Printable rights card

Comply with a section 49 RIPA notice once it has been validly given to you.

Source: Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, s.53(1) (legislation.gov.uk, checked 2026-09-08)

At a port, airport or the border area, give the examining officer any information in your possession that they request under Schedule 7.

Source: Terrorism Act 2000, Sch.7 para 5(a) (legislation.gov.uk, checked 2026-09-08)

Under Schedule 7, provide access to your device — including unlocking it with a passcode, fingerprint or other access control — if an examining officer requires it.

Source: Schedule 7 (Terrorism Act 2000) Code of Practice (Oct 2025), para 61 (assets.publishing.service.gov.uk, checked 2026-09-08)

Wilfully failing to comply with any Schedule 7 duty, including the two above, is a criminal offence.

Source: Terrorism Act 2000, Sch.7 para 18(1)(a) (legislation.gov.uk, checked 2026-09-08)

The s.53 RIPA offence applies only to a person to whom a section 49 notice has actually been given — not to someone simply asked informally by an officer for a password.

Source: Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, s.53(1) (legislation.gov.uk, checked 2026-09-08)

As a victim or witness, refuse to provide your device, or refuse to agree to extraction of information from it — the officer must first give you written notice that you may.

Source: Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, s.39(3)(d) (legislation.gov.uk, checked 2026-09-08)

Refusing a validly given section 49 notice carries up to five years' imprisonment in a national security or child indecency case, and up to two years in any other case.

Source: Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, s.53(5A) (legislation.gov.uk, checked 2026-09-08)

The maximum penalty for wilfully failing to comply with a Schedule 7 duty is three months' imprisonment on summary conviction.

Source: Terrorism Act 2000, Sch.7 para 18(2)(a) (legislation.gov.uk, checked 2026-09-08)

A device can be detained for examination for up to seven days from when the detention begins.

Source: Terrorism Act 2000, Sch.7 para 11(2)(a) (legislation.gov.uk, checked 2026-09-08)

Anything seized under PACE may be retained only for as long as is necessary in all the circumstances — the law sets no fixed number of days.

Source: Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s.22(1) (legislation.gov.uk, checked 2026-09-08)

Information extracted from your device and found not relevant must be deleted, unless there's a lawful basis to retain it.

Source: Extraction of Information from Electronic Devices: Code of Practice (Oct 2022), para 138 (assets.publishing.service.gov.uk, checked 2026-09-08)

At a Scottish port or airport, give the examining officer any information in your possession that they request under Schedule 7.

Source: Terrorism Act 2000, Sch.7 para 5(a) (legislation.gov.uk, checked 2026-09-08)

What an examining officer can request from you under Schedule 7 explicitly includes the password to your phone.

Source: Schedule 7 (Terrorism Act 2000) Code of Practice (Oct 2025), para 55 (assets.publishing.service.gov.uk, checked 2026-09-08)

Provide access to the device itself if an examining officer requires it — including unlocking it with a passcode, thumbprint or other access control.

Source: Schedule 7 (Terrorism Act 2000) Code of Practice (Oct 2025), para 61 (assets.publishing.service.gov.uk, checked 2026-09-08)

Wilfully failing to comply with a duty imposed by Schedule 7 is itself a criminal offence.

Source: Terrorism Act 2000, Sch.7 para 18(1)(a) (legislation.gov.uk, checked 2026-09-08)

Once served with a formal notice under RIPA 2000 section 49 requiring disclosure of a key or password, comply with it — knowingly failing to make the disclosure is a criminal offence.

Source: Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, s.53(1) (legislation.gov.uk, checked 2026-09-08)

If you are in Scottish police custody but have not been officially accused of an offence, you are under no obligation to answer any question about it, beyond giving your name.

Source: Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016, s.34(4)(a) (legislation.gov.uk, checked 2026-09-08)

Before police can extract data from your phone under the voluntary-extraction power in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, they must first give you written notice that you may refuse.

Source: Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, s.39(3)(d) (legislation.gov.uk, checked 2026-09-08)

Declining to agree to voluntary extraction does not stop police seizing the phone itself: if you have been arrested and charged, Scots common law still lets a constable seize any item in your possession.

Source: Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016, s.47(3)(b) (legislation.gov.uk, checked 2026-09-08)

The maximum penalty for wilfully failing to comply with a Schedule 7 duty is three months' imprisonment on summary conviction.

Source: Terrorism Act 2000, Sch.7 para 18(2)(a) (legislation.gov.uk, checked 2026-09-08)

A device can be detained for examination for up to seven days from when the detention begins — Schedule 7 applies UK-wide, Scotland included.

Source: Terrorism Act 2000, Sch.7 para 11(2)(a) (legislation.gov.uk, checked 2026-09-08)

Refusing a validly given section 49 RIPA notice carries up to five years' imprisonment in a national security or child indecency case, and up to two years in any other case.

