Judge Rules FBI Cannot View a Phone Lock Screen Without a Warrant

[MOFS]

I’m not taking a stance either way, but I have a question:

If you are pulled over in your car, and police have probable cause to a search, they can go through every piece, crevice, box, etc in your car. They can open trunks, glove boxes, consoles. And if they find , say a box, inside the car, they can open that up.

So if they can legally do that, why can’t they open a phone?

My understanding is that unlocking a phone is classed similarly to entering a private building because a person would be expected privacy. If there was a locked box in your car the police would require a warrant to open it as far as I understand; so the same is for a phone.

 

[dannyyankou]

I’m not taking a stance either way, but I have a question:

If you are pulled over in your car, and police have probable cause to a search, they can go through every piece, crevice, box, etc in your car. They can open trunks, glove boxes, consoles. And if they find , say a box, inside the car, they can open that up.

So if they can legally do that, why can’t they open a phone?

That’s a different ballgame. All cops need is probable cause to search a car. If they witness signs of driving under the influence, they can search the car to find drugs or alcohol.

 

[az431]

Reading the judge's ruling, it appears as though the FBI's "search" of his lock screen - powering on the device and taking a picture of the lock screen, long after the device had been in the possession of the Government following his arrest - was unconstitutional, but the Court was unable to determine if the police officer doing the same thing at the time of the arrest (a search incident to arrest, which is governed under a different standard) was valid, due to the Government's failure to make an adequate record. The court ordered the parties to supplement the record so it could make a finding as to that search.

Another thing to keep in mind is that this a ruling made by a Senior US District Judge - it is likely to be appealed by the Government and its findings are really only binding in the Western District of Washington. Case law will vary from district to district and circuit to circuit. I can almost guarantee, although I have admittedly not done the research, that this would never fly in the 8th Circuit.

the Constitution flies in all circuits.
[automerge]1590167140[/automerge]

Police can ask for identification if there is a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a crime. In the instance of your example, if the person is being arrested for robbery then reasonable suspicion would be met.

Police can ask anyone for identification. I’m not aware of any law or constitutional right that prevents asking questions.
[automerge]1590167187[/automerge]

The article title is missing the key word later.

As looking at the lock screen was ruled fine at the time of arrest.

If you read the article it does clearly state that.
[automerge]1590167327[/automerge]

The judge is correct. There ALWAYS needs to be a warrant, especially for anything not in plain sight.
[automerge]1590154599[/automerge]
You take a picture because that's better proof of what was on the phone. Otherwise some crooked cop could just write something down and SAY he saw it.

ummmm no. First, cops say crooked things all the time, and there is no requirement that cops take photos to establish the veracity of what they say. And second, this photo would not be admissible anyway since it is hearsay.

It was likely used for another purpose, such as to obtain a warrant.

 

[justperry]

A 2019 U.S. court ruling judged that law enforcement officials can't force smartphone users to unlock their devices using fingerprints or other biometric features such as facial recognition, since doing so would run afoul of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

So, If (foreigners) people travel to the states they are allowed to refuse to open their phones at port of entry?

 

[IIGS User]

While this would normally be where I take the time to bash the 9th Judicial Circuit Court of Appeals for being the most overturned Court in the country, I believe their decision was made on solid legal ground and the FBI (once again) acted foolishly.

There was a moment in the timeline of this case where the FBI could have justified taking a photograph of the screen of the phone. That would have been incident to arrest if:

1: Cataloging and photographing items seized from individuals under arrest is policy and regularly done in all cases. IE, you can't cherry pick which cases to take documentary pictures of personal property and then use them in Court.

2: A valid argument can be made that no time was available to obtain the picture. That the evidence to be collected was fleeting or of a nature easily destroyed or permanently altered in a way that would impact the viability of the evidence if not collected that exact moment.

Neither of these exigent circumstances existed. It's evidence collection 101 that if you have the time to get a warrant, you GET THE WARRANT. Even then, anyone trained above "rookie meter maid" status knows that the simple act of booting a computer (a phone is a computer, as everyone here knows) alters the boot logs and thereby the evidence. By starting the device to take the picture, they altered the evidence.

This is just more clear evidence that for the most part, the FBI are just detective wannabes with a good PR division backed by the money and muscle of the federal government. The agent in this case should be re assigned to welfare fraud, his supervisor transferred to Boise, and the ASAC should be manning a radar station on an island in Alaska by the end of the day.

Just mail him his clothes.....

