The fingerprint technology could make it easier for police to solve crimes, particularly when the evidence such as a video taken using a mobile phone is inside the gadget, but it could also be kept away from investigators because of the passcode requirement in newer devices.

Like Us on Facebook

To go around the possible violation of the Fifth Amendment that protects an individual against incriminating himself, which would be the case if the suspect is forced to hand over his passcode, a Virginia judge ruled on Friday that the suspect could be forced to give his fingerprint to unlock the smartphone.

The landmark decision is in relation to a case filed against Emergency Medical Services captain David Baust, charged with attempting to choke his girlfriend to death, which could be proven by a video on the incident on his smartphone. However, his lawyer argued forcing the defendant to reveal his passcode breaches the Fifth Amendment, reports Hampton Roads.

Police have secured a search warrant on Baust's phone, but he rejected their demand to unlock it because the authorities could search for other embarrassing items on his device that are not related to the domestic abuse case he faces.

Virginia Judge Steven Frucci said the fingerprint is not covered by the charter protection against self-incrimination. He compared it to forcing a crime suspect to hand over a DNA or handwriting sample, while forcing a suspect to provide his passcode is "divulging knowledge," quoted UPI.

Ironically, tech firms such as Apple and Samsung had incorporated fingerprint technology on their smartphones and tablets such as the Iphone 5S and Galaxy5S to provide an additional layer of security for personal and business users, not to make it easier for government institutions to access these gadgets.

But if the device requires both a passcode and a fingerprint then the Fifth Amendment protection covers the gadget. Apple and Google changed their encryption system on their newest models to make it difficult for law enforcement agencies to retrieve data.

However, FBI Director James Comey spoke against the revision to the encryption system since it places phone owners above the law.

Since a lower court issued the decision, it only applies to Virginia, not in other parts of the U.S.

Tagsfingerprint technology, fifth amendment, self-incrimination