## Facts

- Florida charged Aaron Stahl with video voyeurism after a shopper reported a man crouching near her and placing an illuminated phone under her skirt before fleeing.
- Store surveillance video corroborated the incident and showed the suspect leaving in a vehicle traced to Stahl.
- During an interview, Stahl admitted he was in the store, denied taking inappropriate images, and verbally consented to a search of his iPhone 5 located at his residence.
- Officers retrieved the phone, after which Stahl withdrew consent.
- Police obtained a search warrant for the contents of the specifically described iPhone (including identifying details) linked to Stahl and the incident.
- The phone was passcode-protected; the State moved to compel Stahl to disclose the passcode to execute the warrant.
- The trial court denied the motion on Fifth Amendment self-incrimination grounds.
- The State sought certiorari review in the Florida Second District Court of Appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether compelling a defendant to disclose a cellphone passcode is a testimonial communication protected by the Fifth Amendment and the Florida Constitution.
2. Whether the foregone conclusion doctrine permits compelling disclosure when the State can already establish, with reasonable particularity, the facts implicitly communicated by the act.

## Decision

- The Second District granted the State’s petition for writ of certiorari and quashed the trial court’s order denying the motion to compel.
- The court held that compelling Stahl to provide the iPhone passcode was not a protected testimonial communication under the foregone conclusion doctrine.
- The court concluded the State already knew the phone existed, was controlled/owned by Stahl, and that Stahl could unlock it; compelling the passcode added little or nothing to the State’s information.
- The ruling was limited to compelled passcode disclosure in aid of executing a valid search warrant for the phone’s contents.

## Legal Principles

- The Fifth Amendment protects against compelled testimonial communications, not all compelled acts; an act may be testimonial if it implicitly communicates facts.
- Under the act-of-production doctrine, compelled production can be non-testimonial when the government shows a foregone conclusion: it already knows, with reasonable particularity, the existence, possession/control, and authenticity of what the act would communicate.
- For compelled phone access, the relevant foregone conclusions may include the device’s existence, the defendant’s ownership/control, and the defendant’s ability to unlock it, as distinct from the specific data stored on the device.
- Compelled disclosure of a passcode may be treated as a mechanical step enabling execution of a search warrant where the testimonial inferences from disclosure are already established by independent evidence.

## Conclusion

The court permitted the State to compel disclosure of a cellphone passcode to execute a search warrant, reasoning that the implicit assertions conveyed by providing the passcode were already known to the State and therefore fell within the foregone conclusion doctrine rather than the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.


State v. Stahl, 206 So. 3d 124 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)