California to allow warrant-less search of mobile phones

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by Lafayette79

Do you know if the wiping is up to DoD standard, or just deleting the files?

DoD takes some time and pulling the battery should leave a lot of data still there.

Just deleting files means the disk is recoverable.

Ours are whole drive encrypted to begin with which makes recovery pretty difficult in the first place but the product we use meets DoD standards.

[Lafayette79]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Ours are whole drive encrypted to begin with which makes recovery pretty difficult in the first place but the product we use meets DoD standards.

Thanks,
I wonder what the situation is with the off the shelf phones that we buy. I've read on another board that there are Apps for phones that do as you said yours does, but without the encryption, which is why I asked you in the first place. I don't see some random Java App being as sophisticated as yours, and so, the phone is vulnerable.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by Lafayette79

Thanks,
I wonder what the situation is with the off the shelf phones that we buy. I've read on another board that there are Apps for phones that do as you said yours does, but without the encryption, which is why I asked you in the first place. I don't see some random Java App being as sophisticated as yours, and so, the phone is vulnerable.

There are a few easier solutions. First, don't put private information on a cell phone. The wipe would do things like prevent someone from automatically receiving your emails because those mail settings would be wiped out. Most often, you're protecting your phone from someone who would steal your phone. The person who steals your phone, most often, just wants the phone, either to use or to sell. Most often, someone who steals your phone doesn't have the forensic skill to get the data off of the hard drive of the phone.

In the case of your phone being searched if you are arrested, don't keep evidence of illegal activity on your phone. Don't use a cell phone to discuss illegal activity. I'll even go one better... don't engage in illegal activity Kwame Kilpatrick will tell you the danger of discussing illegal activity via text messages.

One of the things we talk about in the InfoSec world is that laws don't change as fast as technology does but general laws apply generally to new technologies. In that regard, my question would be.. if I am arrested, is my purse searchable? If it is legal to search my address book, paper calendar, etc. that would be in my purse, then why wouldn't it be legal to also search my phone? Likewise, if it is legal to search my car, then anything in my car is fair game, right? Why would a cell phone be exempt?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Likewise, if it is legal to search my car, then anything in my car is fair game, right? Why would a cell phone be exempt?

Because, if you're arrested in your car, that alone is not enough for police to search your office or a file cabinet.

It's somewhat unclear whether old standards regarding probable cause do, and separately should, apply to new technology. That's what this ruling clarifies.

[Lafayette79]

In another thread, ThetaPrincess24 posted an update to the ΔΤΔ mess at Kentucky: http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/showthread.php?t=117289&page=2, and it has a quote relevant to this thread.

UK Police arrested the student Nov. 30 after they searched his room and found three ounces of marijuana, two digital scales with marijuana residue, six Adderall pills and an Indiana driver’s license with false information, the arrest report said.

With the information received in the search, Lexington Police obtained a search warrant for the content on his phone. Police searched the phone and confiscated 24 pictures, 141 contacts and 420 text messages, the search warrant said. The warrant also said police found 572 grams of marijuana in his room.

So it looks like Kentucky, as of Nov 30, 2010, had no problem waiting for a warrant.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Lafayette79

In another thread, ThetaPrincess24 posted an update to the ΔΤΔ mess at Kentucky: http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/showthread.php?t=117289&page=2, and it has a quote relevant to this thread.

So it looks like Kentucky, as of Nov 30, 2010, had no problem waiting for a warrant.

Right, which is because this was a state decision that occurred in a different state a month after that occurred. Plenty of police officers in CA probably waited as well until a court ruled it was ok.


/point is that's irrelevant.

[Lafayette79]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Right, which is because this was a state decision that occurred in a different state a month after that occurred. Plenty of police officers in CA probably waited as well until a court ruled it was ok. /point is that's irrelevant.

In our democracy, the Fourth Amendment is never irrelevant.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Because, if you're arrested in your car, that alone is not enough for police to search your office or a file cabinet.

It's somewhat unclear whether old standards regarding probable cause do, and separately should, apply to new technology. That's what this ruling clarifies.

But if you had your briefcase in your car, would that be fair game?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by AGDee

But if you had your briefcase in your car, would that be fair game?

My point was that the information on your cell phone doesn't "exist" in ways contemplated specifically by the Constitution.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Lafayette79

In our democracy, the Fourth Amendment is never irrelevant.

Which is why there was a court case. And a ruling. Both of which, due to location and timing, carry a relevance that your comparison lacks.

[Kevin]

I don't really buy that this will not be overturned on appeal. If you look at the cases allowing searches incident to an arrest without a warrant center around the safety of the officer. For example, the wingspan search, the ability of the officer to check the person of the suspect for weapons.

How the data on a mobile phone once the suspect is in custody and being questioned could be relevant to the safety of the officers is beyond me.

Lower court judges are notoriously pro-prosecution. In my experience, most are former Asst. District Attorneys (at least in Oklahoma, that seems to be the preferred career path).

The police have very clear rules and they all know them or should know them. In this case, a prosecutor was trying to save his case by making a creative argument. For whatever reason, the lower court judge upheld it. I'm not sure about the precedential value of Superior Court judges in California, but I imagine they're probably not.

At this point, I wouldn't worry too much.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I don't really buy that this will not be overturned on appeal.

Again, this was the appeal. This was a California Supreme Court decision.

[Kevin]

Doesn't the article say California Superior Court?

I wikipedia'd it and that appears to be the analog of a Federal District Court.

ETA: MC, gotcha now. I see that the cut/paste job DS did was erroneous. It was exactly the same except it referred to the California Supreme Court as the Ventura County Superior Court.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by 33girl

You also shouldn't have to buy this because you are too much of a cheapo to have a work wardrobe and a party wardrobe. Sorry for the tangent, but that ad has been bugging the crap out of me.

Yes, but you can go from demure to sex kitten in less than 10 seconds. It also functions as a napkin, handkerchief and/or wash rag for those times when you are without. There may also be a myriad of other uses but decorum dictates that I stop here.