Ex student won't give cops phone password

a reply to: Lysergic

Wait you mean this technology could potential come back and bite oneself in ones ass?

Depends if you know how to use it. I have AVG on my phone as an anti-virus, it has many other features too.

For instance, it can track your phone, and you can even factory reset it from any desktop should you feel the need.

a reply to: Lysergic

Who knew, right?

a reply to: Bluntone22

It will be very hard for the cops to get to his data if it's an Android and he chose to encrypt all of his data via the Android settings.

As far as I know, there's no back door into that...

PS - Yes, my phone data is encrypted.

a reply to: Riffrafter

Rubberhose-hose has developed too.

a reply to: Bluntone22

A person cannot be forced to turn over passwords to their phones. In addition to the 5th amendment he is also protected by the 4th amendment. Law Enforcement is required to obtain a warrant.

Carpenter vs. United States - scotus ruling

The ruling noted there are exceptions to obtaining that information (either from the owner of the phone or by the carrier provider). Carrier providers operate under a somewhat different set of standards because the phone legal agreements contain language that they cooperate with law enforcement investigations.

Other exceptions would be for imminent danger / priority locate of a person (abductions / runaways / suicidal people etc etc. In those cases law enforcement, on the officers authority, can have a service provider ping the phone to obtain a location without the need to have a warrant in hand. From my experience its a brief one page for detailing the reason for the request, the officer / agency info etc.

This ruling is a narrow ruling in that the court stated a warrant is "Generally required" to obtain information. That is based on service providers being able to release info the law enforcement.

Either way police need a person consent to search the phone or a warrant / cooperation of a service provider.


However I am confused as to why the lawyer claimed this issue has never been brought to state courts or addressed directly by the Supreme Court. So, unless I am missing something the arguments by the defense and prosecutor seem to not know about this ruling.

This did occur in Louisiana though and they still operate under the Napoleonic code so who knows...

I also have a phone that can be wiped but just calling Corporate Security or 3 password failures it's automatic.

He should just smash it with a hammer. Worked for Hillary!

a reply to: Middleoftheroad

Tom brady....

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: SRPrime

If they get a warrant I'm not to sure his phone would be covered by the 5th.
They can search any other piece of property so the phone would probably be kosher.

And yes you do have to open your house if they have a warrant. Unless you prefer jail.

No you don't. And yes it is.

You see, the phone is in the possession of the police, which means the warrant was served. If they cannot get into it, they cannot force him to open it. The warrant allows search and seizure, it does not force or compel a person to give police information from their brain.

And no, I don't have to open the door for police with a warrant, but the warrant gives them the right to break in. If for some reason they weren't able to break in, I'd be under no compulsion to open the door for them. You do realize when police enter homes on warrants, they break the doors down, right? They don't knock and ask you to open up, because they don't need you to, and nothing forces you to do it for them.

Just to be clear; it seems the part you don't get is they HAVE THE PHONE. If they can get into it, more power to them. It seems they cannot, and so what they are asking is the PASSWORD to get into the phone, which the 5th absolutely covers.

I think that the person is in full understanding of his rights and understands the process.

He is under investigation, and understands that any evidence of any other crime that is in the open or in this case in the memory of his phone can be used against him in a court of law. The courts would look at the contents in a memory of a cell phone as if it were an open room.

So in short if they are going to want access to his phone, they are going to have to do it legally and get a warrant and then proceed to the company and get them to open it up for him.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

Wow... We finally agreed on something.

If you will excuse me I am going to just look outside to see if the world is ending.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
I think that the person is in full understanding of his rights and understands the process.

He is under investigation, and understands that any evidence of any other crime that is in the open or in this case in the memory of his phone can be used against him in a court of law. The courts would look at the contents in a memory of a cell phone as if it were an open room.

So in short if they are going to want access to his phone, they are going to have to do it legally and get a warrant and then proceed to the company and get them to open it up for him.

What is this? Phone companies do not unlock peoples phones for police investigations. Apple and Samsung both told PD's as well as the FBI they do not have to do that, and they don't. This is why brute force is the way it usually goes, and rarely if ever does it work. The police department can attempt to coax a password out of you, but you do not have to oblige.

A judge can give a warrant for search and seizure of a phone, a judge cannot give a warrant that compels the owner of the phone or the phone carrier to unlock the phone. You cannot force information out of people. A warrant give the police the right to break into things. If they cannot break into it, sucks to be them; but they cannot compel you to open it.

