, who was arrested and convicted after kidnapping a minor with substance abuse issues from a Newark hospital, had no reasonable expectation of privacy when he unlocked his phone while in police custody and under the supervision of a detective, the court ruled.
“There was no violation of defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination where defendant voluntarily requested his cell phone, was not compelled to provide the passcode and voluntarily entered the passcode in the officer’s presence,” the judges wrote.
Police could not leave Ellison unattended with his phone without risking him deleting evidence, the ruling adds.
The judges said prior case law that found an arrestee maintained a reasonable expectation of privacy when making a call from a police station without being told that call may be monitored or recorded does not apply to Ellison’s case.
Ellison, the judges wrote, was aware of the detective’s presence when entering his passcode, did not attempt to conceal his password, and was not stopped from concealing his passcode from police.
“There was no deception or trickery used to obtain defendant’s passcode. Nor did the police orchestrate the situation to induce defendant to reveal the passcode,” the court wrote.
In effect, Ellison’s expectation of privacy vanished when he chose to unlock his phone in the presence of police, the court found.
A divided New Jersey Supreme Court in 2020 ruled in Andrews v. New Jersey that while the Fifth Amendment presumptively protects individuals’ passcodes, they can be compelled to reveal them under the foregone conclusion exception to the amendment. That exception allows the compelled disclosure of documents and passcodes as long as authorities know they exist and the individual subject to the warrant knows and possesses them.
Tuesday’s ruling says another doctrine that allows authorities to use improperly obtained information if it would have inevitably come into their possession through proper channels would have allowed police to use the passcode even if it was initially obtained improperly.
Police obtained a communications data warrant to search the phone and could have obtained an order to compel Ellison to disclose his passcode, the judges wrote.
“Once the passcode was compelled, law enforcement would have been able to access the contents of the phone,” the judges wrote.
The New Jersey Office of the Public Defender represented Ellison. Alison Perrone, deputy of the office’s appellate section, called the ruling concerning and said her office will ask the New Jersey Supreme Court to review the case.
“The ability of law enforcement to observe and later use a person’s private phone passcode while in custody presents serious questions about constitutional rights in the digital era,” Perrone said in a statement.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.SUBSCRIBE
New Jersey Monitor is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Jersey Monitor maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Terrence T. McDonald for questions: info@newjerseymonitor.com.
People in the USA do have more rights than people here on Airstip One.
Though we are both under the big black boot of government friendly fascism.
Since October 2007, we have had Section 49 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 or RIPA.
We cannot refuse to give up a password or access to an encrypted device.
Section 53 of RIPA makes it a criminal offence to not comply with a Section 49 notice, carrying a sentence of up to two years in prison, and up to five years in cases involving national security, terrorism or child indecency.
We have no Fifth Amendment covering self-incrimination laws to protect us from over zealous police and state.
Who in society is going to argue against laws that are sold to us to protect our children?
I am an old retired psychotherapist. I remember the introduction of the CRB (criminal records bureau) check, here on Airstrip one in the early 2000’s. Now called a DBS check.
The CRB scanned the Police National Computer for any criminal offences that you had committed, this also included juvenile, aged under 17 offences. Which empowered all employers to use the CRB checks to get rid of staff and refuse to employ certain people. Discrimination was rife.
You were now judged, not on your competence to do your job, but whether you had a criminal record.
I would not have minded so much if they solely searched for any offence that were linked to child abuse, terrorism or national security, but they provided your entire life criminal offences.
My enhanced CRB check showed that I had gotten fined £3 for riding my bicycle on a pavement in the mid 60’s when I was 11 years old. My mum had to pay. My dad earned about £10 per week as a lorry driver.
What a danger to society I was! An employer could refuse to employ me just because of that little bit of information.
Sold to the UK population as a means to protect our children from sexual predators. Of course no one complained.
Yet, forward just a few years and you needed a CRB check to work at:
The airport, the local supermarket, as a gardener in a school, as a handyman sweeping the car park of the local doctors practice.
you needed to have a CRB check if you came within 100M of a child or vulnerable adult.
Even University students now have to have a CRB checks if they are on a psychology, counselling or psychotherapy course, because they may come into contact with children and or vulnerable adults.
This is the slow creep of government policies expanding, with no oversight, sold to us under the guise that they are protecting children and vulnerable adults.
fear is a great driver for change. scare someone enough and they will give up their granny.
I think this is also linked to Airstrip One’s governments, continually attempting to remove all encryption from devices by using child protection as a reason