Phone SeizedCompare jurisdictionsCan they use my face or fingerprint?

Can they use my face or fingerprint?

Applies to: England & Wales · Scotland · Australia · United States. The law differs materially between jurisdictions this site covers — do not apply this page outside the one named here. Law also varies by state and territory in Australia — this page does not describe every state or territory. Law also varies by state, and by federal circuit, in the United States — this page does not describe every state or circuit.

Can they use my face or fingerprint?

Can they use my face or fingerprint? — one column per jurisdiction, each answer quoted to its source.
England & Wales	Scotland	Australia	United States
Must — refusing is an offence At a UK port or border examination under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, wilfully failing to comply with a duty under the Schedule — such as unlocking a device — is a criminal offence. That duty can include unlocking a device with your thumb or finger: the Schedule 7 Code of Practice says you must provide access to a device, “including where access to a device requires the person to unlock a device through application of their thumb or finger, or any other form of access control.” This applies at a Schedule 7 border examination specifically; this site has not sourced a general power for police to compel biometric unlocking away from the border. Terrorism Act 2000, Sch.7 para 18(1)(a) “A person commits an offence if he— wilfully fails to comply with a duty imposed under or by virtue of this Schedule” Read it at legislation.gov.ukquote checked 2026-09-08	Must — refusing is an offence At a UK port or border examination under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, wilfully failing to comply with a duty under the Schedule — such as unlocking a device — is a criminal offence. That duty can include unlocking a device with your thumb or finger: the Schedule 7 Code of Practice says you must provide access to a device, “including where access to a device requires the person to unlock a device through application of their thumb or finger, or any other form of access control.” This applies at a Schedule 7 border examination specifically; this site has not sourced a general power for police to compel biometric unlocking away from the border. Terrorism Act 2000, Sch.7 para 18(1)(a) “A person commits an offence if he— wilfully fails to comply with a duty imposed under or by virtue of this Schedule” Read it at legislation.gov.ukquote checked 2026-09-08	Not yet sourced on this site.	Unsettled In the United States, whether police can compel you to unlock a phone with your face or fingerprint is unsettled — the Ninth Circuit held in 2024 that a compelled biometric unlock was not testimonial and so not protected by the Fifth Amendment. The same court said its own ruling “should not be read to extend to all instances where a biometric is used to unlock an electronic device” — other circuits may reach different conclusions. United States v. Payne, 99 F.4th 1145 (9th Cir. 2024) “the compelled use of a biometric to unlock an electronic device was not testimonial because it required no cognitive exertion, placing it in the same category as a blood draw or a fingerprint taken at booking—merely provided the CHP with access to a source of potential information” Read it at cdn.ca9.uscourts.govquote checked 2026-09-08

England & Wales
Must — refusing is an offence
At a UK port or border examination under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, wilfully failing to comply with a duty under the Schedule — such as unlocking a device — is a criminal offence.
That duty can include unlocking a device with your thumb or finger: the Schedule 7 Code of Practice says you must provide access to a device, “including where access to a device requires the person to unlock a device through application of their thumb or finger, or any other form of access control.” This applies at a Schedule 7 border examination specifically; this site has not sourced a general power for police to compel biometric unlocking away from the border.
Terrorism Act 2000, Sch.7 para 18(1)(a)
“A person commits an offence if he— wilfully fails to comply with a duty imposed under or by virtue of this Schedule”
Read it at legislation.gov.ukquote checked 2026-09-08
Scotland
Must — refusing is an offence
At a UK port or border examination under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, wilfully failing to comply with a duty under the Schedule — such as unlocking a device — is a criminal offence.
That duty can include unlocking a device with your thumb or finger: the Schedule 7 Code of Practice says you must provide access to a device, “including where access to a device requires the person to unlock a device through application of their thumb or finger, or any other form of access control.” This applies at a Schedule 7 border examination specifically; this site has not sourced a general power for police to compel biometric unlocking away from the border.
Terrorism Act 2000, Sch.7 para 18(1)(a)
“A person commits an offence if he— wilfully fails to comply with a duty imposed under or by virtue of this Schedule”
Read it at legislation.gov.ukquote checked 2026-09-08
Australia
Not yet sourced on this site.
United States
Unsettled
In the United States, whether police can compel you to unlock a phone with your face or fingerprint is unsettled — the Ninth Circuit held in 2024 that a compelled biometric unlock was not testimonial and so not protected by the Fifth Amendment.
The same court said its own ruling “should not be read to extend to all instances where a biometric is used to unlock an electronic device” — other circuits may reach different conclusions.
United States v. Payne, 99 F.4th 1145 (9th Cir. 2024)
“the compelled use of a biometric to unlock an electronic device was not testimonial because it required no cognitive exertion, placing it in the same category as a blood draw or a fingerprint taken at booking—merely provided the CHP with access to a source of potential information”
Read it at cdn.ca9.uscourts.govquote checked 2026-09-08

The short answer, country by country

In England & Wales and Scotland, at a Schedule 7 port or border examination you must provide access to a device — including unlocking it with your thumb or finger if that is what access requires — and refusing is a criminal offence. That is a border-specific power; this site has not sourced a general power to compel biometric unlocking away from the border.

In the United States, whether police can compel a face or fingerprint unlock is unsettled. The Ninth Circuit held in 2024 that a compelled biometric unlock was not testimonial, and so not protected by the Fifth Amendment — but the same court said its own ruling should not be read to extend to every instance of a biometric unlock, and other circuits may reach different conclusions.

In Australia, this site has not yet sourced a provision that speaks specifically to compelled face or fingerprint unlocking, as distinct from the general s.3LA order covered on Must I give them the passcode?

Where the four differ

England & Wales and Scotland are the most settled position here, but only within the narrow Schedule 7 border context. The US position is the least settled of any row in this comparison — a single circuit’s holding, on facts that court itself declined to generalise from.

Read further

See Schedule 7 and your phone at a UK port or airport, the US passcode-versus-biometrics position, what a full extraction actually contains, and preparing a phone before a border crossing, including turning off biometric unlock.

Last reviewed 2026-09-08. Next review due 2026-12-08. No lawyer has reviewed this page — see [email protected] if you think something here is wrong.