View Full Version : Michigan: Police Search Cell Phones During Traffic Stops
Michigan: Police Search Cell Phones During Traffic Stops
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/34/3458.asp
".....A US Department of Justice test of the CelleBrite UFED used by Michigan police found the device could grab all of the photos and video 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. "The Physical Analyzer allows visualization of both existing and deleted locations on Google Earth. In addition, location information from GPS devices and image geotags can be mapped on Google Maps."............"
Ah, I think I'm on the ACLU's side on this one.
I guess its time to re-think pay phones and dead drops.
Texas_Shooter
04-19-2011, 22:16
What is the point of doing this to motorist? Michigan just banned text messaging and handheld cellphones in 2009. What is the real purpose behind gathering the information on the stopped motorist? Over half a million dollars for information concerning the use of this device is more than ridiculous it is outrageous.
ACLU has defended some crazy people before but I will support them on this one as well.
I guess its time to re-think pay phones and dead drops.
If you can find a pay phone these days. :D
S.
If you can find a pay phone these days. :D
S.
Remember the little card you could get from your phone company that looked like a credit card? Punch in it's number and the number you were calling and your call went right through. The phone charge showed up on your next bill. Geeez, haven't used one of them since around 1992.
Remember the little card you could get from your phone company that looked like a credit card? Punch in it's number and the number you were calling and your call went right through. The phone charge showed up on your next bill. Geeez, haven't used one of them since around 1992.
And then you had to make sure that card worked OCONUS but even if it did you had to dial a whole bunch of other numbers and usually talk to someone to get it to work.
Wow. no kidding.
The article seems to imply (or maybe my mind naturally inferred) that they had a magic device that could suck the data right off of your phone without you knowing (bluetooth). However, the device they are referring to works only via a connected configuration, which means you just about would have to volunteer to submit to the scan.
You surely have a right to say no, and they would have to respect that unless they had a warrant to perform the scan, after all, your phone IS your personal property. Is there some embedded intent in using this device that they find evidence of text/phone use within x number of minutes of being pulled over in order to have evidence in charging you with a crime?
R3V3LATIONS
04-20-2011, 09:17
I am in support of having such a device, if used properly and as an investigative tool. Usage on "routine" traffic stops may in fact be reasonable. (Ex. effective in combating narcotics crime transportation or intent to distribute/traffic, "rolling" domestics, menacing cases, stalking et. al)
However, the minor traffic violations that the article insinuates this device will be used for does seem like a violation of the 4th amendment.) In my AO, warrants are required before we search the electronic devices (GPS, Cell, etc.) of an already arrested offender.
I would be interested to see a press release from the MSP on the policy they plan on implementing for use with this devices adaptation, amongst other things. Definitely something worth paying attention too.
I am in support of having such a device, if used properly and as an investigative tool. Usage on "routine" traffic stops may in fact be reasonable. (Ex. effective in combating narcotics crime transportation or intent to distribute/traffic, "rolling" domestics, menacing cases, stalking et. al)
.
So on a traffic stop the police get to question all my friends and acquaintances just to make sure I am not involved in anything. I just think that just using a "bigger net" to try and combat crime is a really bad idea for everyone, police and law abiding citizens alike.
Sacamuelas
04-20-2011, 11:00
I am on the side of the ACLU.:eek: HELL NO!!!!!!! A device with these capabilities should only be kept in the station. It should ONLY be used with a written search warrant that justifies the need.
I am pro LE and don't automatically assume the worst intentions. However, I know I wouldn't want every cop in the area with that tool in their car.
Badger52
04-20-2011, 11:59
I would be interested to see a press release from the MSP on the policy they plan on implementing for use with this devices adaptation, amongst other things. Definitely something worth paying attention too.
The state police responded by saying they would provide the information only in return for a payment of $544,680.
Apparently it's also something they regard as worth having you pay for. There are alot of major FOIA requests that don't cost that much.
Since a person undergoing a traffic stop is already detained, what would be the prior suspicion an officer could be required to articulate in court (which is not the same as probable cause) to justify its use in the field? What's next, personal notes? The TomTom? The little black book?
In the left margin of the article linked by Pete there is an interesting rabbit-trail to follow on a state & Fed Appeals Court's kicking warrantless GPS vehicle tagging to the curb. Some parallels in there RE one's expectation to privacy.
Kyobanim
04-20-2011, 12:11
I am in support of having such a device, if used properly and as an investigative tool. Usage on "routine" traffic stops may in fact be reasonable. (Ex. effective in combating narcotics crime transportation or intent to distribute/traffic, "rolling" domestics, menacing cases, stalking et. al)
However, the minor traffic violations that the article insinuates this device will be used for does seem like a violation of the 4th amendment.) In my AO, warrants are required before we search the electronic devices (GPS, Cell, etc.) of an already arrested offender.
