In fact, in attempting to reconcile smart device data with the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, none of the cases even considers the proverbial treasure trove of highly personal information at stake.
But 20 years ago, Hunt had just graduated with a degree in biology.
It was decorated with a few small Santa hats and plush candy cane shapes, then strung with what appeared to be green and white lights, although they appeared noticeably dim in comparison to the camera flash.
Consistent with other Fourth Amendment smart technology rulings, this search of digital information was held unconstitutional absent a warrant.
Here, it is the biometrics, interestingly, that the court found testimonial but not the passwords that required actual disclosure by the defendant.
The difference now, however, is that it is not law enforcement but instead an overwhelming and growing majority of private individuals voluntarily choosing ubiquitous smart technology use with little regard for privacy concerns where either convenience or, increasingly, conformity to social norms is at stake.