Just turning your phone on qualifies as searching it, court rules:
A man from Washington state was arrested in May 2019 and was indicted on several charges related to robbery and assault. The suspect, Joseph Sam, was using an unspecified Motorola smartphone. When he was arrested, he says, one of the officers present hit the power button to bring up the phone's lock screen. The filing does not say that any officer present attempted to unlock the phone or make the suspect do so at the time.
In February 2020, the FBI also turned the phone on to take a photograph of the phone's lock screen, which displayed the name "Streezy" on it. Sam's lawyer filed a motion arguing that this evidence should not have been sought without a warrant and should therefore be suppressed.
District Judge John Coughenour of the US District Court in Seattle agreed. In his ruling, the judge determined that the police looking at the phone at the time of the arrest and the FBI looking at it again after the fact are two separate issues. Police are allowed to conduct searches without search warrant under special circumstances, Coughenour wrote, and looking at the phone's lock screen may have been permissible as it "took place either incident to a lawful arrest or as part of the police's efforts to inventory the personal effects" of the person arrested. Coughenour was unable to determine how, specifically, the police acted, and he ordered clarification to see if their search of the phone fell within those boundaries.
But where the police actions were unclear, the FBI's were both crystal clear and counter to the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights, Coughenour ruled. "Here, the FBI physically intruded on Mr. Sam's personal effect when the FBI powered on his phone to take a picture of the phone's lock screen." That qualifies as a "search" under the terms of the Fourth Amendment, he found, and since the FBI did not have a warrant for that search, it was unconstitutional.
[...] Basically, he ruled, the FBI pushing the button on the phone to activate the lock screen qualified as a search, regardless of the lock screen's nature.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2020, @08:24PM
When I push your buttons, does it turn you on and if so can I take pics?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2020, @08:55PM (12 children)
It is the suspect's fault for not configuring their phone properly to not make anything visible to someone who hasn't *authenticated* on the device. I don't see pressing the button any different than ringing the doorbell. Whose fault is it if someone left the blinds open, so that someone can see inside the house? Don't get me wrong, the FBI and police can still suck it, but I struggle to feel sorry for the suspect in this circumstance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2020, @09:23PM (1 child)
Realistically the phone is vomiting out is location, "header" data and keypresses via every installed app so the FBI never needed to touch the thing in the 1st place.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday May 26 2020, @12:13AM
You seriously overestimate the capabilities of our front line grunts in law enforcement, even the Fibbies. Are there experts in government employ who can do such things? undoubtedly so. Are these experts at the beck and call of every two bit shooter case in the country? hardly.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2020, @09:29PM (4 children)
What the fuck are you talking about? The phone was fucking locked. Locked. Do you fucking understand locked? Of course you don't.
Fuck you senile Boomer. Fuck you.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Monday May 25 2020, @10:45PM (3 children)
Someone went to bed too late last night.
Anyway, to continue GP's analogy, it's not considered an illegal search if cops knock on a locked door, despite the fact that they can infer basic information from that act (probability of someone being home, etc). The phone lock screen can be configured on most devices to pretty much show nothing (other than perhaps date/time and the mobile service provider).
(Score: 5, Insightful) by coolgopher on Tuesday May 26 2020, @02:56AM (2 children)
But what if it turned out not to be locked? Aren't what they might have seen then not something they did not have a right to observe?
Just because a door is not locked does not grant somebody permission to enter.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Tuesday May 26 2020, @03:48AM (1 child)
True. They took a risk there because I agree - if they had opened the device in an unlocked state then the well would've been poisoned.
Probably the same situation if a cop knocked on a door and found it was actually ajar, with a huge bag of weed sitting on a table in plain view of the doorway?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2020, @04:20PM
That case would be in favor of the cop. An open door is an invitation, and there is a legal difference between inadvertantly witnessing a crime in the course of your duty and a constitutionally protected search.
(Score: 2) by helel on Monday May 25 2020, @11:07PM
While I'm inclined to agree on a "common sense" level - your lock screen should never be configured to give away private information - I am more than happy for the courts to rule on the side of respecting our rights in borderline cases like this. Maybe someday they'll even respect our rights in cases that are clearly and egregiously infringing upon our liberties...
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Monday May 25 2020, @11:24PM (1 child)
A better analogy than knocking on the door/turning on a phone.
The police turn the door knob and push the door open without entering, then see something illegal on the entryway table.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday May 26 2020, @03:14AM
I'd have to read more than I care to to get the specifics, but:
1) Cop knocks on your front door, you answer but refuse him entry - he is not (legally) allowed to push the door open to search further, without probable cause.
I'd equate this to: cop confiscates your phone from you, against your will, and then asks permission to search it and you refuse. The judge (and I) believe that the right to privacy is implicit and is not forfeit in the absence of objection to search.
2) Cop comes to your house and finds the door standing open with nobody around "the wind" blows the door open and he looks inside.
I'd equate this to: cop sees your phone lying on the table powered on, notes what is visible on the screen.
------
Unlike physical space searches where life safety and time are often critical issues, if the cops have a phone in their possession, there is no urgency to the search that supersedes the need to get a search warrant. Thank goodness not all of our judges are too busy to be bothered with search warrant decisions.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by rigrig on Monday May 25 2020, @11:26PM
If the police (for a valid reason) just happen to ring your doorbell, that's admissible.
If they bring in the FBI to examine your doorbell, they need a warrant.
