Police Device Used To Steal Your Cell Phone Data During Traffic Stop

http://translogic.aolautos.com/2011/...uring-traffic/

Translogic got their hands on some law enforcement-grade extraction software to see what kinds of things police can get from your phone. It is pretty scary. Read the captions in the image gallery.

All the more reason to insist on seeing a warrant if they ask to examine your phone.

Michigan is notorious for using these devices and pressuring people to allow them to download their data . . .

Just an FYI, both KS and MO (and federal) LEO's have these devices now too, and the trick is they'll ask you one of two questions . . . If you're driving and they stop you, usually when you step out of the car (and they can give you a legal order to do so), and they see a phone in the vehicle (some will ask you to leave the phone in the car purposefully, saying it can be used as a weapon), they'll ask you a question such as, "Do you mind if I look at everything in your car - you don't have anything to hide or that I need to be aware of, do you?" If you say that you don't mind, they will take the phone and physically cable up to it and download the entire contents of it - as "everything" in your car means the data (private or not) on any electronic device they may find contained therein - the feds have even attached code readers to car service terminals and extracted GPS data from certain On-Star units by using that type of statement / question and getting permission to look.

If you are on foot, or in a residence or hotel room, they'll just attempt to craft the statement / question the same way. "You don't mind if I take a quick look at everything around you to make sure all is well, do you?" Recently, a court in South Dakota found that this statement and the suspect's acquiescence allowed the officer to search devices for data, decipher it, and ascertain if anything found could make or be construed to make the situation "somehow unwell for the officer or the suspect" . . scary, scary shit. Over-broad, and will never stand on appeal, but still, if you don't get bail on appeal, you're fucked.

Don't fall for it, because either way they can say that "everything" includes data on any device. They do it to cellphones, computers, etc. - once they have your consent, they go with it as far as they can, overstepping means nothing other than it may not be admissible, but in many cases not only might they not care - you might lose that argument. And, even though it may never be used in court (most any competent lawyer is going to cite one of several "data exception" statutes/precedents that would require a search warrant - but, if you've agreed to the search you may be screwed), LE gets a lot of intelligence from data mining, and they do it very frequently now, especially since the devices such as this one which KCQuestor discusses that are used to have the data extracted are essentially "plug and play" and any officer can be quickly trained to use them properly in the field and to download the data fast, even sometimes doing so covertly by returning to their vehicle with your phone to extract the data outside of your view.

Of course, if you exit the US and subsequently enter the US through any patrolled / enforced port of entry and you have with you ANY electronic device, it is subject to review (ALL data) - and that search is warrantless and they don't have to ask . . they just demand. Many people will now mail / send by courier (UPS, FedEx) their international cell phones and laptops, etc., back into the US ahead of them.

There was recent discussion about this subject on a board dealing with adult film issues, as Cal-OSHA is trying to mandate condom use for all adult performers being filmed in their state and they used LEO's during an OSHA "raid" to capture and share data off cell phones to assist Cal-OSHA in tracking OSHA violations.

Kisses,

- Jackie

So, what's the response we should use? Can we just say no?

Wow Jackie! Good to know! Thanks!!!

So, what's the response we should use? Can we just say no? Originally Posted by BigWayne

Absolutely. Just say no.

"Officer, I do not and will not consent to any search of my person or of my [vehicle, home, hotel room, etc.] now, or at any time in the future". Odds are they are going to search your person anyway, in fact, the odds may be greater if you say that - but if they do search your person (and there's nothing you can do to stop them from doing so - it is a Terry Frisk, also known as a Terry Stop pat down and it is widely abused), just make sure you say - "Officer, I do not consent to this search of my person". Say it more than once if possible and say it while being searched. If you can, try to say it loud enough so someone else can hear without creating a disturbance - that way you'll have a witness you can possibly call / rely on and odds are it will be sure to be captured on their recording equipment (if they're using any).

You'll want to be prepared for the sad fact that most LEO's will consider your saying "no", your saying that you do not consent to any search, to be "contempt of cop" . . . And, in the opinion of some LEO's "contempt of cop" is a crime worse than several various felonies.

Assert your rights, or lose them . . .

Kisses,

- Jackie

Jackie, I want you as my attorney! That body and brains too......Thanks for the info!

Jackie, I want you as my attorney! Originally Posted by Fastcar

No sweetie, I'm a hooker, not a lawyer - and although your lawyer can fuck you, it is very different fucking me than it is getting fucked by him . . .

I am well read / versed on privacy and adult industry law - it is an occupational hazard, I suppose. I'm not all that smart as many here will attest - I can't be smart, I'm just a gurl.

You'll want a competent attorney, not me . . . although, I could offer to blow the judge . . . but, only if you're buying him the favor.

Kisses,

- Jackie

Wow, Jackie is just so damn sexxxy being all intelligent - Daaa-yummy!

Thank you Jackie!


Love & Light,

Mary

....I am well read / versed on privacy and adult industry law - it is an occupational hazard, I suppose. I'm not all that smart as many here will attest - I can't be smart, I'm just a gurl. Originally Posted by Jackie Devlin

Hum, my experience would be that women as a group are smarter than men.