I would be interested to see a press release from the MSP on the policy they plan on implementing for use with this devices adaptation, amongst other things. Definitely something worth paying attention too.
Maybe they can do it on your planet.
I wouldn't be a bitch about it, but no...I don't believe I would just hand over my cellphone.
Some kid will come up with something too counter this soon, IF true.
"Phones will be tossed faster than weapons out of moving vehicles......:eek:"
Stay safe.
Some kid will come up with something too counter this soon, IF true.
"Phones will be tossed faster than weapons out of moving vehicles......:eek:"
Stay safe.
I think all you have to do is pull the data pin out of the mini usb connection of your phone. I would suspect a short amount of time googling that process based on manufacturer and phone model number should get the information needed.
Some of us carry tricked out work BB's and such which won't succumb to such ham fisted techniques. So when asked you can have my BB and when I give you the false code to decrypt just know you will find what I intend you to find and have access to but you just killed the important stuff and contacted HQ that my BB has been compromised . . . enjoy storming the castle boys and get ready to explain to your captain why you violated a handful of federal laws about the data you just tried to access with your Atari Lynx 2.0 handheld device :D
Bill Harsey
04-21-2011, 03:25
I am in support of having such a device...
...However, the minor traffic violations that the article insinuates this device will be used for does seem like a violation of the 4th amendment.)
Seems like it?
Why don't we just give up all our rights right now so we can get down to it and have a nice little all out war between "the state" and all the rest.
I think all you have to do is pull the data pin out of the mini usb connection of your phone. I would suspect a short amount of time googling that process based on manufacturer and phone model number should get the information needed.Think about it...:eek:
"That's like installing an outlet w/o wires attached....":munchin
Stay safe.
Some kid will come up with something too counter this soon, IF true.
"Phones will be tossed faster than weapons out of moving vehicles......:eek:"
Stay safe.
They already are...... Hit your lights and pull them over knowing you are going to arrest thema dn things go flying ........... our second car is there to police them up while car 1 pulls them over........
I think all you have to do is pull the data pin out of the mini usb connection of your phone.
This would render your phone useless as a portable drive and would also remove much of the functionality that you gain when you plug it into a computer (transferring pictures, appointments, media to PC desktop applications or storage.)
...So when asked you can have my BB and when I give you the false code to decrypt just know you will find what I intend you to find and have access to but you just killed the important stuff and contacted HQ that my BB has been compromised . . .
Are you serious? You encrypt your call logs and message history on a RIM device?
I believe you are missing the point, as most do. I was telling an Ipad owner this morning that I heard about a file that exists, unencrypted, on Ipad and Iphones that records lats and longs of check in points and retains this data for a year. Her response was "oh, well thats good because I have a desktop app that will find my Ipad if its ever stolen". SHE missed the point as well.
By allowing the dissemination of personal information (where I go, who and what I text, who/when/how long I call someone) now (for what seem to be innocuous reasons) and without my express consent, I open myself up to be unable to 'opt out' of these intrusive services in the future. There will be a time where we will have to go back and legislate our way to the previous (current) state of privacy.
I hope that you open your eyes, look past the present and can see that our personal freedom to remain untracked, unmonitored (to an extent) is being slowly GIVEN away.
Ipad/ Iphone device tracking (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20055885-37.html)
Safegaurding your Ipad (http://www.ipadbuzzblog.com/how-to-keep-your-ipad-location-data-secure-and-private/)
1stindoor
04-21-2011, 08:01
And then you had to make sure that card worked OCONUS but even if it did you had to dial a whole bunch of other numbers and usually talk to someone to get it to work.
Wow. no kidding.
If you were truly lucky, your wife didn't change your long distance calling plan in the middle of a deployment in order to get the $100.00 gift card.
Sadly...this happened to me twice.
........
Ipad/ Iphone device tracking (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20055885-37.html)
Safegaurding your Ipad (http://www.ipadbuzzblog.com/how-to-keep-your-ipad-location-data-secure-and-private/)
As Hand has noted
Hidden Tracking Files Found in iPhone, iPad
http://www.cnbc.com/id/42697611
Trip_Wire (RIP)
04-21-2011, 10:25
I would not hand over my mobile phone to a LEO, who stopped me for a traffic infraction. If he arrested me for the violation or infraction and used this device to extract any data I would get a lawyer and try suing the City, County, State for violation of my civil rights. I would also file a complaint with the FBI, accusing the LE agency and the officer involved for the same thing.
Such a device should not be in the hands of traffic officers, as there is no legitimate reason for LEO's at the street level to be equipped with such a device. IMO, a court should have to issue a search warrant to legally use the device to gain such data. :mad:
However, the minor traffic violations that the article insinuates this device will be used for
.
I think you hit the key word, right on the head.
LEOS carry firearms that could be used to execute speeders on the spot, and nightsticks that could be used to bludgeon kittens to death.