 

[techwhiz]

I’m not taking a stance either way, but I have a question:

If you are pulled over in your car, and police have probable cause to a search, they can go through every piece, crevice, box, etc in your car. They can open trunks, glove boxes, consoles. And if they find , say a box, inside the car, they can open that up.

So if they can legally do that, why can’t they open a phone?

You must first define probable cause and why they pulled you over.
If they pulled you over for speeding and see nothing else, then a search is unconstitutional. Stop.

If you are driving erratically and they pull you over and they see an open container; then they can search for things that might relate to your intoxication and places that might store alcohol, etc. They do not have probable cause to search your phone.

There is very in a traffic stop that allows the intrusion into electronic devices.
Criminal investigations typically require a warrant to get possession of an electronic device.
I say possession, because there is no requirement that you unlock it.
Just like a safe. They can take possession, but there is nothing to force you to unlock it.
[automerge]1590174959[/automerge]

That’s a different ballgame. All cops need is probable cause to search a car. If they witness signs of driving under the influence, they can search the car to find drugs or alcohol.

But they cannot search electronic devices cars GSP data etc.
They can only look to the extent that it would be related to origin under the influence.
They could search the compartments that might be able to hold drugs and alcohol, but would not be able to search a phone.
Probable cause is not a fishing expedition.
A cop cannot stop you for speeding and see no other indication of a crime and search your car; unless you let them.
If they ask me to step out of my car; I lock the doors on exit.
I do not consent to the searching of my car or my personal effects without a warrant.
That means no looking in the car beyond what they can see looking through a window and no rummaging through my pockets or anything else without going to a judge.

 

[citysnaps]

Police can ask for identification if there is a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a crime. In the instance of your example, if the person is being arrested for robbery then reasonable suspicion would be met.

Correct. And in the story above, the person was also arrested for robbery (and assault). And trying to understand the difference between opening a wallet to get his identity, and looking at a phone's lock screen and also seeing his identity. Perhaps to see if both names match, since some might carry a fake ID.

 

[MikeSmoke]

The answer is to have a lot of fake information on our phones and in the cloud in order to confuse the authorities. I am not advocating criminal behavior but the truth of the matter is that many innocent people are prosecuted and sent to jail.

 

[69Mustang]

Correct. And in the story above, the person was also arrested for robbery (and assault). And trying to understand the difference between opening a wallet to get his identity, and looking at a phone's lock screen and also seeing his identity. Perhaps to see if both names match, since some might carry a fake ID.

In the story above, the person was arrested by the police - May 2019. His phone was booked into evidence by the police, not the FBI. Nearly a year later - Feb 2020, the FBI retrieved his phone from evidence, powered it on, and checked the name on the lock screen: "STREEZY" The judge says the FBI would need a warrant to do that.

In the course of his arrest, the police looked at his lockscreen. The judge deemed it okay during the course of the arrest. FBI nearly a year later? No bueno.

 

[techwhiz]

In the story above, the person was arrested by the police - May 2019. His phone was booked into evidence by the police, not the FBI. Nearly a year later - Feb 2020, the FBI retrieved his phone from evidence, powered it on, and checked the name on the lock screen: "STREEZY" The judge says the FBI would need a warrant to do that.

In the course of his arrest, the police looked at his lockscreen. The judge deemed it okay during the course of the arrest. FBI nearly a year later? No bueno.

Exactly, some people don't get it.

 

[msp3]

Based constitutional rights. But why don't the FBI just declare a "medical emergency" and get all the suckers to cower in fear and grovel at their feet?

 

[citysnaps]

In the story above, the person was arrested by the police - May 2019. His phone was booked into evidence by the police, not the FBI. Nearly a year later - Feb 2020, the FBI retrieved his phone from evidence, powered it on, and checked the name on the lock screen: "STREEZY" The judge says the FBI would need a warrant to do that.

In the course of his arrest, the police looked at his lockscreen. The judge deemed it okay during the course of the arrest. FBI nearly a year later? No bueno.

Ah, ok, that makes sense. Didn’t know the details.

 

[Magmystour]

The article title is missing the key word later.

As looking at the lock screen was ruled fine at the time of arrest.

Exactly. Luck had it that the FBI wasn’t the arresting agency, AND the arresting agency did not need that info at time of arrest.

 

[gbc204]

Hmmm interesting... for me this is more like looking in somebody's window - would that be unconstitutional without a warrant?

this would be more like arresting someone, going to their house, and breaking the window and moving any curtains to see inside the house.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

Police can ask anyone for identification. I’m not aware of any law or constitutional right that prevents asking questions.