....You'll want a competent attorney,..... Originally Posted by Jackie Devlin

Which should be a woman, atleast my experience with lawyers showed female lawyers to be much better than the average male.

Saying no to a police officer may bring other reprocussions, so be careful of the "attitude" in the response. Maybe, Ms Devin, a questioning type of, um, does the state of (name of the state) require a writ or warrent to do that? Again said loudly - I like that one! - That way there is no direct disrepect? And less of a challenge to the man/woman in blue?

-------------------------------

Hum, my experience would be that women as a group are smarter than men.

-------------------------------

Which should be a woman, atleast my experience with lawyers showed female lawyers to be much better than the average male.

Saying no to a police officer may bring other reprocussions, so be careful of the "attitude" in the response. Maybe, Ms Devin, a questioning type of, um, does the state of (name of the state) require a writ or warrent to do that? Again said loudly - I like that one! - That way there is no direct disrepect? And less of a challenge to the man/woman in blue? Originally Posted by newtotown

ss4699, oh, sorry - I mean "newtotown" (no one is buying the "I'm not from here name change", ss);

A) sarcasm has always been wasted on you; and,

B) if your experience has shown YOU that a female attorney is better than a male, great! Good luck with that, and I am glad it works for you! We look at it from two very different perspectives. IME the vast majority of the legal system is still very much the "old boys club" (even more than ECCIE - LMAO) and I want a man to navigate those waters, not someone that may be on the outside looking in due solely to gender bias . . . and,

C) did I ever say or imply that my statement would be anything other than respectful or appropriate? Projecting a little when it comes to "attitude" are you?? Yeah, I think so . .

If you're so giant of a pussy that you can't assert your rights and you think that phrasing it your way would be better and not entertained as anything other than a smart-ass "challenge", then by all means you go for it and report back with the results.

There is no disrespect in asserting your rights respectfully, there is no "challenge" to be made (that is the part you don't get) and frankly, saying it your way is what perpetuates "contempt of cop" because you're asking them a question which they won't answer and it isn't a statement to prevent any action they may desire to take - you're not asserting fact - they will run all over you . . . IME they have little respect for people that are passive-aggressive like you suggest . . .

Seriously, ss4699, take your meds. Working three jobs has got to take a toll, you need all the psychotropic assistance you can get . . . (and a spell-checker).

- Jackie

As a person involved in some of these issues... I do have to make a couple of statement before everyone overreacts...

1) Do not consent to a search. Ever. Simply say no. If they have probable cause or reason to search they don't need your consent, so they can do it anyway, so they don't need to ask if they already have a reason to search. The nature of Terry stops is pretty settled case law in alot of areas.

2) Consent to search your vehicle is not consent to search everything IN the vehicle. There are still limitations. So even if you screw up, don't panic, just note what they do search. Containers are a no no in alot of cases, and your phone is considered a "container." If you hand over your cell phone and say, "ok"... sure... but why would you do that anyway.

3) These readers are the same things they use to grab yoru data at the cell phone store, this isn't some new technology. The specific model is, but the overall concept isn't too hard to grasp. Its been around awhile.

This specific incident has been overblown. I know some KS/MO LEOs and they haven't heard of them, I haven't seen many cases involving it, and data mining, while exciting in concept involves a lot of work to be introduced as actual evidence. Most vice teams/the Feds aren't really looking at your cell phone as some great lead, you still have to be interesting enough to pursue, and as overstretched as LEOs are these days, its not likely.

On this specific story, the ACLU backed off and said its initial claim was overblown.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-20055961-83.html

Its just a handful... again. Budget cuts have been wracking everyone lately.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-...#ixzz1K4JGcB7c

http://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw/in..._phone_da.html
http://www.gsnmagazine.com/node/23077

Now, having said all of this. The main point is still valid. Don't consent. If arrested, DONT talk to the cops. They are not your friends, they are the investigative arm of the state and their role in investigations is to collect data for the prosecutors. Don't make their job easy. If you consent, your lawyer cannot file motions to suppress/limine/etc to help you out (although they should anyway... might be able to challenge your consent, yadda yadda...)

Technology is always hackable. Your account here at ECCIE is not totally safe, no matter what you are told. Even if the account itself is protected there are a million inroads into them, and the physical servers, your computer, what not is always evidence. Use the internet to educate yourself on basic security, how to scrib your hard drive to DOD standard, etc etc... all of this may be for naught, but unless the Feds and their wizzes want a crack at you, the harder (and more EXPENSIVE) you make the prosecutors job, the more likely they are to cut a deal. Yes, prosecution has a price tag and in this era, you can use that to your advantage to help defend your innocence.

Technology isn't safe, don't be silly. However, thoughts of all KS/MO LEO cars rampantly stealing data is overblown. The device requires hookup, is expensive and probably requires a warrant before it can be used at all. It's most likely use is in ongoing investigations where the phone in question is in evidence and is being analyzed.

There is software that can be remote loaded onto laptops to activate your camera (I tell folks to put a sticker over it...) etc etc... but like terrorism if you live in fear, you'll just hurt your own quality of life more.

