FBI Asks To Perform An Intrusive Search Of A Phone For Evidence It Doesn't Need From A Device That Probably Doesn't Belong To The Suspect
from the in-which-an-agent-seems-to-believe-'wild-speculation'-is-'probable-c dept
It looks like the FBI believes it should be able to pull pretty much anything from someone's phone for pretty much any reason. A recent warrant affidavit [PDF] submitted by Special Agent Brian De Jesus requests access to nearly everything contained on a cellphone abandoned in a car, supposedly by the suspect now being charged for being a felon in possession of a handgun.
The first three pages list everything the FBI potentially wants to search, including all call info, texts, emails, social media messages, recordings, photos, GPS data, calendar/contact contents, and anything else on the device that might designate ownership or create problems for the FBI when it searches the phone (malware, encryption, data destruction software, etc.).
The affidavit also asks the judge to grant the FBI permission to use biometric measures to unlock the phone, including thumbs, fingers, facial features, and irises/retinas. According to the request, the FBI may only use "objectively reasonable force" to ensure compliance. So that adds some Fifth Amendment concerns to the over-abundant Fourth Amendment issues.
It's anyone's guess how the criminal event preceding the stop of the suspect and the seizure of this phone supports a forensic search of the device. Here's how the FBI came to be in possession of the phone.
A Los Angeles Sheriff's deputy started following a car whose driver appeared to be intoxicated. This led to a short vehicle chase. The driver and passenger fled the vehicle after it hit a curb. The driver escaped. The passenger didn't. The passenger was patted down and a gun was discovered. Since the passenger was a convicted felon, his possession of a gun was a criminal offense.
That should have been the end of it. Officers had a criminal offense and a suspect and all the evidence they needed (criminal record, illegal handgun). Deputies went back to inventory the vehicle before towing it and found a phone. But turning this over to the feds (for the federal weapons charge) resulted in one agent putting his imagination into overdrive to justify an intrusive search of the device.
From my training, personal experience, and the collective experiences relayed to me by other law enforcement officers who conduct firearms investigations, I am aware of the following:
a. Persons who possess, purchase, or sell firearms generally maintain records of their firearm transactions as items of value and usually keep them in their residence, or in places that are readily accessible, and under their physical control, such as in their digital devices. It has been my experience that prohibited individuals who own firearms illegally will keep the contact information of the individual who is supplying firearms to prohibited individuals or other individuals involved in criminal activities for future purchases or referrals. Such information is also kept on digital devices.
b. Persons who also possess firearms, especially prohibited arms, sometimes jointly possess or share firearms with each other.
c. Many people also keep mementos of their firearms, including digital photographs or recordings of themselves possessing or using firearms on their digital devices. These photographs and recordings are often shared via social media, text messages, and over text messaging applications.
d. Those who illegally possess firearms often sell their firearms and purchase firearms. Correspondence between persons buying and selling firearms often occurs over phone calls, e-mail, text message, and social media message to and from smartphones, laptops, or other digital devices. This includes sending photos of the firearm between the seller and the buyer, as well as negotiation of price. In my experience, individuals who engage in street sales of firearms frequently use phone calls, e-mail, and text messages to communicate with each other regarding firearms that they sell or offer for sale. In addition, it is common for individuals engaging in the unlawful sale of firearms to have photographs of firearms they or other individuals working with them possess on their cellular phones and other digital devices as they frequently send these photos to each other to boast of their firearms possession and/or to facilitate sales or transfers of firearms.
That's a lot to extrapolate from finding a felon in possession of a gun. While this may be true in some cases, it's not objectively reasonable to assume that all or most felons illegally possessing handguns also engage in trafficking of illegal firearms or that they keep "records" of illicit purchases that were likely facilitated by people generally adverse to recordkeeping or generating receipts.
But that's not the most egregious extrapolation. The most vivid use of the FBI agent's imagination is the linking of the abandoned phone to the man deputies arrested. Remember, he was the passenger in this vehicle -- something observed by officers on the scene and noted in the agent's affidavit.
Deputies then conducted an inventory search of the abandoned Camry before towing it. During the search of the car, deputies found the SUBJECT DEVICE on the driver’s side floorboard. LASD seized the SUBJECT DEVICE as evidence. The SUBJECT DEVICE was later transferred to the custody of the FBI.
This phone most likely belongs to the driver -- the suspect that got away.
This is a fishing expedition masquerading as an FBI investigation. The FBI wants to look at the phone to find evidence of criminal acts. It already has all the evidence it needs to secure a conviction on illegal possession charges. They caught the guy with the gun. This search isn't going to add anything to the info the FBI already has. The evidence on hand is more than enough to move forward with a prosecution.