But you don't have to answer, in many states.

You shouldn't have to identify yourself unless you are actually suspected of something. Let's go back to the 'good old days' of Nazi Germany?

'Paparein!!!' Look at the many different forms of ID the Nazi used. Some were pretty sketchy.

But the idea of having to 'produce papers' has been uniformly shunned by most of society, until recently. I have to get that damned gold star soon. It's ironic that Jews in Nazi Germany died wearing gold stars. Irony is not dead.

 

[5aga]

*Bill Barr has entered the chat*

 

[steve333]

In America crime pays. The laws handcuff law enforcement at every turn.

 

[gnasher729]

I’m not taking a stance either way, but I have a question:

If you are pulled over in your car, and police have probable cause to a search, they can go through every piece, crevice, box, etc in your car. They can open trunks, glove boxes, consoles. And if they find , say a box, inside the car, they can open that up.

So if they can legally do that, why can’t they open a phone?

In this case, the search was much later. Makes all the (legal) difference.
[automerge]1590207924[/automerge]

In America crime pays. The laws handcuff law enforcement at every turn.

These laws are there to protect innocent citizens from unreasonable searches.
[automerge]1590208344[/automerge]
just saying: This wasn’t an iPhone, but many iPhones allow you to take pictures from the lock screen. So if the police goes on the lock screen, and later get a warrant to search the photos on my phone, some photos may have been taken by the police.

 

[Darth Tulhu]

Thank God there are still people in charge who understand the purpose of the law is to PROTECT the citizens.

It doesn't matter that the lock screen is plainly visible.

In order to submit it INTO EVIDENCE that can and will be held against you in court, there MUST be a warrant.

Justice may be blind, but law enforcement is run by human beings.

The law is there to mitigate the human BS law enforcement officers may bring into it, like racism, sexism, bigotry, their own PTSD, greed, religious bias, nationalism, or plain-old psychopathy.

And even then both citizens and lady justice get the shaft far too often, because there's too many SOBs all the way up the chain that are members of the same <fill-in-the-blank>-hating, echo-chamber, circle-jerk group.

 

[ajguckian]

Lazy FBI being lazy. I doubt there would have been any issue getting a warrant to check the lockscreen of the phone.

 

[SHirsch999]

I’m not taking a stance either way, but I have a question:

If you are pulled over in your car, and police have probable cause to a search, they can go through every piece, crevice, box, etc in your car. They can open trunks, glove boxes, consoles. And if they find , say a box, inside the car, they can open that up.

So if they can legally do that, why can’t they open a phone?

if you are smart your phone is protected by a passcode. That way the only way the phone can be opened is if you give the police your code. You are under no obligation to do this since it would violate I believe the 5th amendment. That is why the FBI and Apple have come to blows a few times in recent years over access to info on locked phones.

 

[nylonsteel]

i agree
stop invasion of privacy

 

[mrbrown]

the Constitution flies in all circuits.
[automerge]1590167140[/automerge]

As somebody who frequently practices in federal court, I can assure you that a ruling by a District Judge is binding on the district and only the district (generally speaking - technically speaking, decisions of one district judge are not binding throughout the district, but this is usually the practice). Other districts, including districts within the state, don't have to follow this ruling (though it can certainly be what we call "persuasive authority") and certainly not districts in an entirely different circuit. This literally happens all of the time - districts within the 9th circuit frequently make rulings that are outside of the norm in the other 11 circuits, DC circuit and Fed circuit. This is how cases end up in the Supreme Court - when there are conflicting rulings between the many circuits and SCOTUS has to resolve the conflict.

So, yes, this wouldn't fly in the very Government-friendly 8th circuit.

Here's a great publication put out by Georgetown Law explaining how and when decisions are binding on other courts and how state & federal courts intersect with each other.

 

[Victor Mortimer]

In America crime pays. The laws handcuff law enforcement at every turn.

The vast majority of "law enforcement" SHOULD be in handcuffs, because they ARE the criminals.

 

[inkswamp]

You learn something new everyday... My question is, why would they take a picture of it? Why couldn’t they just write that name down? Lol. It’s not like there was any other info on the screen.

Interesting stuff.

Part of the computer forensics process. You need to preserve and reproduce as close a copy of what's on a given device without altering it in any way. Writing it down would have been worthless.

The vast majority of "law enforcement" SHOULD be in handcuffs, because they ARE the criminals.

As someone who works around people in law enforcement daily, I can assure you that you are completely wrong about that.

Don't broad brush an entire group of people because there are some bad ones.