Slashdot Mirror
DOJ Complains About Getting a Warrant To Search Mobile Phones
An anonymous reader writes "The US government has entered its reply brief in the US vs. Wurie case and its argument in favor of warrantless searches of arrestees' cell phones contains some truly terrible suppositions.
The government argues that impartial technological advancements somehow favor criminals. As it sees it, the path to the recovery of evidence should not be slowed by encryption or wiping or even the minimal effort needed to obtain a warrant. From the article: 'The government agrees that times are changing but counterintuitively argues that only law enforcement is being negatively affected by this. Every argument in favor of warrantless searches contains some sort of lamentation about how tech-savvy criminals will be able to cover up or destroy evidence contained on their phones before the police can crack open these new-fangled address books and copy everything down.'"
It's almost like citizens should have their papers and effects safe from warrant-less searches. Crazy, I know.
Do some real investigative work and make your freaking case. If the only evidence you have on someone is contained within their cell phone, perhaps they aren't guilty of anything they ought to be getting arrested for.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
tech-savvy criminals will be able to cover up or destroy evidence contained on their phones before the police can crack [it] open
And fire-savvy criminals will be able to cover up or destroy evidence contained in their house. What's the difference?
It's time for an Article 5 Constitutional Convention: http://www.foavc.org/
We're here to "help" you! Now get down on the floor before we tazer your ass. Papers please! No, no, no. This would be more like, "life history, all data relating to everything you do ever, please!"
lamentation about how tech-savvy criminals will be able to cover up or destroy evidence contained on their phones before the police can crack open these new-fangled address books and copy everything down.
A warrant has nothing to do with this capability. If the perp sees you coming and wipes the phone*, the presence of a warrant has no effect on this. On the other hand, if you can secure the phone prior to the wipe, why can't you put it in an evidence bag, ask a judge for a warrant and then read it.
*IANAL, but it is my understanding that the existence of a warrant has little bearing on a charge of destroying evidence.
Have gnu, will travel.
It's time for an Article 5 Constitutional Convention: http://www.foavc.org/
Wouldn't it be easier to blow-up the Senate and Congress? "Hi my name is Martha Washington. "
don't you mean cellular phones? Also, I was taught to use periods when typing U.S.
Fuck no. That's the last thing we need. You realize who would attend that convention?
All they would do is try to amend away the 2nd. Which would never pass. It would be a waste of time.
We're in that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, it's to early to shoot the bastards.
...we turn loose a process that works like the vascularization of a tumor. As soon as you let power flow to the center, and let it accumulate more power for the sake of power, abominations like this are going to keep happening. The NSA revelations were one step along this path. This story is another. Let's just declare Eric Holder il Duce and be done with it.
With the amount of cameras recording everything everywhere at all times, I'm amazed the number of unsolved crimes is as high as it is already. "The perfect crime" is no longer a possibility in this world.
tl;dr
DoJ complains about 4th Amendment - wants it repealed.
All they would do is try to amend away the 2nd.
You are aware that this story is about the 4th Amendment, right? Or are you unfamiliar with any part of the Constitution other than the 2nd Amendment?
Sure, but that's illegal. Those sneaky bastards thought of everything!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
He's saying it would be co-opted by people trying to attack the 2nd Amendment, and in the process the whole thing would be rendered moot.
There is one long-time Slashdotter who has on his sig four boxes of freedom, soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Right now, we have had SCOTUS argue that money is speech, so by that ruling, bribery can be considered legal, as it is free speech. I'd say we are not close to the ammo box yet... but I wouldn't go as far as a Constitutional convention:
1: The Second Amendment would be torn to pieces or reworded to make it useless, similar to Mexican's Constitutional article permitting any citizen to own a gun... provided it is approved by the military... and there is just one shop in the entirety of Mexico that one can legally purchase at.
2: Do we want the likes of the Koch Brothers, Chinese interests, and other countries who are the powers that be now have their influence forever stamped in the core document of the US? Right now, there is still hope, although it may take something like a Great Depression for people to stand up, put down the TV remote and Diet Coke, and reach for the recall petition forms and the tar and feathers. Having a Constitution that "hard-codes" their interests would just make things worse in the long haul, and perhaps open the door to colonization by another country.
3: Basing on the previous, do we want to take the chance of redefining things? For example, what happens if a US citizen is redefined as only someone who makes $100,000 a year, or one's voting is tied to their net worth or FICO scores? Yes, this can easily happen.