This is an attempt to find other stuff -- either to charge this suspect with or to find other people to go after. The instigating crime was alleged drunk driving and evasion of an attempted stop by the LASD. The passenger had nothing to do with the events that triggered his pursuit by LASD deputies. He just ended up being the only suspect the deputies could catch... and he wasn't even driving. But he was caught and a gun was discovered, along with his criminal record. That should be the end of it. But the FBI wants permission to trawl through a phone for evidence of whatever.
According to the docket, this warrant request was granted. It may have been modified, but the notes don't seem to indicate it was. For now, the only other thing on record is the FBI's documentation of its seizure of the device. If this person has even a halfway competent lawyer, he'll challenge this search. There's nothing in the affidavit that justifies this intrusion. An FBI's agent's speculation about the contents isn't the same thing as probable cause. And the fact that the phone was found on the driver's side of the car only further separates this agent's assertions from reality.
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, brian de jesus, fbi, fishing expedition, general warrant, probable cause, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
'Limited in the sense of 'unless we want to' that is...'
But remember, mandating broken encryption isn't something to worry about because the proper authorities will only make use of it in very strict circumstances where they are justified in engaging in a search and never for fishing expeditions...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Limited in the sense of 'unless we want to' that is...'
Searching every phone of everybody we stop is not intrusive, and is why we want broken decryption... US law enforcement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Limited in the sense of 'unless we want to' that is...'
Hell, we don't even want to bother stopping anyone, we just want access to all the things from our cubicles. Where it is nice and private.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But.
Who owns the car?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guns
We will just gloss over that the 2nd Amendment says "unless the government is afraid of you, and determines that you don't get this particular right, or any other right that the Constitution directly says we the government must not infringe upon".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Back without mention after 18 month gap, it's ZOMBIE Jay Fude.
This one displays key characteristic of FORTY TWO month gap between first and second comments. Exactly WHY would anyone do that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Back without mention after 18 month gap, it's ZOMBIE Jay Fud
Why would anyone remember an account for TWELVE AND HALF YEARS to make THREE innocuous comments average per year, many just one-liners?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Back without mention after 18 month gap, it's ZOMBIE Jay
Why wouldn’t they? What is so strange about that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Back without mention after 18 month gap, it's ZOMBIE Jay Fud
Jay Fude or Jay: 34 (3), 42 mo gap; 27 Feb 2008 https://www.techdirt.com/user/jhana
Tell ya, Maz, got yourself an interesting "phenomenonanon" here. Not a bit curious? Don't even want to get these commenters here more often?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Back without mention after 18 month gap, it's ZOMBIE Jay
Not terribly, I’d imagine. Commenting is just one form of engagement, after all, and this isn’t exactly a massive site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Back without mention after 18 month gap, it's ZOMBIE Jay Fud
And to be clear, my theory is that this is Timothy Geigner yet again, short comments that he writes carefully (this time when knows I'm checking close) to appear more "right wing" and there's variety of views here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Back without mention after 18 month gap, it's ZOMBIE Jay
Which is a nonsensical theory that doesn’t get past Occam’s Razor. Also, why Tim Geigner specifically?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Back without mention after 18 month gap, it's ZOMBIE Jay Fud
But that's after I've pointed up the astounding ideological uniformity of fanboys and especially the "accounts" that appear out of the blue after gaps of years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Back without mention after 18 month gap, it's ZOMBIE Jay
Setting aside the number of disagreements among the so-called “fanboys” on this site, why would you expect a lack of ideological uniformity among fanboys for a site like Techdirt?
And as for the long gaps in activity for a number of accounts, you have yet to explain what’s so strange about that. This is a fairly small site (so you’d expect less engagement from readers), the early articles were quite different in style, length, and depth 12+ years ago compared to now (so you’d expect different levels of engagement between then and now), not everyone who reads these articles feels the need to comment on them that often if at all, and most people have lives outside of this one website. So, again, nothing unusual is going on here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Back without mention after 18 month gap, it's ZOMBIE Jay Fud
Answer: because you're a sock-puppet of Geigner, like the "Koby" account, only here to present the veneer of opposition, not any actual. -- And for The Maz to comment at to show he's "engaged" with audience...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Back without mention after 18 month gap, it's ZOMBIE Jay
Or… they have other things to do with their time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Back without mention after 18 month gap, it's ZOMBIE Jay
Maznik doesn’t comment often at all, including towards opposition, so if that’s the plan, it’s not working.
Also, the Koby account hasn’t really been consistent opposition. They present opposition when it comes to §230 and applying the First Amendment to large social media companies like Twitter, but outside of that, they largely agree with Techdirt. Why would someone create a sockpuppet account that does that?
