Michigan: Police Search Cell Phones During Traffic Stops

[Pete]

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]

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.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by wet dog

I guess its time to re-think pay phones and dead drops.

If you can find a pay phone these days.

S.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Requiem

If you can find a pay phone these days.

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.

[abc_123]

Originally Posted by Pete

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.

[Hand]

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]

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.

[Sten]

Originally Posted by R3V3LATIONS

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]

I am on the side of the ACLU. 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]

Originally Posted by R3V3LATIONS

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]

Originally Posted by R3V3LATIONS

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.

[Gypsy]

I wouldn't be a bitch about it, but no...I don't believe I would just hand over my cellphone.

[Guy]

Some kid will come up with something too counter this soon, IF true.

"Phones will be tossed faster than weapons out of moving vehicles......"

Stay safe.

[Burns76]

Originally Posted by Guy

Some kid will come up with something too counter this soon, IF true.

"Phones will be tossed faster than weapons out of moving vehicles......"

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