## Facts

- Katelin Eunjoo Seo reported to law enforcement that D.S. raped her and told a detective her iPhone contained relevant communications.
- With Seo’s consent, officers performed a forensic download of the iPhone and returned it; no charges were filed against D.S., and the investigation shifted toward Seo.
- D.S. reported Seo stalked and harassed him; investigators concluded he received numerous calls and texts from many unassigned numbers consistent with number-masking technology.
- The State charged Seo with more than nineteen offenses and obtained an arrest warrant.
- Upon Seo’s arrest, officers seized her locked iPhone; she refused to provide the passcode.
- Police obtained a warrant to conduct a forensic download/search, but could not access the device while it remained locked.
- Police then obtained a second warrant ordering Seo to unlock the iPhone under threat of contempt.
- Seo refused; the trial court held her in contempt, finding unlocking was not testimonial self-incrimination.
- While the contempt appeal was pending, Seo pleaded guilty to one stalking count and the remaining charges were dismissed (generally without prejudice); the contempt order remained stayed during appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether the appeal was moot after Seo’s plea agreement and dismissal of most charges, given the continuing contempt order and potential future proceedings.
2. Whether compelling Seo to unlock her iPhone by entering her passcode violated the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination under the act-of-production doctrine, and whether the foregone conclusion exception applied.

## Decision

- The case was not moot because the contempt order imposed ongoing consequences and the State retained an interest in obtaining access to the phone for potential further investigation and proceedings.
- Compelling Seo to unlock her iPhone would violate the Fifth Amendment because the act of unlocking would be testimonial.
- The foregone conclusion doctrine did not apply because the State failed to show with reasonable particularity that it already knew the specific evidence on the phone it sought to obtain.
- The court reversed the contempt order and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- The Fifth Amendment protects against compelled testimonial communications, including compelled acts that implicitly convey factual assertions.
- Under the act-of-production doctrine, compelled production can be testimonial when it communicates facts such as the person’s knowledge, possession/control, and the existence or authenticity of evidence.
- Compelled passcode entry to unlock a smartphone may be testimonial because it implicitly communicates that the person knows the passcode and can access the device’s contents.
- The foregone conclusion exception applies only when the government can show, with reasonable particularity, prior knowledge of the existence, location, and authenticity of the specific evidence sought so that the compelled act adds little or nothing to the government’s information.
- Generalized proof of phone ownership or control does not, by itself, establish a foregone conclusion authorizing compelled access to unknown digital contents.

## Conclusion

The Indiana Supreme Court held that ordering a defendant to unlock a smartphone by entering a passcode compels testimonial self-incrimination unless the State can identify specific evidence on the device with reasonable particularity; it therefore reversed the contempt order entered for Seo’s refusal to unlock her iPhone.


Seo v. State, 148 N.E.3d 952 (Ind. 2020)