Law Enforcement, DOJ Already Plotting How To Get Around Supreme Court's Warrant Requirement To Search Phones
from the because-of-course-they-will dept
Following this week's landmark ruling from the Supreme Court that says law enforcement must get a warrant to search mobile phones, law enforcement folks are clearly freaking out. A bunch of folks are quoted on how "awful" this ruling is, as they pretend that getting a warrant is such an incredible burden. Jim Pasco, the executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, points out that due process should be ignored when gangs are around:Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, the country's largest police union, imagined the police busting a drug deal with two suspects, one who gets cuffed and another who gets away.Meanwhile, another police spokesperson overreacts by suggesting warrants are somehow difficult to get:
The arresting officers “want to get into that phone and see if they can get the other guy,” he said in an interview. “Or gang situations. They communicate almost exclusively by phone. There's more at stake here than due process. It's public safety.”
Besides the delay, one problem is such a warrant might not be approved, said Bill Johnson, executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations, which counts about 240,000 rank-and-file police officers as members.He makes that sound horrible, but that's what the Constitution says. Just because there may be bad stuff in someone's house the police don't get to just search it. They have to point to something specific. That's the 4th Amendment. Has Johnson never read it?
“You have to make that jump: I bet he's got a bunch of stuff on his phone. And that's not good enough,” he said. “The officers are really going to have to point to something specific that ties that phone or that suspect's use of phones to the commission of a crime.”
Meanwhile, at the DOJ, they're already plotting on ways to get around this ruling by seeing how far they can push the "exigent circumstances" exception:
Ellen Canale, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said the agency would work with law enforcement to ensure "full compliance" with the decision.Notice how the focus is on figuring out more ways to search phones, not more ways to make sure they obey the law. This doesn't make me feel any safer. Quite the opposite.
"We will make use of whatever technology is available to preserve evidence on cell phones while seeking a warrant, and we will assist our agents in determining when exigent circumstances or another applicable exception to the warrant requirement will permit them to search the phone immediately without a warrant," Canale said.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 4th amendment, doj, exigent circumstances, law enforcement, privacy, riley, supreme court, warrants
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr. Pasco's false dichotomy
This statement is meaningless. Due process is a matter of public safety.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mr. Pasco's false dichotomy
That. The fact that they think that the police is always right and should not be hindered by such Constitutional burdens is a good indicative why they are simply essential.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mr. Pasco's false dichotomy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And the answer is...
http://www.propublica.org/special/no-warrant-no-problem-how-the-government-can-still-get-you r-digital-data
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh boo hoo!
That's what I imagine they want to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh boo hoo!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad apples
Drunk on power, they want to exploit every loophole to "make it safe"... these are also the people who want military vehicles and assault weapons (REAL assault weapons, not the glorified hunting rifles that LOOK like assault rifles)... Because nothing says "I have a little d**k" like showing up to a domestic disturbance in a TANK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad apples
That's true. The biggest cowards, the most vociferous whiners, the least intelligent, the most psychotic, and the least competent members of any police force can be found on its SWAT team.
"What? You want to me actually WALK the streets of my own community carrying nothing but a baton and without wearing body armor? What do you think this is, the UK?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There might be a lack of evidence to convict them when illegally obtained cell phone evidence gets thrown out in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They claim it's about 'public safety', well how exactly is the public being protected when someone who would have been in jail is instead let free because they just couldn't be bothered to get a warrant, and all the incriminating evidence is thrown out due to their impatience?
That sounds to me like the exact opposite of 'protecting the public', and all because they can't go through the simple process of getting a warrant, and/or don't want to create a paper trail of their actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sure, we can't use the phone evidence to convict you, but we found the drugs during the traffic stop we conducted as a result of the information we found on the phone.
Now let me just finish downloading all those intimate pics of your girlfriend off that phone...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they hadn't abused the process, there wouldn't have been cases before the Supreme Court that caused this ruling in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Due Process not only protects the innocent, but also their safety. That's why the government isn't allowed to just go around killing people suspected of crimes...
