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.

Comments

Police often violate 4th amendment rights..

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights..

[Hatta]

Just, rest assured, cops rarely get away with it if you have a decent lawyer.

It takes a damn good lawyer to get a cop tried for deprivation of rights under color of law. It ought to happen every time the exclusionary rule is applied.

Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights..

[rhook]

Most people do not go after the officers for deprivation of civil rights under color of authority (USC 1983 violation), which leaves them with civil and criminal liability and also bars their unions and departments of the ability to pay their legal fees. If more people would file these lawsuits against officers who violate their rights the practice would end very quickly.

Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights..

[Entropius]

This.

It's not good enough to just have the evidence be ruled inadmissible. The cop ought to be fired (or worse) and compensation paid to the victim.

Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights..

[causality]

Just, rest assured, cops rarely get away with it if you have a decent lawyer.

It takes a damn good lawyer to get a cop tried for deprivation of rights under color of law. It ought to happen every time the exclusionary rule is applied.

I know an easier way to make this happen. Convince the cell phone manufacturers and service providers that laws and practices like this are hurting phone sales by removing some of the utility of the phones and making them into a potential liability. Then we'd finally have large, powerful, monied, well-represented coporate interests lobbying in our favor. Suddenly this practice would end in record time.

Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights..

[dougmc]

But, speaking from experience, you can claim illegal search and seizure at preliminary trials, which can result in the charges being dropped..

Only if it is an illegal search.

If the cop asks "You don't mind if I check your phone, do you?" and you don't say "No, I do not consent to a search" (the cops often phrase it in an odd way to make it not clear if "Yes" or "No" is the correct answer, so answering in an um-ambiguous way is wise) and you actually let him search it (or your car, pockets, etc.) ... then it's not an illegal search.

Not nearly enough people realize that when the cops ask that -- the proper answer is "No, I do not consent to a search". If you don't have anything to hide and you're SURE of that, then I guess you can let him search, but if there's any doubt -- absolutely not. It will *not* go easier on you.

OUTRAGEOUS cost

[fwice]

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...

Re:OUTRAGEOUS cost

[Colonel Korn]

My dad likes to file FOIA requests when the police in his home town (of 1 million people) do something illegal. They frequently quote absurd fees, after which he leaves and comes back with an officer of the court who makes them do it for free. He should have been a lawyer. Or maybe the world is better off with one fewer lawyer and one more electrical engineer.

Re:OUTRAGEOUS cost

[causality]

My dad likes to file FOIA requests when the police in his home town (of 1 million people) do something illegal. They frequently quote absurd fees, after which he leaves and comes back with an officer of the court who makes them do it for free. He should have been a lawyer. Or maybe the world is better off with one fewer lawyer and one more electrical engineer.

Seriously, cops seem to wonder why they're not better appreciated and respected. No sense of irony.

As a whole, it's not like the police have a great deal of respect for citizens who exercise their rights. So I have to wonder: do they retaliate? Do they suddenly take a really hard look at his driving and see how many things they can charge him with that they'd normally let slide? Do they insist on searching him for guns/drugs/dead hookers/etc. every time he gets pulled over for i.e. speeding?

Re:OUTRAGEOUS cost

[blincoln]

"As a whole, it's not like the police have a great deal of respect for citizens who exercise their rights. So I have to wonder: do they retaliate? Do they suddenly take a really hard look at his driving and see how many things they can charge him with that they'd normally let slide? Do they insist on searching him for guns/drugs/dead hookers/etc. every time he gets pulled over for i.e. speeding?"

Probably.

A friend of mine went to court to get out of a speeding ticket. I'm guessing it was a fairly high-priced ticket, because when he was successful, the police waited a year or more, then filed a completely made-up charge of "driving without a license" (he was in his late 30s, and had been a licensed driver for several decades). The charge/requirement to show up in court was mailed to him... at his old address, because he'd moved during the time in-between those two events.

When he didn't show up in court (because he never received the thing that was mailed to his old address), he automatically lost, and an *additional* count of "flight to evade prosecution" was added. But he still didn't know about any of this. He found out when he was pulled over something like *another* year or two later for an illegal lane change in an intersection. At that point he was immediately taken into custody and sent to jail (because clearly he was a convicted felon with no respect for the law). He talked to a lawyer and was told that because judgment had already taken place (back when the original bogus charge made its uncontested court appearance), it would cost something like $30K to contest it. It was cheaper for him to spend three months in county jail.

So yeah, the police don't exactly have any reservations about abusing the system if they feel that it's being done to punish someone they believe deserves it.

Re:OUTRAGEOUS cost

[sys_mast]

Guess i'm going to call you a liar.

At least where I live to be called to court someone has to HAND deliver the letter to you. Most people filing a claim against someone they don't care for will pay a few bucks to have the sheriffs department deliver the notice.(I don't remember the price to have the cops deliver it for you but I thought it was very cheap. Doubly so if you don't like the person and have the deliver it to the persons work) But there isn't anything like sending a letter to an address you lived at at one point in your life and claiming you were notified.

If that's the way the courts work where you live you need to get that changed, it's wrong.

Erase your phone

[vrmlguy]

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.

it's a trap

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:it's a trap

[swb]

That was my first idea, too -- what happens when a 1500 mAh battery discharges into the data pins in 2 seconds? While smoking one of their multihousand dollar devices sounds like a good idea, I'm sure it would cause other problems..

A better idea is a device that mimics the data protocol of the phone model it represents but instead outputs 1000 or more times of data, ideally canned data, like copies of the constitution, video of the Rodney King beating, etc

Re:Wire?

[Nethemas the Great]

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.

Remember when...

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans wouldn't put up with this Soviet crap?

Freedom is a fickle thing

[Adrian Lopez]

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.

Re:Just say

[causality]

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.

Re:yes, but do they archive that data?

[mcgrew]

Data is sexy.

Tasha? Is that you?

Re:Oh please!

[Grishnakh]

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.