Source: Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, s.53(5A) (legislation.gov.uk, checked 2026-09-08)

Once a magistrate has actually made an order under s.3LA of the Crimes Act 1914, comply with it — the order requires you to give a constable any information or assistance that is reasonable and necessary.

Source: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s.3LA(1) — order power (Compilation No. 167, 27 Aug 2026) (legislation.gov.au, checked 2026-09-09)

You do not have to give a Border Force officer your device passcode or otherwise help them get into it — the ABF itself says there is no legal compulsion to do so.

Source: Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Additional Estimates, ABF answer AE22-050 (14 Feb 2022) — no legal compulsion (aph.gov.au, checked 2026-09-08)

If you refuse to provide a passcode or assistance at the border and an officer considers there is a risk to the border, the officer is authorised to seize your device for further examination before it is returned.

Source: Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Additional Estimates, ABF answer AE22-050 (14 Feb 2022) — consequence of refusal (aph.gov.au, checked 2026-09-08)

Failing to comply with a s.3LA order, without a reasonable excuse, is a base-tier offence: up to 5 years’ imprisonment or 300 penalty units, or both.

Source: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s.3LA(5) — penalty tier one (Compilation No. 167, 27 Aug 2026) (legislation.gov.au, checked 2026-09-08)

A separate, more serious tier under s.3LA(6) carries up to 10 years’ imprisonment or 600 penalty units, or both.

Source: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s.3LA(6) — penalty tier two (Compilation No. 167, 27 Aug 2026) (legislation.gov.au, checked 2026-09-08)

You are obligated to present your electronic device, and the information on it, in a condition that allows CBP to inspect it, at the US border.

Source: CBP Directive No. 3340-049B §5.3.1 (eff. 1 Jan 2026) (cbp.gov, checked 2026-09-08)

Away from the border: police must get a warrant before searching the data on your phone if it was seized incident to your arrest, unless a recognised exception like exigent circumstances applies.

Source: Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (law.cornell.edu, checked 2026-09-08)

The government must not compel you to be a witness against yourself in a criminal case — the Fifth Amendment text every compelled-unlock case argues over.

Source: U.S. Constitution, Fifth Amendment (law.cornell.edu, checked 2026-09-08)

CBP must not retain copies of your device’s information beyond twenty-one calendar days after the border search ends, unless one of the directive’s own retention grounds applies.

Source: CBP Directive No. 3340-049B §§5.6.1, 5.6.4 (eff. 1 Jan 2026) (cbp.gov, checked 2026-09-08)

You do not have to give police access to your phone’s data just because they ask — searching it after an arrest generally requires a warrant first.

Source: Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (law.cornell.edu, checked 2026-09-08)

In the D.C. Circuit, you cannot be forced to unlock your phone with a passcode you have to recall from memory — the court held that compelling that specific unlock violated the Fifth Amendment.

Source: United States v. Brown, No. 23-3074 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 24, 2025) (media.cadc.uscourts.gov, checked 2026-09-08)

The Ninth Circuit itself said its Payne ruling should not be read to cover every situation where a biometric is used to unlock a device — it is not a blanket rule that all biometric compulsion is lawful.

Source: United States v. Payne, 99 F.4th 1145 (9th Cir. 2024) (cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov, checked 2026-09-08)

If a genuine exigency exists, officers may search your phone without waiting for a warrant — courts assess afterward whether the exigency was real.

Source: Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (law.cornell.edu, checked 2026-09-08)

In the Ninth Circuit, compelling you to use a fingerprint or face scan to unlock your phone has been held not to violate the Fifth Amendment, because the court treated it as requiring no cognitive exertion — unlike recalling and entering a passcode.

Source: United States v. Payne, 99 F.4th 1145 (9th Cir. 2024) (cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov, checked 2026-09-08)

If officers cannot complete an inspection because your device is locked or encrypted at the border, they may detain the device while they decide whether to admit it, exclude it, or otherwise dispose of it.

Source: CBP Directive No. 3340-049B §5.3.3 (eff. 1 Jan 2026) (cbp.gov, checked 2026-09-08)

A basic search of your device at the border — an officer looking through what’s already on it — may be performed with or without any suspicion at all.

Source: CBP Directive No. 3340-049B §5.1.3 (eff. 1 Jan 2026) (cbp.gov, checked 2026-09-08)

The Fourth Circuit treats a forensic search of your device as nonroutine, while a manual, look-through search at the border is treated as routine and needs no individualized suspicion.

Source: United States v. Belmonte Cardozo, No. 25-4239 (4th Cir. July 13, 2026) (ca4.uscourts.gov, checked 2026-09-08)