The Digital Wallet: Can the Police Force You to Decrypt Your Phone?

By: John Guidry

The government loves to search our stuff. What are the limits of this power? The Constitution, of course. In a month or so, the United States Supreme Court will render a decision regarding law enforcement’s search of a citizen’s cell phone upon arrest.

The Old Rule: It is customary for the police to search the personal items of an arrestee, like a wallet or purse.

• The Logic: If a man’s wallet contains photos of his family, it is legal for an officer to flip through them to ensure the wallet doesn’t contain a razor blade or drugs.
• The Problem: Does this right extend to a cell phone?

The Florida Rule (Smallwood v. State): No. As of last year, the Florida Supreme Court ruled in Smallwood v. State, 113 So. 3d 724 (Fla. 2013), that warrantless cell phone searches violate the Fourth Amendment.

• The Conflict: Locally, some courts (like in State v. Glasco) tried to argue searches were legal. I wrote articles months ago explaining why they were wrong. Yes, I got this one right. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut, and a broken clock is right twice a day.

Did the police search your phone without a warrant?

The evidence may be suppressed. Call John today at (407) 423-1117.

The New Witch Hunt: Encryption

Technology is exposing cracks in our laws, permitting the government to squeeze through until the court system catches up. In particular, Central Florida has witnessed a significant increase in home searches pursuant to the witch hunt for child pornography. The Problem: When the government seizes a computer that is encrypted, they can’t see the files.

• The Tech: Software like PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) is virtually uncrackable. A “Brute Force” attack (guessing every code) would take millions of years.
• The Dilemma: Can the government force you to type in the password?

This is a Fifth Amendment battle.

• Option A: You refuse, and they hold you in Contempt of Court (indefinite jail time until you comply).
• Option B: You comply, and the evidence sends you to prison as a Sex Offender. Susan McDougal refused to answer questions about Bill Clinton and got 18 months in prison for contempt. Unlike her, you probably won’t get a Presidential Pardon.

The Split: United States v. Doe vs. Fricosu

Courts are split on whether forcing you to decrypt your drive violates your right against Self-Incrimination.

The Win (United States v. Doe): In U.S. v. Doe, 670 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2012), the 11th Circuit (which covers Florida) held that John Doe was NOT required to decrypt his hard drives.

• The Reasoning: Forcing him to decrypt the drive would be forcing him to use the “contents of his mind” to testify against himself.

The Loss (U.S. v. Fricosu): Other courts, like in Fricosu, ruled that the Fifth Amendment does not protect you from producing physical evidence. They liken a password to a key to a safe—if you have the key, you must hand it over.

John’s 2026 Update: FaceID & The “Foregone Conclusion”

Note: In 2014, we were waiting for the Supreme Court. In 2026, the rules are clearer—and scarier.

1. Riley v. California (The Warrant is Mandatory) The Supreme Court did exactly what I predicted. In Riley v. California (2014), they ruled unanimously that police must get a warrant to search a cell phone.

• The Impact: The “Wallet Search” analogy is dead. A phone is not a wallet; it is a digital life.

2. Passcode vs. FaceID (The Biometric Trap) In 2026, the biggest danger is Biometrics.

• Passcodes (Testimonial): Courts generally agree that forcing you to speak or type a password violates the 5th Amendment because it requires you to use your mind.
• FaceID/Fingerprint (Non-Testimonial): However, courts often rule that holding a phone up to your face (FaceID) or pressing your finger to it is a physical act, like giving a fingerprint sample. It does not violate the 5th Amendment.
• My Advice: If you are arrested, disable FaceID immediately (usually by holding the power and volume buttons). Make them get a warrant for the passcode, which we can fight.

3. The “Foregone Conclusion” Doctrine (State v. Stahl) Florida courts (specifically the 2nd DCA in State v. Stahl) have created a loophole called the “Foregone Conclusion” doctrine.

• The Rule: If the State can prove the phone belongs to you (e.g., they saw you holding it), they argue that your knowledge of the passcode is a “foregone conclusion.” Therefore, telling them the code adds nothing new—it just unlocks the evidence.
• The Result: They can throw you in jail for Contempt until you type the code.

4. The 2025 “Social Media Decryption” Law (SB 868) Effective July 1, 2025, Florida passed strict laws requiring social media platforms to provide decryption mechanisms for accounts belonging to minors if served with a subpoena.

• The Danger: If your child is under investigation, the State no longer needs the password—they can force the platform (Instagram, TikTok, etc.) to decrypt the messages directly.

Lock It Down, But Know Your Rights

Encryption is a shield, but the government is forging new hammers every day. If they are demanding your password or holding your device, do not type a single digit until you speak to us.

Call me at (407) 423-1117. Let’s protect your digital life.

About John Guidry II

John Guidry II is a seasoned criminal defense attorney and founder of the Law Firm of John P. Guidry II, P.A., located in downtown Orlando next to the Orange County Courthouse, where he has practiced for over 30 years. With more than three decades of experience defending clients throughout Central Florida since 1993, Guidry has successfully defended thousands of cases in Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Brevard, Lake, and Volusia counties. He has built a reputation for his strategic approach to criminal defense, focusing on pretrial motions and case dismissals rather than jury trials.

Guidry earned both his Juris Doctorate and Master of Business Administration from St. Louis University in 1993. He is a member of the Florida Bar and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. His practice encompasses the full spectrum of Florida state criminal charges, with a particular emphasis on achieving favorable outcomes through thorough pretrial preparation and motion practice.

Beyond the courtroom, Guidry is a prolific legal educator who has authored over 400 articles on criminal defense topics. He shares his legal expertise through his popular YouTube channel, Instagram, and TikTok accounts, where he has built a substantial following of people eager to learn about the law. His educational content breaks down complex legal concepts into accessible information for the general public.

When not practicing law, Guidry enjoys tennis and pickleball, and loves to travel. Drawing from his background as a former recording studio owner and music video producer in the Orlando area, he brings a creative perspective to his legal practice and continues to apply his passion for video production to his educational content.