DEA Impersonated Woman, Set Up Fake Facebook Page, Posted Photos From Her Seized Phone To Make It Look Real
from the extra-questionable dept
Chris Hamby, over at Buzzfeed, has an incredible and crazy story about the DEA impersonating a woman, creating a fake Facebook profile without her knowledge or permission, and posting photos from her seized cell phone, all in order to try to get information from others. The specifics involve a woman, Sondra "Sosa" Arquiett, who was apparently the girlfriend of Jermaine Branford, a guy who was accused of (and eventually pleaded guilty to) drug trafficking. Arquiett was a minor player, charged with basically allowing Branford to use her apartment for storing and processing the cocaine he was trafficking. Arquiett was eventually sentenced to probation.Where this gets interesting, however, is that Arquiett has now filed a civil suit against the US and DEA agent Timothy Sinnigen, who allegedly set up the fake Facebook account. Arquiett claims she never had a Facebook account, and only found out about the fake DEA one when a friend mentioned something about photos she was posting -- photos that the DEA had from seizing her phone. The details are laid out clearly in the lawsuit. Arquiett was arrested in July of 2010. By August, Sinnegen had set up the fake Facebook profile using information and photos from her phone, without telling Arquiett at all. Arquiett notes that:
The photographs used by Sinnigen included revealing and/or suggestive photographs of Plaintiff, including photographs of the Plaintiff in her bra and panties. Sinnigen also posted photographs of Plaintiff's minor child and her minor niece to Facebook.The DEA then allegedly used the fake profile to try to contact other acquaintances who may have been involved in drug trafficking. This went on for at least three months before she discovered it. Sinnigen apparently flat out admitted it when confronted about it. Arquiett notes that, beyond the basic invasion of privacy reasons to be concerned, the whole thing may have put her in danger:
... by posing as her on Facebook, Sinnegen had created the appearance that Plaintiff was willfully cooperating in his investigation of the narcotics trafficking ring, thereby placing her in danger.In the DEA's response to the lawsuit, they admit to setting up the fake profile and contacting possible drug dealers, but insist this is all perfectly fine.
Defendants admit that Plaintiff did not give express permission for the use of photographs contained on her phone on an undercover Facebook page, but state the Plaintiff implicitly consented by granting access to the information stored in her cell phone and by consenting to the use of that information to aid in an ongoing criminal investigations.It's one thing to say "use the information seized for investigations" and quite another to "fake my identity and pretend to be me." Furthermore, the response argues:
Plaintiff relinquished any expectation of privacy she may have had to the photographs contained on her cell phone.Again, consenting to the use of the information is very different from saying "hey, go impersonate me." But, again, this is the DEA we're talking about, and they have quite a bit of history to playing fast and loose with legal boundaries to try to go after folks. Buzzfeed quotes numerous legal experts saying it's a massive stretch to go from consenting to using the information in an investigation, to arguing that means it's okay to impersonate the individual and pretend they're engaged in ongoing conversations with potential drug dealers.
Plaintiff consented to the search of her cell phone.
Plaintiff consented to use of information contained on her cell phone in ongoing criminal investigations.
Plaintiff cannot establish a violation of her substantive due process rights because she has not, and cannot, allege that Defendant Sinnigen’s alleged actions were taken with the absence of a legitimate governmental interest.
This effort also almost certainly violates Facebook's terms of service, though it's unclear how Facebook feels about law enforcement folks doing so. Either way, it's yet another example of very questionable investigative techniques used online by law enforcement, and the DEA in particular.
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: dea, impersonation, investigation, sondra arquiett, timothy sinnigen
Companies: facebook
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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unless you're a public official - then they send out the SWAT team to take you out:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/04/crackpipe-tweet-from-parody-twitter-account-set-off-p olice-raid/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Think of the children
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The internet is a lawless place
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Plaintiff implicitly consented by granting access to the information stored in her cell phone and by consenting to the use of that information to aid in an ongoing criminal investigations"
Excuse me? Plaintiff implies consent by storing images on her cell phone? I've owned many cell phones before and I have never read anything about giving up my right to privacy for storing images on my cell phone.
Just how in the name of GOD, all that's HOLY and U.S. law does the government come up with this weak ass excuse unless you are a total moron with a 'let's make up the law as we along and rewrite the rules along the way' type of mentality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No. When you tell the police that they can use your phone to assist in their investigation, you assume that they want to look at the contents of the phone and see who your contacts are. You don't expect them to take the pictures on your phone to create a fake Facebook account.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well now we know we shouldn't assume that. So if we write and sign (and carry with the phone) a statement that the information may not be republished or distributed outside of LEO premises or personnel, and insist that LEO take that written statement along with the property (eg phone), I wonder if a court would find that binding. Maybe not but worth a try and at least places on the record that no permission has been granted to do what happened in this case. This would be similar to writing on health consent forms that no out-of-network services are to be used and that the person will under no circumstances be liable for out-of-network charges incurred without explicit written consent - which has worked for some people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Same logic different use
good to know thanks DEA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What if?