Wait.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Holy cow. This has to be one of the dumbest statements ever made by a law enforcement officer. Law enforcement should not have to get a warrant because it might not get approved? Let me explain something to you:
THAT IS THE ENTIRE POINT - YOU CANNOT BE TRUSTED SO THERE NEEDS TO BE OVERSIGHT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Absurd? No! I can DOJ that bullet:
Any agency denied a warrant to search a phone would be breaking the law when searching it. Forcing anyone to break the law would itself be an illegal act. Warrants serve only to enforce lawless behavior, and are therefore irrational and unconstitutional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
'Following the law takes too much time and effort, while ignoring the law is seen as illegal or at least questionable. Therefore, the proper response is to get rid of the law that's getting in the way.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really, Bill Johnson? Really?
�You have to make that jump: I bet he's got a bunch of stuff on his phone. And that's not good enough,� he said. �The officers are really going to have to point to something specific that ties that phone or that suspect's use of phones to the commission of a crime.�
Why not just use the old tried and true method and sprinkle some crack on the phone? Then they'll have all the probable cause they need to get warrant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nli6RDAWREA&t=0m41s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Police state confirmed. That statement ignores public safety!
"Besides the delay, one problem is such a warrant might not be approved..."
If you don't have the required material to get a warrant you shouldn't be searching the phone anyway. That's a privacy issue!
"The officers are really going to have to point to something specific that ties that phone or that suspect's use of phones to the commission of a crime."
FINALLY, the real root cause of the unhappiness comes out. Police officers have to do more work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I like how Aereo gets in trouble for breaking the spirit of the law, but that's standard practice for government/intelligence agencies/law enforcement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the police don't feel the need to follow the law, why should anyone else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
a group of persons associated for some criminal or other antisocial purpose
Yup, sounds like the police are always around one of those.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
However, the odds of that happening? Zero to zilch, with maybe one or two isolated exceptions(though I'd love to be proven wrong).
When the only 'cops' commenting on the case(or at least the most vocal ones) are the ones whining about how following the law just takes too much work? Yeah, they are going to be seen as representative of cops as a whole, and the blame for that rests on them, and the ones too cowardly to speak up to counter them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'd be really interested if someone could come up with a system that would allow for Q/A, discussion, and debate between LEOs & "the rest of us" with the constraints that the participants claiming to be police (or other authorities) could be verified as such while still being guaranteed anonymity.
Even a near-perfect system would probably grow very slowly, since the duties of law enforcement would seem to require understanding that virtually any security system can (and most likely will) be circumvented eventually. Hell, if I were a cop, I'd probably just assume any such system was a honey pot designed to weed out "disloyal" troublemakers.
I've noticed that most of the people with actual law enforcement experience who criticize the system have one very important thing in common: they're not cops, they're ex-cops. "Snitches wind up in ditches" is a phrase with very broad appeal and utility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What is much more generalized is a distrust of law enforcement. Why so much distrust based on the actions of a minority of cops? Same reason the police carry weapons and don't inherently take random citizens at their word: all it takes is one instance of misplaced trust, and very bad things can happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
With a few exceptions, I don't see any generalized hate for cops here. I see hate specifically for corrupt cops here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just get a warrant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wow. wow-e-wow-wow. the slackjawed stupor i'm in right now...
does he even know what he's saying? i don't even...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gotta love this:
The way the make it sound like "find the off switch", "pull the battery", and "put the Apple ones in airplane mode" so they won't receive and act on any remote-wipe command is somehow a difficult and arcanely advanced feat of technological wizardry. Hell, sticking the phone in an unplugged microwave oven will do the trick, as the Faraday cage designed to keep microwaves *in* will also keep microwaves *out*, including cell tower signals. Technology so frightfully advanced that we've had it in random consumers' kitchens for the past fifty years! Wow!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And do we really have try them? Can't we just execute them on the spot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you follow this trail of logic, how long till they start executing criminals Judge Dredd style so they can "catch" more criminals?
This whole rights, incarceration, courthouse stuff takes to much time better spent gunning down more 'criminals'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]