As reported on Arstechnica.com in, recently a judge ruled against a criminal who appealed his ruling based on the fact he was forced to use his fingerprint to unlock his cell phone during the investigation - citing his 5th amendment rights as to not self-incriminate. The ruling found that the fingerprint itself is proof of self, not proof of knowledge - giving them full right to utilize this for the purpose of unlocking the device. Had it been a passcode or other form of password/phrase/pattern, this may have been completely different......
Many devices will require you to use a passcode/phrase/pattern on the first unlocking of a device. The investigators in this case must have been quick to act or were fore-thinking enough to not restart or turn off the device..... So, food for thought. Perhaps a new feature should ensue in that your primary pass-"thing" should be required beyond a particular length of time?
What are your thoughts?