4: What happens if DC just gives the middle finger to the new Constitution? Lets be real here. One side has chemical weapon and gunships. The other has... 1911 handguns? The reason why Iraq was such a debacle was not the lack of firepower. It was political will. Desert Storm showed the might of the US when done "right". Now picture a "housecleaning" domestically. This was done before with native Americans, and can be done again.
Lordy I love giving more and more power, resources, and tax money to this government.
NOT
By the end of the century they will be complaining because people are putting masking tape over legally required video to police camera's in every room of your house.
These people have no sense. The federal government is amoral wanton killing machine with blood and guts of your fore-fathers lubing it's gears.. .. your son! Throw him in right there.."
And now those gears are getting slow - so throw some more 'lube' in there to keep it moving - "that kid there
When you pay your taxes - you put a bullet into a small infants head. .. don't bother supporting these psycho-killers with official badges.
Until that changes
Peace.
If you wipe your phone after you're arrested, isn't that destruction of evidence?
If the person really was "tech-savvy" then there would not be any implicating information on his/her phone.
Unless you're talking about petty criminals who don't have the resources to use a secondary phone that is not tied to them.
But that just means that the DOJ wants to kill the 4th Amendment to chase petty criminals. Fuck that!
And I'm saying that I think he's an idiot if he thinks that the 2nd would be the only amendment that they would neuter. Not try to neuter, neuter. I am not so naive to believe that they would not succeed in neutering every last amendment that gets in the way of "government business".
"DOJ complains that Police are stupid and the law is inconvenient"
Actively undermining the constitution should be treason. At the very least, breaking or ignoring the law is illegal (by definition), and since the constitution is the highest law in the land, the document which grants the US sovereignty, ignoring it or breaking the rules it lays out is absolutely illegal.
An Article 5 convention just proposes amendments. They still have to be ratified by the states.
After all people could use those to destroy evidence, just like wiping a phone... oh wait, some of those people might be rich, better leave the paper shredders alone.
You are aware that the constitution has been amended 10 times in the last century, right? Most recently in 1992, when laws effecting congressional salaries were delayed from taking effect until after the next election. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... ) And only once was a previous amendment touched: when the 21st repealed the 18th (prohibition).
Granted a national convention has never actually been called, but that's largely because any time state support for an amendment approaches the point where it became likely that a national convention could be called (3/4 of states), the national congress has instead proposed a similar amendment themselves. Presumably to at least keep the specific wording under their own control rather than risk losing any more power than necessary to the state legislatures.
And frankly it seems silly to worry that powerful interests will buy up the state legislatures in order to allow a national convention to craft a suitably seedy amendment - far easier to buy up the much smaller national congress to do the exact same thing without all the extra fanfare and beuracratic complexity. You'd still have to buy up the state legislatures to get it passed, but buying a single vote is likely far cheaper and more reliable than getting an appropriately worded amendment agreed through such a large group.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
The underlying problem is that the government now has the means to twist anything you do into a criminal act.
http://www.harveysilverglate.com/Books/ThreeFeloniesaDay.aspx
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." - Cardinal Richelieu
It seems to me that criminals will always be one step ahead of local, municipal and state law enforcement... Mainly, I imagine, because law enforcement won't pay as well (except perhaps FBI OR NSA etc.) and will have some trouble attracting top talent.
From the article: 'The government agrees that times are changing but counterintuitively argues that only law enforcement is being negatively affected by this.
Is not deliberately lying to a court considered perjury? Or are the courts deliberately looking the other way because it is law enforcement doing the lying? They know they are lying and I would be surprised if the courts didn't know they are lying.
If they have enough evidence to arrest someone, they already have their phone in the evidence locker. It should not be an "undue burden" to actually get a warrant and make things legal. This is as much about police being lazy as it is about "tech savy criminals". Police have been arresting and convicting criminals for as long as laws have existed. Modern day police just don't want to actually have to do the police work anymore. They would rather sit in their offices and listen in on your phone call to Uncle Joe in the off chance you mention your SO bought a dime bag yesterday.
2/3 of the States.
It takes 3/4 to ratify the amendment, but only 2/3 to call a Constitutional Convention.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
They told me this would happen if I voted for President McCain. And they were right!
Quite so, I misread that part.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
The bill of rights shouldn't even be necessary ... if you you read the Constitution, Congress, the President, etc don't have any authority to do any of that stuff.
