Slashdot Mirror
Michigan Police Could Search Cell Phones During Traffic Stops
SonicSpike writes "The Michigan State Police have a high-tech mobile forensics device that can be used to extract information from cell phones belonging to motorists stopped for minor traffic violations. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan last Wednesday demanded that state officials stop stonewalling freedom of information requests for information on the program. A US Department of Justice test of the CelleBrite UFED used by Michigan police found the device could grab all of the photos and videos off of an iPhone within one-and-a-half minutes. The device works with 3000 different phone models and can even defeat password protections. 'Complete extraction of existing, hidden, and deleted phone data, including call history, text messages, contacts, images, and geotags,' a CelleBrite brochure explains regarding the device's capabilities." Popular Mechanics has a short conversation with a 4th Amendment lawyer about the practice of slurping cellphone data, too, though it's unclear if the Michigan police are actually using these devices to their full potential.
But, speaking from experience, you can claim illegal search and seizure at preliminary trials, which can result in the charges being dropped.
It's disgusting that it happens, but it does. Just, rest assured, cops rarely get away with it if you have a decent lawyer.
ACLU learned that the police had acquired the cell phone scanning devices and in August 2008 filed an official request for records on the program, including logs of how the devices were used. The state police responded by saying they would provide the information only in return for a payment of $544,680.
emphasis mine. ACLU put in a FOIA, police wanted $544,680 to respond.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? No one, when the pay-to-play is that high...
According to http://support.apple.com/kb/ht2110, you want to own an iPhone 3GS or later.
You can remove all settings and information from your iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch using "Erase All Content and Settings" in Settings > General > Reset.
When you opt to "Erase All Content and Settings," the process can take up to several hours. The time this process takes will vary by device:
Devices that support hardware encryption: Erases user settings and information by removing the encryption key to the data. This process takes just a few minutes.
Devices that overwrite memory: Overwrites user settings and information, writing a series of ones to the data partition. This process can take several hours, depending on the storage capacity of your iPhone or iPod touch. During this time, the device displays the Apple logo and a progress bar.
Nothing for 6-digit uids?
I am currently rigging a phone that has an unusually high power output on the incorrect USB contacts. I will keep it in my car. Is it my fault their little toy let the smoke out?
Oh, no they have a convenient carrying storage case. Since the summary didn't bother you may have a look see here for their wares.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
Americans wouldn't put up with this Soviet crap?
Neither of the articles are clear about this, but from the picture, I assume that the "snooping" device actually has to be physically connected with the phone via USB. I hacked my Nexus One to enable USB host mode, which effectively disables client mode. Any connected device won't be able to mount my SD card or onboard storage.
Should this be allowed to stand, traffic stops will become a new tool for police to conduct what would in any other context be considered illegal suspicionless searches. It's bad enough they can do this at the border for reasons unrelated to airline security, but now they want to get away with it anywhere in the country.
When citizens take freedom for granted it becomes way too easy for the government to take those freedoms away. It's also way too easy to forget the sacrifices of generations past and sit idly by as the government flushes people's freedom down the toilet.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
No, those "trouble makers" would be marked and "eliminated" as quickly as possible. Imagine the dispatcher decides to ... "accidentally" forget for a few minutes that you called for help when someone is invading your home, or the patrol car that has been dispatched decided to ... take the "scenic route" to your home while you're being robbed at gun point.
No, I don't have any faith in the legal system, from police up to the supreme court.
No, they are not citizens, they are now property of the State. They can hold elections and have their elected government dissolved. They do not have a functional vote.. They have no say in their government. They are taxed without representation. Michigan has serious issues, and their new martial law techniques raise serious questions.
All it takes is a K9 officer to fake a "tell" on your car, and they can search you. Cops lie about probable cause all the time.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
1201(e) exempts law enforcement.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Not good to give false information to a cop but you are not required to give information that might incriminate you either.
You could say nothing or:
"I do not consent to searches, am I free to do now?"
or just:
"am I free to go now".
That "I do not consent to searches" is key. A lot of times the cops will phrase the question as "do you mind if we search your car?" If you say "no" they take that to mean "no, I don't mind" and if you say "yes" they take it to mean "yes you may search". Saying you do not consent to a search removes this ambiguity.
It's some sad times we live in that such a concern would ever cross the minds of a regular citizen who is not a career criminal.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Even if you say nothing to the officer who stops you, you can be arrested for any driving infraction, even one that isn't a jailable offense, when you're in your vehicle.
Once you're arrested, you can be searched sans warrant. Once you're arrested, your car can be impounded, and your entire vehicle can be "inventory" searched.
Your car can also be searched sans warrant based on probable cause of any criminal activity, even if you aren't arrested.
Better hope the courts decide your phone is more like a footlocker or a trunk, but good luck with that. The Supreme Court, over the course of about a dozen major Fourth Amendment decisions, has taken a dim view of your right to privacy while in your automobile.
IAAL.
It's some sad times we live in that such a concern would ever cross the minds of a regular citizen who is not a career criminal.
Right; because innocent people never got hung back in the good ol' days.
What planet are you living on, anyway?
Related book on why so many police officers take to planting evidence and forcing inaccurate confessions: ,,,"
"Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts"
http://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/0151010986
"Why do people refuse to admit mistakes - so deeply that they transform their own brains? They're not kidding themselves: they really believe what they have to believe to justify their original thought.
There are some pretty scary examples in this book. Psychologists who refuse to admit they'd bought into the false memory theories, causing enormous pain. Politicians. Authors. Doctors. Therapists. Alien abduction victims.
Most terrifying: The justice system operates this way. Once someone is accused of a crime - even under the most bizarre circumstances - the police believe he's guilty of something. Even when the DNA shows someone is innocent, or new evidence reveals the true perpetrator, they hesitate to let the accused person go free.
And progressively that can lead police officers down a route of progressive desensitization where they start planting evidence on more and more people until they plant evidence on anyone they have any suspicions about...
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
42 USC 1983 authorizes suits for deprivation of civil rights. Johnnie Cochran made a fortune doing it. Of course, police have qualified immunity from suit, so you sue the city., i.e., taxpayers, for police misconduct.
But you can't criminally prosecute police for every little misstep. Nobody would want to be a cop.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Data is sexy.
Tasha? Is that you?
Free Martian Whores!
Perhaps you should brush up on the law and understand the legal meaning of "shall be liable"? Qualified immunity does not apply when you knowingly violate someones civil rights, it is only a protection when there is "good faith", furthermore there should be no such thing as qualified immunity since it goes against the equal protection part of the 14th Amendment. You see, police are no different from regular citizens, and as such they should have no special protections under the law.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/42/21/I/1983
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the
District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any
citizen of the United States or other person within the
jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges,
or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable
to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought
against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such
officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted
unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was
unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress
applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be
considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
That says that they are personally liable, not the department that they work for, and not their union. Officers effectively lose all legal protection from both their department and their union when they have a USC 1983 civil rights lawsuit filed against them (these cases only move forward when there is no qualified immunity). However, should the officer win, they can recover legal fees from the plaintiff. I know LA thinks they make the law but they do not, they've been smacked down several times for trying to play by their own rules.
1) These aren't "mistakes", they're blatant violation of Citizens' civil liberties. This is like calling the actions of the Nazi SS "simple mistakes".
2) No, but I don't work for the government, nor do I carry a gun and get to shoot it at people who don't follow my orders. I'm a lowly employee of a private company, not someone in a position of authority within the government who has the right to take another person's life. If you're in a position of authority, then you have far more responsibility than anyone who isn't. If you can't handle that, then you should get another job.