You also have yet to present any convincing reasons to suspect either Koby or Jay Fude of being sockpuppet accounts (actually, no reasons for Koby), nor have you provided any reasons to suspect Geigner specifically is running either of them or any sockpuppets at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Back without mention after 18 month gap, it's ZOMBIE Jay Fud
But actually Maz never engages real opposition.
"anti-dirt" or perhaps "average joe" (I never got those clear because don't bother with comments) had to nag Maz for years to get even evasive answers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Back without mention after 18 month gap, it's ZOMBIE Jay
How were they evasive? And again, how can one discern “real” and “fake” opposition?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Back without mention after 18 month gap, it's ZOMBIE Jay Fud
And Maz has only sniped at me around a dozen comments (maybe 0.1% of all I've made here), because every time does, screws up and gives me more evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Back without mention after 18 month gap, it's ZOMBIE Jay
"And Maz has only sniped at me around a dozen comments (maybe 0.1% of all I've made here), because every time does, screws up and gives me more evidence."
I posit that Mike doesn't feel the need to counter the demented person screaming invectives while wearing their underpants on their head because 99% of the time that isn't necessary. You do a perfectly good job of sinking your own arguments, Baghdad Bob.
I personally admit to taking some pleasure in occasionally highlight a few of your more outrageous leaps of broken logic but that's my time to waste and I guess Mike simply doesn't feel like wasting his time making fun of the maliciously insane.
To paraphrase that sentence which apparently sent you off the deep end ten years ago or so, there are fuckwits, demented fuckwits...and then there's you.
You aren't important. Mike isn't giving you ten minutes of his time a week, let alone the hours a day you claim he uses to sock puppet you every time you feel compelled to squirt nonsense all over the blog.
And I think we all wish you'd just take that "evidence" you keep hollering you've collected - for the last ten years - about how we are all some spooky libelous cabal of censorship pirates doing Google's evil bidding and damn well haul it to the nearest FBI besk and present it. Go on. We're all waiting with bated breath for you to realize the only one around here persistently breaking the law is your own low self.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Back without mention after 18 month gap, it's ZOMBIE
Do we dare suggest he use Occam's razor? Or will he cut his head off in a fit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Back without mention after 18 month gap, it's ZOMBIE Jay
Like what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Back without mention after 18 month gap, it's ZOMBIE Jay Fud
Because someone actually has a life?
...
Aside from that, I just can't imagine a plausible reason.
(And just because evidence suggests you might not get it otherwise, allow me to point out that that was sarcasm).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Back without mention after 18 month gap, it's ZOMBIE Jay Fud
Or… they have other things to do with their time. Also, 18 months isn’t that long.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Guns
Hey, "Jay Fude": with you apparent opposition, why aren't you commenting in the Parler thread where The Maz directly attacks / mocks conservatives?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Guns
Why do you lie?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Guns
I assume you mean that this is the lie:
and not this:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Guns
"why aren't you commenting in the Parler thread "
Because ot's been taken over by an obsessive lunatic having a mental breakdown?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Guns
Why does someone have to attack every article you dislike to be “real” opposition?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is one reason to use passwords, and not biometric featurs, and always keep the security on your phone dialed up to insane cop proof levels, including encryption and the "booby trap", as I like to call it, where the phone wipes itself and resets after 15 failed password attempts, if someone tries to bute force crack the password.
It you are travelling by car anywhere in the "Constitution Free Zone", having that kind of security level on your phone is a must, so that if your phone is seized.
This is especially true if your are going to or through states like Michigan or Oklahoma with asset forefeiture laws, where if a cop does seize your phone, they will never be able get anything out of it, becuase they will not be able to either decrypt or brute force your phone, meaning they will have throw it in the trash or use it as a paperweight
I do that when I drive to Canada's Wonderland, because there is no way to get to Toronto, from the west coast, without going through Michigan
And one bank has come up with yet another way to defeat ERAD reader devices. Where I bank now allows me to set a "whitelist" on my bank card where it can only be used in certain retailers or industries
A cop using ERAD will be able to get your balance, if you a card from this bank, but if he tries to take the money, the transaction will be declined by the bank, becuase ERAD Group is not in the "whitelist", meaning a cop will not be able to seize any funds, and will never know that the transaction is being denied becuase ERAD Group is not in the whitelist. Very handy if you ever go through Oklahoma, where the Oklahoma Highway Patrrol (OHP) uses them a lot and any OHP officer using ERAD will never be the wiser.
With this card you have total control over where your card can be used, including blockign ERAD devices from seizing money on your bank card.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I thought that ERAD readers only read pre-paid cards. Cops can use them to read bank debit or credit cards?
Can you give any more information on your bank's "whitelist" program I don't see anything like that on my bank's site?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]