They are going to want access to his phone, and they are not going to get it, because they cannot crack the phone, and the owner has the right to not give police or courts any information that will self incriminate, which includes a password to a device.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Bluntone22

A person cannot be forced to turn over passwords to their phones. In addition to the 5th amendment he is also protected by the 4th amendment. Law Enforcement is required to obtain a warrant.

Carpenter vs. United States - scotus ruling

The ruling noted there are exceptions to obtaining that information (either from the owner of the phone or by the carrier provider). Carrier providers operate under a somewhat different set of standards because the phone legal agreements contain language that they cooperate with law enforcement investigations.

Other exceptions would be for imminent danger / priority locate of a person (abductions / runaways / suicidal people etc etc. In those cases law enforcement, on the officers authority, can have a service provider ping the phone to obtain a location without the need to have a warrant in hand. From my experience its a brief one page for detailing the reason for the request, the officer / agency info etc.

This ruling is a narrow ruling in that the court stated a warrant is "Generally required" to obtain information. That is based on service providers being able to release info the law enforcement.

Either way police need a person consent to search the phone or a warrant / cooperation of a service provider.


However I am confused as to why the lawyer claimed this issue has never been brought to state courts or addressed directly by the Supreme Court. So, unless I am missing something the arguments by the defense and prosecutor seem to not know about this ruling.

This did occur in Louisiana though and they still operate under the Napoleonic code so who knows...

Pinging locations, or pulling call logs and text messages are all within the right of cooperation with a cell provider, and all need a warrant of some kind. The 1 page emergency document for location is a limited warrant that's always approved if the circumstances are met.

A phone provider CANNOT unlock your phone for the police. A warrant cannot compel them to do that either.

We have precedent where the FBI had a battle with apple. Apple won. We had a second precedent where the FBI battled with Samsung. Samsung also won.

The first phone provider to unlock a person's phone for the police, will be the next phone provider out of business.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

You may be correct but the cell equals open room seems a bit far. If a warrant was for all info in the phone, that's one thing. But what if it was for texts and then someone goes looking for pics? Wouldn't that be outside the scope?

Can an idea such as plain sight apply to a cell phone what specific area must be accessed? Are pressing buttons and issuing command being set equal to walking and looking in plain sight in a house?

I suppose this is a good area to investigate and to watch for legal changes.

a reply to: SRPrime

The one page document is not a warrant. It's an exigent circumstance document that places responsibility on the officer making the request who would also be required to document the info supporting his/her decision. Only a judge can authorize a warrant.

The service provider is a grey area in that they are viewed as a 3rd party since they provided and support the cell phone in question (business interest territory by legal contract). This was one of the areas scotus noted in their ruling that will have to be addressed at some point given the way technology is advancing.

As for your apple precedent - there is not one. Apple refused to comply with the warrant and when the 2 sides started to battle it out in court the Feds were able to locate a person who could get into the phone. At that point the Feds contact the judge and asked her to vacate her ruling since they no longer needed Apples cooperation.

The part you overlooked is the judges order required Apple to comply with the warrant. Apple was appealing the ruling.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
"I don't think many citizens want the government rummaging through their phone," McLindon said in an email.

I've always viewed these high profile, but small time cases like this one and the one with the San Bernardino Islamic terrorist's iPhone as being a prime example of government misdirection. We know 100% that the NSA and likely the FBI and CIA monitor every American's cell phone use... texts, calls, web activity, we already know that. These public cases merely serve to give Americans a false sense of privacy in their electronic communications, making it less likely that Americans become spooked at using these easily hacked, easily data breached devices.

a reply to: Bluntone22

More like a safe. They can't force you to give them safe codes.

a reply to: SRPrime

Actually there is a way, but it would require a warrant, and that is data that is backed up into the cloud. If the police get a warrant for that data, then the phone provider would be able to access the cloud and bypass the phone.

a reply to: roadgravel

If the warrant is for text, and there are pictures from the phone, in the text, it would give them justification to go and look through the pics.

However, if law enforcement is going to do a warrant on a phone, they are going to want all of the data, and not just one portion, that means text, history, and texts on the phone.

originally posted by: LightSpeedDriver
a reply to: Riffrafter

Rubberhose-hose has developed too.

Rubber-hose and similar techniques have been around since the dawn of man.

And yet here we stand, all evolved and everything.

Go figure...