Michgan state troopers are downloading peoples’ “smart phone” info during routine traffic stops:
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.
To be fair, the ACLU were lucky the Michigan State Police didn’t put them in cuffs first.
“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.
“Complete extraction of existing, hidden, and deleted phone data, including call history, text messages, contacts, images, and geotags,” a CelleBrite brochure explains regarding the device’s capabilities. “The Physical Analyzer allows visualization of both existing and deleted locations on Google Earth. In addition, location information from GPS devices and image geotags can be mapped on Google Maps.”
The idea that any contact with the police is “probable cause” for losing all your rights needs to be revisited. In some places, some cops and prosecutors are running completely amok.
Our weekly community paper features a police blotter column with highlights of the past week in law enforcement. Mostly it’s DWI stops, car break-in reports and the odd illegal firearm discharge arrest.
Lately I’ve noticed a new trend, ticketed for texting while driving. Often the report notes that the officer asked for the (alledged) offender to produce their phone and noted the texts sent match the time of the crime.
Texting while driving is stupid and dangerous. That said, since when does an officer have the right to seize your personnel property and why couldn’t the offender claim protection under the fifth amendment?
I know some law-talking guys read this blog. How is the law interpreted in this matter?
The title for this post should have been Welcome To Libya.
Or Scenes From the American Libya.
The Fourth Amendment is relative. So is the First. And the Second. Heck, they’re all debatable in the New Paradigm.
Sorry, guys. To quote a Groucho Marx song from “Horse Feathers”:
If the ACLU is attacking this law…”Whatever it is, I’m against it!” If the ACLU hates it, it must be good.
Yeah, if the ACLU is for the fourth amendment, we should probably be against it. *eyeroll*
If it wants to get better press, the Tea Party should call itself a “civil rights watch-dog group”.
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.
So what do you suppose the odds are that attractive women who might have a smart phone are now going to find themselves more likely to be pulled over for a “routine traffic stop”?
In New Jersey, they used to say you could get pulled over for “driving while black.”
In Michigan, you will now get pulled over for “driving while looking incredibly hot in the hopes you have risqué photos or videos of yourself on your smart phone.”
In a perfect world, the cops would all be like Joe Friday.
In the real world, they are all like Chief Wiggums.
Thorley wrote: “In New Jersey, they used to say you could get pulled over for “driving while black.”
In Michigan, you will now get pulled over for “driving while looking incredibly hot in the hopes you have risqué photos or videos of yourself on your smart phone.”
My cousin recently retired as a traffic enforcement officer for a large city back East. He told me once that it was impossible for him to see the driver of a vehicle at the distance he has to target them with to get a laser or radar gun reading. He has told me that the idea that he could pull over anyone based on their looks is ridiculus. He said the whole profiling controversy was a non-issue that was made into an issue despite the statistics showing that there wasn’t any profiling going on.
He also told me that he was propositioned by a few females over the years to let them out of the ticket (difficult to do even if he wasn’t married, due to the fact that he had to account for every stop and there is a camera rolling on all of his actions). That’s not to say that there aren’t plenty of cops out there that are closer to Terry’s real world description above and would have found a way to take care of the fine on the spot, so to speak. It’s just more difficult than you might imagine.
Who says the troopers ARE downloading information from cellphones. Nothing in the article suggested that.
The article stated that the troopers had technology ” that ALLOWS cops to download information from smart phones belonging to stopped motorists.”
It also says, “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.”
Nowhere did it say they actually used it in a capricious manner.
Of course they could, but then they also have handguns that COULD ALLOW them to shoot innocent people too. They also have pepper spray that COULD BE USED on babies.
COULD it be that they purchased a capability that they fully intend to use in a lawful and appropriate manner?
So why would the Michigan State Police demand $544,680 for complying with an FOI Request? Could that be the cost of hiring lawyers to sift through the data to make sure the information furnished to the ACLU does not violate data practices law or anyone’s legal rights?
Maybe because cops have a history of misusing any authority that they are given?
Cops do shoot people when they shouldn’t, cops do pepper spray people when they shouldn’t.
“Intent” is meaningless in this context.
And when a cop does something wrong, he or she faces recrimination, investigation and review from the multiple layers of oversight that hang over their every action; starting with and not limited to: their sergeant, lieutenant, deputy chief, chief, internal affairs, city-council members, mayor, civilian review board, the press and any lawyer who wants to make a buck.
So tell me, who is monitoring the ACLU and their army of bat-crazy lawyers who use the pretext of “civil rights” to make a buck?
I trust the cops more than I trust the slim that slithers around the ACLU.