> The opinion from the 9th circuit was that it was oke-dokeily because, and I quote, "required no cognitive exertion, placing it firmly in the same category as a blood draw or fingerprint taken at booking"
You might dislike it, but legally, these are equivalent, with the requirement of a finger being less onerous. Biometrics are public information, like it or now. It's a well-reasoned decision.
You might dislike it, but legally, these are equivalent, with the requirement of a finger being less onerous. Biometrics are public information, like it or now. It's a well-reasoned decision.