Sondra loses the suit.
Now a court has declared that everything found during a "consented search" can be used however law enforcement want. It doesn't have to be illegal, evidence or related to a crime in any way. The search won't even have to lead to charges. And it doesn't matter if it put anyone in danger.
"If you don't have anything to hide, you dont have anything to fear." suddenly becomes the greatest lie ever told.
It was technicaly true earlier asuming you din't breake the law (witch everyone does in some way) or that the police screw things up or lie (wich they do).
Suddenly you get it in black on white. No matter what you do... No matter the situation... Even if lives are at stake... NEVER EVER cooperate with law enforcement in any way. Because then they can put your life in danger, legaly.
Suddenly everyone even with the cleanest conscious have a reason to not consent to anything.
That can be the best and the worst thing that has happened to the US since the declaration of independence. The day that everyone in law enforcement becomes the public enemy no.1. Would you let your brother who is a cop into your house? Can you afford to take the chance?
On the positive side, that can topple a bad system and force a re-evaluation of the basic rights of all US citizens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What if?
I think it still falls a little lower on the list:
1) Of the People, for the People
2) To protect and serve
3) Size doesn't matter
4) If you don't have anything to hide, you dont have anything to fear
But it is still in the top 5.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What if?
I'm guessing that this ruling will be overturned on appeal. It doesn't even pass that giggle test. However, even if it's not overturned then it just reinforces one of the basic rules of dealing with the police: never consent to a search under any circumstances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What if?
Any scenario where the woman (Sondra) loses, is scary. Think slipery slope were a specific consent like: search my car, implies consent to use my car as bait to catch car thieves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh?
Also, as I understand it, an individual employed by the government can't take advantage of the state's sovereign immunity if no reasonable person in the individual's place would have thought his actions were legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh?
What are the odds that that is the secret interpretation of the secret law that magically immunises LEOs from prosecution for fraud etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Huh?
And I'm damned sure that the LEOs will have that kind of attorney.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh?
Yeah, we've corrected the piece. That statement may have gone too far. Sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"civil forfeiture" taken one step further?
This sort of thing already happens with websites, servers, and other online "identities" that police take over to use as a law enforcement tool.
So if it's (apparently) legal for police to spoof a website's identity, or take over a person's online chatroom identity, then it's only one step further to spoof a flesh-and-blood person's identity, is it not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fake dea agent pages?
This is why criminals are starting to have more legitimacy than the cops trying to bust them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Something to think about
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The fact is that the government put this woman's life in immediate danger where she faces death at the hands of these drug dealers and where the government hadn't even discussed anything about this with her.
Just WTF did the government think it was doing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They keep saying that if we cooperate we have nothing to fear, and they keep proving that statement wrong.
Where exactly is our incentive for helping in so called "law enforcement"?
If my buddy from school turned drug dealer, with this as an example, what is to stop them from dragging my ass in for something completely bogus in order to get to my phone?
This is really insane.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Though making up fictional pages in order to substitute for their own work does not seem all too dissimilar. Except that they are endangering her life rather than her reputation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
These are criminals. they control the Police, the courts, the DoJ for the most part, since most of the those people are acting like criminals I see no differance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[citation needed]
As written, it looks like you just made this part up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It should read: Even more crazy: "the DOJ" has said this behavior is fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I agree that characterizing this as a court saying the DEA's actions are "just fine" is highly misleading. We'll have to see what happens as a result of her lawsuit. I hope she wins it easily.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moral issues aside, that's pretty clever!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yet another reason for never consenting to a search. Your life literally depends on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Key Opps
They published pictures of two MINORS! No court in the U.S. is going to construe that this woman consented to publication of her own child's picture. Worse, she could not have consented to publication of pictures of someone else's child.
Completely separate from this woman's cause of action under the 13th Amendment; either DEA is going to throw this jerk under a large bus, or the lawyers for the kids are going to own the DEA budget.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Key Opps
I suspected when law enforcement invokes "think of the children!", they really don't mean it and are using children as a pretext to push their own hidden agendas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They keep ratcheting up their abuses, when will this thing finally explode? Oh wait that's right, it's Tuesday and [insert show here] starts at 8pm. Oh, and i still need to get through all the seasons of [insert second show here].
Mr. Fenderson i'm genuinely curious, in your opinion is the world leaning more toward Idiocracy, 1984, Catch 22, or Brave New World? Or perhaps we're entering some unholy matrimony of all four combined?
Secondly, what would it take for you, personally, to put down the placard and pick up a torch? Or are you beyond such crude resolutions (revolutions)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
None of those fit well. We are living in a corporatocracy, a fascist state.