I'm in Michigan. Seems to me we have a lot of newspapers "like that". We also have some interesting Militias. :)
I have an early version of one of those devices, called a Toshiba Laptop. There's a free program, available on the internet, called "bitpim" that lets me read most of the info trom a phone via its cable. Nothing new here.
There's another that can be used "side by side" with bitpim to change some of the settings on cell phones, that can't be changed via the keys on the phone. Recommend the latter be used very carefully.
In Michigan, and perhaps elsewhere, we are encouraged to have an entry on our phones under "ICE", In Case of Emergency. LEOs, EMTs, and ER personnel are becoming more and more used to looking in your cell phone for that entry.
I don't doubt, though, that if a cell phone becomes evidence, just like a knife on a suspects belt, the phone and all on it, just like the knife and all on it, will be explored. That doesn't bother me a bit.
Just MHO, however.
LEOS carry firearms that could be used to execute speeders on the spot...
Granted sir, yet the purpose of those firearms is to assist the officers in the execution of their duties and for the defense of the general public from bad guys. I have no problem with armed LEOs, I WANT them armed to the full potential of their capabilities. I do not see this being an applicable parallel to the topic. What purpose to the devices in question serve? Will they help the LEOs carry out their duties? Do they assist in protecting the general public from the bad guys?
One could argue that they could be used to enforce the cell phone/ texting laws that are present in some states. If that is the case then the implementation of that technology should be such that you could ONLY extract messaging time stamps and/or call log time stamps.
But given the homogenous nature of current devices, it would be impossible to restrict the data dump to these specific areas. Each device manufacturer has their own method of storing/saving this data, proprietary formats, file locations etc...
So not only do they get your text MESSAGES, they get your contacts, your calender, your pictures of your kids, intimate messages and images of your loved one, information about your children. Its a personal security violation of the highest order. Do they think they will inform people of the following; "Sir, I am going to run this check and verify you were not using your phone while driving. In the process I will extract all available data/media/messages"?
I adamantly resist the notion that this is ok, or that it will be used responsibly. If they need to know anything about my phone usage, I'll be happy to give them my number and they can get everything they need from my service provider. If they need more specific information, they can get it from the NSA.
I have an early version of one of those devices, called a Toshiba Laptop. There's a free program, available on the internet, called "bitpim" that lets me read most of the info trom a phone via its cable. Nothing new here.
It is your phone and your information. You are completely free to do whatever you want to with it, but your information would no longer be yours. Would you not mind all that information floating around a police station, only as secure as the lowest paid persons morals allow? You can be damn sure that they will not EVEN BEGIN to understand how to store that information responsibly. There are not even laws in place of how to treat this type of information! Look at all the issues that have resulted from social media that have taken years to settle in court. At the local level, I think we are at least 10 years from having the legal framework to properly allow police departments to use this technology safely.
This is my humble view.
Respectfully
R3V3LATIONS
04-22-2011, 08:52
Couple of points for added interest.
The average law enforcement officer will not risk his/her career on doing a "bad" search, or one that is even questionable for that matter. That being said, even if this device makes it into patrol cars, I suspect many of the officers will use this sparingly, as the circumstance will most likley lead to a law suit and then intense scrutiny and investigation.
It is also highly doubtful that police officers, let alone State Patrol officers will WANT (on an individual level of decision making provided to each patrol officer with the concept of discretion) to use this device on "routine" traffic stops as this article would have you believe. The reasoning behind this is, from an officer's perspective, that the more time spent on a stop increases the potential danger to the officer and the vehicle/occupant because while detained or stopped, taking the extra time to secure the phone, perform the search, determine if you "have anything" and then walk to and fro the vehicle added times to return the item, increases the potential of something bad happening to which the officer will be held responsible as it is our duty to provide care, custody, and control of subjects while interacting with them. (this is by large a universal standard) In summary, we want to have traffic stops take as little amount of time as possible, not fiddle around with cell phones just to scare occupants. A sidenote : state patrol are one of the few police institutions that have actual "quotas" and need to write X amount of "routine" tickets a day (contrary to popular belief, many municipal and medium sized departments do not have quotas) so wasting time with examining cell phones is not likely to be a big concern on minor traffic violations where there exists no other evidence of any other crime being/having been committed and where time is of the essence.
Next, it was mentioned that these devices do not need to be in patrol officers cars. Who do you think we (the police) send to do telephone harrasment investigations, asses the seriousness of written threats (relayed now through media such as text or facebook which is now phone accessible) or gain evidence to arrest and prosecute cases such as domestic violence? A detective? No sir, the standard patrol officer or beat cop, who in some areas that cannot afford police departments, happens to be state patrol officers. Remember, through the course of our duties, we are serving to PROTECT your interests as a law abiding citizen, not to try to figure out what you do in your private life...unless we have good articulate reason to believe you recently committed or are about to commit a crime.
