The defendant was arrested after a woman out shopping saw a man crouch down and aim what she believed was a smartphone under her skirt.

A previous court claimed that the defendant was protected by the US constitution which was designed to protect smugglers, corporations and other criminals from arrest by their democratic constitutional monarchy so perverts could also be protected. However, that decision has now been reversed by the Florida Court of Appeal's Second District.

Without the phone evidence, the coppers still have store CCTV footage of a man crouched down, holding an iPhone towards the victim's skirt. Aaron Stahl was identified by law enforcement officers and he initially agreed to allow officers to search his iPhone 5, which he told them was at his home.

However, once it had been retrieved by police - but before he had revealed his passcode - he changed his mind and lawyered up.The trial court had decided that Stahl could be protected by the Fifth Amendment, which is designed to prevent self-incrimination.

However, Judge Anthony Black quoted a Supreme Court case, Doe v US 1988, in which Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that a defendant could be made to surrender a key to a strongbox containing incriminating documents but they could not "be compelled to reveal the combination to his wall safe".

"We question whether identifying the key which will open the strongbox - such that the key is surrendered - is, in fact, distinct from telling an officer the combination," wrote Judge Black. "More importantly, we question the continuing viability of any distinction as technology advances."

However, the decision was slammed by senior staff attorney, Mark Rumold, at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights group.

"This is not the first time this issue has come up in the courts and I think other courts have done a better job of evaluating the Fifth Amendment and the constitutional rights that are at stake."