"Secondly, what would it take for you, personally, to put down the placard and pick up a torch?"
You're assuming that I haven't already. My comments here are far from the total of the efforts I put in with this problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Good to hear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you are a regular reader of this site you should know that that is farthest from the truth. The big lie is that the USA is a Democratic Republic. It's not it's an oligarchy. We work and suffer at the pleasure of the rich who determine the laws and the policies that affect the other 99%.
Law enforcement is routinely given a pass when they, themselves, violate the laws they are sworn to protect. Rather than being held to a higher standard they are held to a lower one. In the largest city in my state, 20% of all homicides are committed by police officers yet they are not held accountable. Even when the DOJ says they have gone too far and levy responsibilities on the police which, from a poor white trash's perspective seem to be a joke, the police officers sue to have the reforms reversed. When there is public outcry over the death of a citizen and demands the prosecutor convene a grand jury, it doesn't happen. This happens all over the country. I saw, on the news this evening, a case where police pulled a vehicle over because of unworn seatbelts. A passenger in the car would not produce identification nor step out of the car. The cops were white and the passenger african-american. The police broke the window, removed the man from the car in front of his children who were videotaping the incident, threw him on the ground and tased him. Their reason was they were in fear for their lives because he might have a weapon -- he did not. He would not leave the vehicle because he was in fear of his life. Who was more credible? Look at places such as Ferguson, MO, Fullerton, CA, Bakersfield, CA, Cleveland, OH, and many more places.
Getting back to the issue at hand and the comment I am replying to. The government has entitled itself to unfettered access to our lives, our persons and our property with which it can do what it wants and we have only the recourse of civil suit -- sometimes.
The bill of rights is being routinely used as metaphorical toilet paper for a government that is bereft of honor and responsibility to those who put them in power. It is not the people who put them there -- this is neither a red/blue state issue, nor is it a partisan issue. By and large the people who do these things are not beholden to the voters, congress nor the courts. They act above the law because, in effect, they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sinnigen's wake
This Facebook scheme certainly seems improper to me; so improper that anyone but a LEO would be prosecuted for identity theft.
With all the profitable schemes people like Sinnigen can come up with, no wonder people like him don't want phones to be encrypted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You Obey or you die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shall we seize Sinnigen's phone and use any photos of him in a state of undress or of his children and impersonate him online for a child sex trafficking investigation? I'm sure he would have no objection as this is considered acceptable law enforcement practice where he comes from.
Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, it is Render unto Cesar what is Cesar's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Most of the FEDS are repulsive, abusive beings...yes. But I feel Sondra got a great deal and this is probably the best case scenario that could of happened to her.
For her part in the " conspiracy to distribute cocaine" she was looking at life in prison according to my news sources. She did no time at all- just probation. This is a very serious charge!
I am only speculating here as this is not based on fact- her lawyer for the drug charges was Donald Kinsella, a lawyer in Albany- my thought is during representing this woman it was discovered she had a FB page in which Mr.Kinsella told her to take down promptly- I am again,speculating.
After investigating, Mr.Kinsella is a criminal and white collar crime lawyer the kind that routinely handles RICO and drug crimes. Probably not a lawyer you would get for civil rights violations. An administrative lawyer would be your best option.
After further investigation it was discovered this DEA agent had been the one to create the fake account. Realize just how hard it would be for the average person to realize, let alone convince anyone the DEA is posing as you on FB!! The standard answer is " You're crazy!
At this point the cards are all stacked in Sondras favor. The average non- criminal in this situation would be looking at a million dollar plus settlement- she got a very ridiculous, small amount I think it was $130,00...Really?!
Think about it...$130,000 and NO jail time is a deal I would make quickly. So, yes- this sounds bad but I really think she made out like a bandit.
Also nothing at all, NOTHING stops the FEDS from doing this- criminal or not. It happens daily and many people do not realize it or when they do it is too late.
We only hear this story because a lawyer is involved. The more vulnerable the victim, the harder the abuse- they know most people they victimize have little to no support or resources. They are predators.
Had she and her lawyer not been able to make a deal and it ended up costing the FEDS millions, guaranteed she would be dead- never see that money-they would kill her. If they could not kill her, they would try to get her committed, fabricate evidence she is a drug addict, prostitute, have a car run her off the road, have CPS terrorize her, shove a needle in her arm, make her go crazy. They are gang stalkers- they are sick individuals.
Yes, as a post above states- encrypt your phone and take your privacy and security seriously and do whatever else you need to do and by any means necessary to protect yourself. We are all just one " Privacy Act" away from invasion on the grounds of " terrorism" the catch all for warantless, wiretapping and surveillance.
Also most of the case is redacted and under court seal. Why? Something to hide?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spot on....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]