As I stated previously, this device could be usefull for an investigative tool that could greatly aid in the performace of an officers duty and overall effectiveness. I would be against this IF michigan state patrol directly states that they want to search every cell phone on a traffic stop with out probable cause with this device...but they have not done so, mereley an outside source not being MSP (the newspaper article) has made that proclamation for them about something that has yet to hit the streets yet.
I hope this provides context from "the other side" and if anyone has questions, ill do my best to awnser them. Also it is important to state that I work for an Ohio agency, so while law enforcement is the same in duty, the job is done differently every where. Thanks for having me on this site and I apologize for the long winded explanation. HTH and happy easter to everyone on this board and thier families.
Wouldn't changing the root password i.e through ssh block the ability of a third party device from getting administrative control over my phone?
Or would that only protect it from wireless access device?
I think I'll check on this with another forum I'm on to see if I can find any suggestions.
So not only do they get your text MESSAGES, they get your contacts, your calender, your pictures of your kids, intimate messages and images of your loved one, information about your children. Its a personal security violation of the highest order. Do they think they will inform people of the following; "Sir, I am going to run this check and verify you were not using your phone while driving. In the process I will extract all available data/media/messages"?
I adamantly resist the notion that this is ok, or that it will be used responsibly.
Respectfully
I respect your viewpoint, but, I'm always a bit curious as to how using electronics seems more "scary" to the public than standard police methods.
I could always follow a suspect, or just the average citizen, jot down their activities in that little 3x5 notebook in my pocket and create something that looked like a spider web looking for a network of illegal activities. The small GPS device that appeared in the news recently that does only part of that, has drawn a lot of interest from those who suspect/fear their PD.
When a stop turned into a "detain" situation, due to a reasonable suspicion, I secured everythng from the detainee and put it in my hat on top of the hood. I had the ID's credit cards, family photos, lists, etc, in my possession, most of what you're talking about except your favorite Pizza Hut on speed dial. If booked, the written equivalent of what may be on a cell phone went into a bag and was held in the lock-up. No real difference.
I am willing to wager that this device will give the option to check only one type data(such as the last text message sent) from one function key and prove that was the only data accessed. A lot of dept policies are written with defense against ACLU in mind IMO.
I'd love to hear an opinion from one of our legal eagles on whether a PD would be justified, while phone was in custody, *not* to assure that it belongs to the person who possessed it before it was returned upon release from, let's say an overnight stay in the drunk tank.
ACLU seeks Michigan State Police data
Group fears agency illegally getting data from cell phones
Kathy Barks Hoffman / Associated Press
Lansing— The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan is worried that Michigan State Police may be extracting personal data from cell phones illegally, a concern state police say is unfounded.
The Associated Press on Thursday filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the state police asking how many times the agency has used data extraction devices that can extract contact lists, text messages and photos from cell phones.
Its request comes after the ACLU has filed its own FOIA requests asking the state police to reveal how they're using the devices. It said it's still waiting for answers after years of asking for the information.
The ACLU failed to get the information it sought through a 2008 FOIA request after being told by state police that it would cost $544,680 to retrieve and assemble the requested documents. It then narrowed the scope of its request, but said state police claimed no documents existed for that time period. Police also refused to reveal when the devices were used so a FOIA request could be tailored to those dates, the ACLU said.
"Through these many requests for information we have tried to establish whether these devices are being used legally. It's telling that Michigan State Police would rather play this stalling game than respect the public's right to know," Mark Fancher, ACLU of Michigan Racial Justice Project attorney, wrote on the group's website.
State police said in a statement released Wednesday evening that at least one ACLU request for information has been fulfilled and several more will be finished once the ACLU pays a processing fee.
The statement said the data extraction devices are used only if a search warrant is obtained or a person gives consent to have the phone scanned. They say the devices aren't being used to extract personal information during routine traffic stops.
"The implication by the ACLU that the MSP uses these devices to 'quietly bypass Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches' is untrue, and this divisive tactic unjustly harms police and community relations," the state police statement said.
From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110422/METRO/104220354/ACLU-seeks-Michigan-State-Police-data#ixzz1KInj371N
Good thing he kept the camera running
"Police beating of Las Vegas man caught on tape"
http://www.lvrj.com/news/exclusive-police-beating-of-las-vegas-man-caught-on-tape-120509439.html?viewAllComments=y&c=y
".........The Clark County district attorney's office has dropped all charges, and Crooks has retained an attorney of his own. The Metropolitan Police Department has opened an internal investigation into the Las Vegas police officer, Derek Colling, who Crooks says falsely arrested and beat him for filming police.............."
Kinda' looks like walk up and "wang away".
That PD location seems to like to be in the news
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29634&highlight=Erik+Scott