Apple Is Served A Search Warrant To Unlock Texas Church Gunman's iPhone (nydailynews.com)

An anonymous reader quotes the New York Daily News: Authorities in Texas served Apple with a search warrant in order to gain access to the Sutherland Springs church shooter's cellphone files. Texas Ranger Kevin Wright obtained the warrant last week, according to San Antonio Express-News.

Investigators are hoping to gain access to gunman Devin Patrick Kelley's digital photos, messages, calls, videos, social media passwords, address book and data since January 2016. Authorities also want to know what files Kelley stored in his iCloud account.
Fast Company writes that "it's very likely that Apple will give the Rangers the same answer it gave the FBI in 2016 (in effect, hell no!)... That may be why, in the Texas case, the FBI and the Rangers didn't even bother calling Apple, but rather went straight to court."

Comments

Re:If there is a warrant

[Frobnicator]

It may not be possible to decrypt the files, even for Apple

True enough. The /. headline is light on the details, but the story says the demanded three things: Contents of the iPhone, contents of an iCloud account if it exists, and extracted contents from a third LG phone.

They can hand over the contents of the iCloud account if they can match it up. It might be interesting to see what they do with the phone, and it depends quite a lot on the wording of the warrant. They may reply with "the phone is encrypted, but here is the encrypted storage contents". For the LG phone, they would likely reply that it is not their device and they have no corporate knowledge or corporate tools to handle it.

By the way, doesn't a search warrant only allow them to perform a search?

There are several legal tools, but typically there are subpoenas, warrants, and court orders. Police and other government agents prefer warrants as they are more difficult to legally fight, are often given in surprise or delivered aggressively, and give government lawyers and police the biggest net. Court orders take more time, and often require back-and-forth discussions with lawyers from both sides and with the judge.

Subpoenas are easier to obtain but also easier to fight. A subpoena allows for the business to sort through the records and decide what is inside or outside the scope. A warrant tends to use terms that are more vague, tend to not specify the exact issue under investigation, and allow for the government agency to dig through it (rather than the business) to determine if the information is relevant.

Warrants are also typically delivered in surprising ways ostensibly to prevent destruction of evidence and reduce risks to the police involved. For businesses this usually means isolating people and making legal demands while they are alone and in shock, hoping they forget that they need to call a lawyer and have the right to not say anything, warrants are for searching and not for interrogation. For individuals or residences, that typically means smashing down people's doors when they know residents aren't home, or showing up at 3:00 AM with guns, tear gas, and assault gear. There are naturally good and bad ones. One has a few professionally dressed officers that politely knock at the door and say "Good evening Mr Smith, I have a warrant to search the premises, please step outside", and which one throws in a flash-bang device and shouts "This is the police! Get on the ground now! Put your hands on your head! We have a warrant!! Shut that baby up NOW or I'll arrest both you and the child for interfering with an investigation!"