The 9th and 10th amendments exist because some forward thinking people realized if you have a list of things which are not allowed, sometime in the future, the government would treat that as the only things which are not allowed.
Captcha: treason.
The claim for a warrentless search is for imminent danger of a weapon like a knife or gun.
Phones dont fall into this category, so should have court warrents.
... It pays to protect yourself like a criminal.
Lock your tech down so that when they come they have to say pretty please to get access.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
oh, so the GOVERNMENT is negatively affected by all the cctv cameras, facial recognition, portable full body scanners, biometric passports and id's, electronic medical records, intentionally unreported security software exploits, and the tapping (*and storing*) of the world's communications (i could go on but there is a comment length limit i think) .. but we the PEOPLE are not? the doj go fuck themselves with a rusty pitchfork while stumbling into a wood chipper.
Technological advancements work both ways. Yes, now we have mobile phones with encryption etc. We also use those phones for more stuff. Harder to get into, more information there if you do...
Now you don't just have the ability to listen to somebody's calls, you can go through their contacts, call history, emails, and any associated accounts/passwords. Get a f***ing warrant!
The way things are going in this country I have a felling that the cops will win the warrantless search argument
It's time for an Article 5 Constitutional Convention: http://www.foavc.org/
Wouldn't it be easier to blow-up the Senate and Congress? "Hi my name is Martha Washington. "
The ones who could do that won't come anywhere near Earth until country-western music is eradicated here. That causes them to experience spontaneous cerebral detonation. (Ack-ackackack!)
This space unintentionally left blank.
One big problem here is that people keep thinking of the handheld computers we carry with us everywhere as "phones". They are computers, and if you want to drop some cash on a little hadware you can turn any computer into one capable of placing and receiving calls.
...
Yes, the handheld computers we carry can place and receive phone calls, but so can a laptop and a desktop computer. Calling them phones is like calling a house a bathroom.
If they get their way, then by implication, it's not just "all your phones are belong to us", it's "all your computers are belong to us".
You watch. Right now they are saying they are different. In a few years, if they get their way, they will be saying: "Hey! This should apply to all computers!" They are basically the same thing!" .
Mark my words
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
If the reasoning changes, then the argument for searching the phone is invalid.
See my reply to the other AC.
They already own most of the states.
Only in a police state is the job of a policeman easy. Do you want to live in a police state? I don't.
The police can wrap the phone in it to prevent a remote wipe until they get the warrant.
Before cell phones, folks were less likely to have as much neat info on their persons.
Just because they do now, I'm not sure why law enforcement access should be warrrant free.
Look at how easily Congress got around the 27th Amendment by automating the raises and calling them cost of living raises. That is the real problem, next to no Amendments are actually followed, speech has been redefined to allow Congress to ban some types of speech, what are Arms is open to debate, whether papers include electronic copies and so on.
Of interest is the Corwin Amendment, which actually banned some future amendments
No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
...but we dare not criticize Holder or his boss. That would trigger the following:
1> Rants about how Bush was worse.
2> Accusations that I'm a Republican.
3> Something about the Koch brothers.
Let this post be a lightning rod for all of that so that the other threads can be free of it.
"Unfortunately, the Court is using this case to set precedent for a nation full of smartphones"
I would imagine this is by design instead of being a simple accident. There are probably many other cases where accessing of mobile phone information was far less pleasant. In Michigan the ACLU tried to request the State Police use policies & case history for a mobile phone hacking devices they had purchased (Cellebrite) which allowed them to download the entire contents of most phones in a few minutes. They were hit with a half million dollar "processing fee" if they wanted the in all likelihood highly censored data.
"buy up state legislatures" ... where have you been? did you miss the RNC's specific strategy of gaining republican control of state legislatures specifically for the purpose of affecting national elections (redistricting, ALEC legislation, etc)
oh and speaking of ALEC....which is how businesses get friendly legislations into states, til a majority concensus happens, and then a federal version appears....
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
If this exact same logic had been applied during the time the Constitution was written, these people would have attempted to ban anyone from possessing or using fire in any place where any document that any government agency might one day want to read is created or stored, because "the criminals might burn the papers we think might contain evidence against them, therefore nobody should be allowed to have fire and paper at the same time because it would inconvenience us."
"Inveniemus Viam Aut Faciemus" 'We will find a way... Or we will make one!' --Hannibal of Carthage