Michigan: Police Search Cell Phones During Traffic Stops

THE NEWSPAPER ^ | April 20, 2011 | swampsniper

[SWAMPSNIPER]

I don't know anything about this source but this sounds credible.

ACLU seeks information on Michigan program that allows cops to download information from smart phones belonging to stopped motorists.

The Michigan State Police have a high-tech mobile forensics device that can be used to extract information from cell phones belonging to motorists stopped for minor traffic violations. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan last Wednesday demanded that state officials stop stonewalling freedom of information requests for information on the program.

ACLU learned that the police had acquired the cell phone scanning devices and in August 2008 filed an official request for records on the program, including logs of how the devices were used. The state police responded by saying they would provide the information only in return for a payment of $544,680. The ACLU found the charge outrageous.

"Law enforcement officers are known, on occasion, to encourage citizens to cooperate if they have nothing to hide," ACLU staff attorney Mark P. Fancher wrote. "No less should be expected of law enforcement, and the Michigan State Police should be willing to assuage concerns that these powerful extraction devices are being used illegally by honoring our requests for cooperation and disclosure."

A US Department of Justice test of the CelleBrite UFED used by Michigan police found the device could grab all of the photos and video off of an iPhone within one-and-a-half minutes. The device works with 3000 different phone models and can even defeat password protections.

[SJSAMPLE]

Not a matter of trust.
As they say, "If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

If you don't object to a search, that doesn't make a search legal. It's 100% up to the cop to know AND FOLLOW the law, not the citizen to inform them. Any sufficiently "dedicated" cop is going to claim that you consented anyway.

Certainly, I'd agree that voicing your rights ("I do not consent to that search.") is logical and advisable, but the lack of such a declaration carries no weight in court.

[SJSAMPLE]

Also, one of my favorite sites:
http://www.fourthamendment.com/blog/

A very good source of information for the citizen dedicated to knowing and enforcing their Constitutional rights.

[catbertz]

It’s awkward to have dueling impressions. I support them when they defend against the legitimate criminal element, but I no longer trust them, as they increasingly represent stealth tax collectors, militarized governmental gangmembers and capricious thugs. I expect that most are still good, sensible people, but I’m not willing to roll the dice.

[Farmer Dean]

If they start this nonsense in Ohio,I’ll make sure that I always have a large cup of Cola in the cupholder.If they ask for my phone,it’s going in the cup.

[starlifter]

And your point?

[TheOldLady]

From sea to shining sea
FReepers love Free Republic

Give what you can afford

Or sign up to donate monthly
and a sponsoring FReeper will donate $10

Urgent: Save Lazamataz! Donate today

[longtermmemmory]

how about lawyer’s phones? client data and emails and txt msgs there.

how about judges?

how about reporter sources?

how about someone who is just anti-union?

police aready record license plates of groups they don’t like.

[tbpiper]

I heard that Apple has a file on th iPhone that keeps a record of everwhere(lat.&long.) you've been. And you can't turn the function off.

[tbpiper]

I heard that Apple has a file on th iPhone that keeps a record of everwhere(lat.&long.) you've been. And you can't turn the function off.

[556x45]

LOL, honest answer, very good! :) Thx! BTW I suspect them all and would never assume they’re OK.

[CodeToad]

“Any search by consent is valid. So, you gotta say: “I do not consent to that search.””

That is false. Not knowing the cops are performing a search is not consent. Second, you do not need to tell them you are asserting your rights for those rights to be protected.

[free me]

Failure to object to a search can imply consent. Unless you're a top notch criminal defense attorney the rule is to always object to any kind of search that you do not wish to consent to.

[G Larry]

My “point” is that I don’t believe the ACLU when they claim these devices are being used in traffic stops.

There are no citizen complaints to back it up.

I believe the ACLU doesn’t like the cops using these in on-going crimnal investigations and they’ve created this strawman to fight it.

This could be a great tool used on VICTIM’S phones, to learn recent contacts and whereabouts.

[magslinger]

MIping

If you wish to be added to or removed from the Michigan ping list, please post or FReepmail me.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

There is this...thread with article from the guardian in the UK:

IPhone Keeps Record of Everywhere You Go

[nickcarraway]

I am a citizen and consider this a complaint. Do you believe you are the property of the government?

[G Larry]

Have some coffee and pay attention!

The only folks claiming the cops are doing this are the ACLU!

For some reason, I don’t believe them.
Perhaps it is because no individual citizen has complained that cops have used this device on their cell phone?

Get it?

[G Larry]

Yes....that’s an Apple problem, not a cop violating your rights.

[yldstrk]

I totally agree on “not knowing they are performing a search” but not on the rest.

[yldstrk]

I suppose that would depend on the Court and the roll of the dice and if someone can afford representation.