quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
much to do about nothing. If this is a landmark case, it must be a slow news day.

Now why in the world would you say that?

Because it is not. It deals with tower dumps, to which only a few agencies can do. And it did not over turn Smith or Miller, which still is the go to case law for third party information. It didn’t address security cams or any other means by which the police use investigatory procedures. It did not change how the police go about obtaining tower data on individuals, only mass dumps of data that it takes a fleet of analysts to go through. Which most all agencies do not have. Simply put, nothing really changed in day to day operations of electronic investigations.

It was a very limited ruling that has very little effect on day to day subpoena or search warrant requirements. The requirements that I will have to do Monday will be the same as they were last Monday. That isn’t a landmark case.

I can't help but think that you had to talk this down is because it limits police powers, or rather, people think it limits police powers, and it offends you that people find this noteworthy and a good thing. That's what I see.

I'm just repeating what the opinion says and applying it to my day job.

Nothing really changes. The key words seem to be "all the devices that connected to a particular cell site". That is a broad net to cast, and frankly I really don't disagree. However, with Smith and Miller still in tact, the 99 percent of LE will still go about the day to day just like we did last week. And until a court ruling over turns it, it looks like the police will still be able to obtain individual data off a tower the same way we did before.

And honestly, Gorsuch's dissent is a great read, it really puts historic value on how this intertwines with Miller, Smith, and even Katz.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
I can't help but think that you had to talk this down is because it limits police powers, or rather, people think it limits police powers, and it offends you that people find this noteworthy and a good thing. That's what I see.

I think it’s better described as the idiot media are promoting a false narrative, making people think the government has been greatly restrained.

The case is just a very minor footnote.

That’s my aggravation. Dumb media.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by MikeGLI:
So when I "forget my passcode" do they just break in to it?

Yes. But, it has nothing to do with this ruling.

That has always required a warrant for a forensic evaluation.

Can they charge you specifically for not opening your phone to the police w/out a warrant ?

Since the courts are basically part of the law enforcement family I have to suspect it isn't often that judges deny granting warrants.

Just "big brother" okaying whatever "little brother" wants to do.

quote:

Originally posted by gjgalligan:
Since the courts are basically part of the law enforcement family I have to suspect it isn't often that judges deny granting warrants.

Just "big brother" okaying whatever "little brother" wants to do.

It happens. Warrants are denied on occasion but most LEO's have written enough of them to know the level of PC we need to get them approved. We have to notify Judges of everything we take/find with the warrant. So don't go thinking they are issued easily. Our credibility is on the line and Judges watch very carefully.

quote:

Originally posted by gjgalligan:
Since the courts are basically part of the law enforcement family I have to suspect it isn't often that judges deny granting warrants.

Just "big brother" okaying whatever "little brother" wants to do.

I think this has more to do with police officers understanding that they need probable cause to get a warrant and not trying to push B.S. search warrant through, as opposed to your conspiracy theory.

quote:

Originally posted by gjgalligan:
Since the courts are basically part of the law enforcement family I have to suspect it isn't often that judges deny granting warrants.

Just "big brother" okaying whatever "little brother" wants to do.

Warrants are reviewed at multiple levels, before and after issuance. LEOs are very careful to overshoot with them. You can bet the defense attorney will tear it apart afterwards too. Magistrates and judges are indifferent, and in my experience actually inquisitive and skeptic, when it comes to signing off.

Judges are definitely not part of the law enforcement family, and are in a different branch of the government. FWIW, we’ve needed warrants to search cell phones in California for quite some time. I almost always run my warrants by a prosecutor before I walk into a judge’s chambers to have them review it. I have had to go back and tweak things, due to scope of search for instance, before a judge would sign off on them. That being said, I have written a fair share of them, and I don’t have an issue needing one to perform that type of intrusion.

My standard warrant for a Facebook page is about 5 pages long. It's not that long because I enjoy long narratives and lists of things. It's that long because establishing probable cause for electronic data in such a way that people that either truly don't understand how the internet works ("seasoned" judges) or deliberately misinterpret how it works (attorneys) don't just shoot it down is difficult and a pain in the ass. I have to explain exactly what I want, why I want it, and how it ties to the case at hand and the individual in question. It has to define things like IP addresses, social media, how Facebook works, and why I can't physically go to the location where the data is stored.

Supression hearings on Data are brutal because the case law is just being established and judges and juries (and a fair number of LE) don't necessarily understand the subject matter. There have been times when I think "witchcraft" would have been a better and more easily accepted answer than the actual technical explanation.

You'd think phone warrants would be easier, but they aren't. I basically have to write a thesis paper on how modern phones store, sort, and transmit data every time I ask for anything more than basic subsciber records. "Who owns this number" just requires a subpoena.

On the upside, in the last few months I've learned a tremendous amount about electronic data storage and cell phone engineering that may serve me well when I can finally shut the door on Law Enforcement.

As far as the Warrant itself goes, it is reviewed by the lead investigator, the supervisor, the judge, served, returned to the judge and reviewed again, numbered, filed, reviewed by the prosecutor and defense attorney, the trial judge, and usually by at least one level of appellate court. I've seen warrants get tossed for a misspelled word. Contrary to what you might think, LE can't just wake a judge up at 2am and get them to sign off on some thin nonsense.

This case really isn't going to change that much in the day to day world of LE. Even in the more esoteric realm of those of us who primarily work internet crimes, it will have a fairly limited effect.

quote:

Originally posted by MikeGLI:
So when I "forget my passcode" do they just break in to it?

They aren't looking at your phone. This has nothing to do with your physical phone. This has to do with provider data that shows where your phone was at a given day and time.

An agency would have to get a warrant to attach a GPS tracking device to my car. They did NOT have to get a warrant to subpoena all of ArtieS's phone location data from AT&T for the last three months. After this case, they do need a warrant to get that AT&T data.

The exception that law enforcement was relying on was that business records of AT&T related to you do not carry an expectation of privacy since you voluntarily share this information with AT&T to get your cell service. There is a long line of cases establishing this rule. The Justices have decided that certain cellular data is an exception to the business records rule.

The court decided this largely on a "privacy" rights theory. Gorsuch is advancing the notion that this sort of information is "property" owned by the person, and held by the phone company. Very interesting.

I'm happy with the result but not happy with the court's reasoning. I think Gorsuch has it right.

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:
They aren't looking at your phone. This has nothing to do with your physical phone. This has to do with provider data that shows where your phone was at a given day and time.

Once again, we can save ourselves a lot of anguish and grief by understanding what it is we’re getting spun up about before getting spun up. But I guess there’s nothing so satisfying as a good rant—regardless of the basis, or lack thereof.