Just adding some balance, however, once again... to be clear, the main point is valid. Consent bad. mmmmkay? Anything you say and will be used against you

Be well... Be safe... Have fun!

Note: I hope this is all taken informationally, educationally and recreationally. None of it is actual legal advice, just reasoned discussion.

Great post Jack - have always ADORED your avatar . . . we disagree only on "Consent to search your vehicle is not consent to search everything IN the vehicle" - it is all in how it is worded, how far they want to conjure "specific and articulable", and finally, if they give a crap if what they find will ever be admissible. There's also a couple of cases currently under appeal that could change the whole "if it isn't germane to why you were stopped it can't be searched for . . . " and many local jurisdictions are giving passes to officers that overstep (knowing damn well it will never stand on appeal / review). There's also a case my attorney mentioned when I asked him about all this when Michigan's tactics came to light a while back, and it supported (upheld) the search of anything (everything) in the vehicle if the permission was granted in response to a particular request to search (the manner in which it was worded) - unless I misunderstood him (which is possible, my mouth was full and he was moaning). I'll ask him for the citation next week and if relevant, I'll post it or PM you.

BTW, I do not doubt a lot of local LEOs know nothing of this technology - but, I have personally witnessed two officers from two separate Agencies (here in KS and MO) use this exact product (both were patrol [beat] officers) and yes, although this technology has been around for quite some time, the automation, ease of use, portability and software that assembles "target" data is new(er).

Spot on post, very well said.

Kisses,

- Jackie

Great post Jack - have always ADORED your avatar . . . we disagree only on "Consent to search your vehicle is not consent to search everything IN the vehicle" - it is all in how it is worded, how far they want to conjure "specific and articulable", and finally, if they give a crap if what they find will ever be admissible. Originally Posted by Jackie Devlin

The motor vehicle exception to warranted searches is settled law, and "specific and articulable" is the standard for Terry stops, and in that case, it was a pat down. Which is

"The test of reasonableness in this sort of situation is whether the police officer can point to "specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts," would lead a neutral magistrate on review to conclude that a man of reasonable caution would be warranted in believing that possible criminal behavior was at hand and that both an investigative stop and a "frisk" was required" Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 at 19-21

Once they stop you, Terry's standard isn't really relevant. In other words, they still have to have reasons to investigate such items that are not in plain view or in reach of the driver, etc etc. There are lots of different cases on specific cirumstances, and of course that standard will vary from judge to judge depending on circumstances. Generally you are dealing with state courts that have their own cases that impact it, but Federal Law is where the defense gets lots of appeal room.

Anyway, your point still remains, Don't consent. Just don't, if you screw up and consent, WITHDRAW YOUR CONSENT IMMEDIATELY. Make sure you keep withdrawing it until they acknowledge it in front of others. If they have already seen your bad of ganja on the floorboard, you're too late, (probable cause) but you have nothing to lose by withdrawing it. SO do it!

You are correct that some of my post is premised on admissibility. However, even data that leads them somewhere that they do get admissible evidence can be challenged, sourcing matters. Sure its easier to get around these days, but that's all about your quality of representation. Don't get a cheap lawyer. If you're a provider and don't have one on retainer who you know can get the job done, you're like a profootball player without an agent. Not good for career longevity and profit margin

BTW, I do not doubt a lot of local LEOs know nothing of this technology - but, I have personally witnessed two officers from two separate Agencies (here in KS and MO) use this exact product (both were patrol [beat] officers) and yes, although this technology has been around for quite some time, the automation, ease of use, portability and software that assembles "target" data is new(er).

Spot on post, very well said.

Kisses,

- Jackie Originally Posted by Jackie Devlin

I can't and won't get into a do so/do not back and forth on this last issue, as I don't know what your information is. I can, however, clarify my information to say not that LEOs I know don't KNOW of the technology, but that it's not in widespread use by LEOs in the area, or in use in street crime situations, or even the vice folks I have any contact with (in my dream world... lol). It's been used as a tool for "in evidence" phones to extract data, which is legit. The device referred to in that article you posted is a simple data extractor, not a mining device that runs and filters, that sort of software is different. Anyway, mining data is hit and miss, etc. I just don't think that you should assume ANYTHING technological is safe.

Educate yourself on basic tech safety, including the internet, but don't trust it as its never safe and someone is always out there who knows more. Balancing being paranoid and keeping your quality of life up is a tricky thing... and hard to get just right. Keep at it and ... put a damn sticker over your laptop camera

Good post Jackie, and good advice.

Note: This is educational, informational and recreational... If you actually act on what I say.. or what Jackie says You're just silly now aren't you. GO read!

Wow Jackie! Good to know! Thanks!!! Originally Posted by LusciousLacy

Ummm... I felt too intellectual, ummm and Lacy showed off her ass in this pic... and I just wanted to interrupt this well-reasoned and rational discussion to say that ass is hot.

Thanks for reading... go look at her showcase... I had to again!

Jack, you make me wet.

Kisses,

- Jackie