No one remembers the singer.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday May 26 2020, @12:06AM
Thankfully, the court isn't as asinine in their interpretation of modern technology. Powering on the device is the same as opening the door - if you're not invited, you're searching without consent.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2020, @09:25PM (11 children)
Are you enjoying COVID-19, Boomers? I hope you are, because your political response to the pandemic has completely destroyed the economy. Did we really need a Great Recession in 2008 caused by you, and a Great Lockdown in 2020 caused by you? Are you proud of yourselves for creating an economic depression even worse than the Great Depression of the 1930s? Are you proud of yourselves, Boomers? Your legacy will be economic ruin for all. You don't care as long as you Boomers continue to receive your pensions. You Boomers don't have jobs. You Boomers don't create jobs. You Boomers don't do anything for anyone ever. You Boomers are utterly worthless parasites. You don't care about anybody except yourselves. Everybody except you is forced at gunpoint to wear a facemask while you Boomers sit in your giant mansions laughing and waiting to die when you will be buried with your fortunes so nobody will ever touch your precious money.
Boomers did COVID-19.
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2020, @09:28PM (5 children)
Giving us a bad name here shithead...
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2020, @09:34PM (4 children)
Good. You deserve it because SoylentNews is old people and don't even try to deny the majority Boomer readership.
All you fucking Boomers love the Great Lockdown because Boomers are most vulnerable to COVID-19 and all younger people must be forced at gunpoint to wear facemasks to protect your worthless Boomer lives.
Boomers did COVID-19.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2020, @10:18PM (1 child)
GP was saying that you are hurting OUR (the millenials and other non-boomers) reputation, presumably including yourself. You seem to have misinterpreted GP's post to say that he was a boomer.
Statistically, boomers are a lot more likely to be Republican, and statistically, Republicans are the ones trying to end the stay-at-home orders prematurely. Republicans are the ones saying that COVID-19 isn't real, that it's a conspiracy, or that its mortality rate is no higher than influenza.
Even though boomers are the most vulnerable to COVID-19. Paradoxical, but true.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2020, @11:26PM
GenX. Doomed to always be forgotten despite being the most rational and grounded people in the room.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2020, @11:22PM
You seriously need your head checked, if this is so horrible, that you feel the need to spamrant here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2020, @04:31PM
The readership isn't mostly boomer, it's the comment writers. Aristarchus is the oldest, so he obviously has the most blame. I think the only regularly-commenting non-AC who isn't old as hell is Azuma, and she's batshit crazy.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2020, @10:30PM (3 children)
Look dips--t, if boomers had created covd-19 it would be killing off everyone under 35 and over 15. Millennials are the ones that gave us google, facebook, youtube, javascript, alt-right and hacking. The most worthless generation of Americans ever.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2020, @11:29PM (2 children)
>alt-right
Into the bin you go, fuckface.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2020, @12:41AM
Alt-smart, with alt-truth, and alt-political correctness? Oh, woe betide the millennials who reject the wisdom of the ancients, and forget to power off their phones before being alt-arrested!
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2020, @01:20AM
alt-nuts
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2020, @12:03AM
You complain you have nothing, but thousands of ME-lennial incels like you can afford to send some buttugly-bloated-blubberbutt-nonbinary-behemoth on Onlyfans $500 every week for some boobie pics and for her approval to call her your E-girlfriend.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2020, @09:31PM (2 children)
Great!
Now all I have to be able to do is actually turn my phone off...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2020, @09:35PM (1 child)
5G wireless charging will solve that little loophole.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday May 26 2020, @03:44PM
One 5lb sledge generally works well for turning any electronic device off. Pretty permanently, but it works.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday May 26 2020, @12:04AM (2 children)
Just entering your home without permission constitutes search.
Just opening your car trunk without permission constitutes search.
If the phone is off, that power button is the same as a doorknob.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Tuesday May 26 2020, @12:26AM (1 child)
Wonder if Android/iOS could eventually be configurable to not even screen-on unless you type your code in. You'd have to type by location memory, but then the phone could be set up to give anything away at all, and would be a clear visual indicator of "you're not allowed in".
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday May 26 2020, @02:50AM
Anything is possible, will the major manufacturers do it? Unlikely.
Any time I think about a digital project these days, it usually starts along the lines of: "gee, a cell phone could... if it just had some custom software." and, eventually morphs into "well, a Raspberry Pi with accessories X, Y and Z could do what I want and I don't have to dick around with Android..."
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Tuesday May 26 2020, @01:25AM (1 child)
what exactly is the significance of the lock screen showing "Streezy"
could not find anything in the summary or the article. Only did a fast read of the article so I might have missed something but if not why is what the lock screen showed at all important?
Thank you in advance to anyone who can explain that.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Booga1 on Tuesday May 26 2020, @01:56AM
It's not 100% clear there, but many people often have "street names" or other nicknames and aliases. If a witness said "Yeah, it was Streezy that punched that guy. I don't know his real name, but everyone knows Streezy has a temper," then seeing that name on the phone may be enough to establish that the defendant is Streezy. If that is information they wouldn't have had otherwise without having turned on the phone, I can see why it could be important evidence linking them(and the phone) to the scene of the crime.
(Score: 3, Informative) by fyngyrz on Tuesday May 26 2020, @06:31PM
From TFA:
...and those circumstances are an explicit and obvious violation of the 4th amendment which serve as one (of many) example(s) of how SCOTUS has abused the role it arrogated in Marbury v. Madison [constitutionality.us] [5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)].
There is a wide gulf between exercise of power granted by authority (in the case of the US, by the constitution that authorizes the establishment and continuance of government), and exercise of arrogated power. Searches without warrant under US dominion are always an example of the latter; never the former.
--
The spawn and grandspawn say I never listen to them.
Or something like that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2020, @10:56PM
A lock screen should provide ownership information so that a lost device can be returned to its owner. Recording this as part of property inventory during an arrest is no different than recording the name on your driver's licence when they confiscate your wallet. They still need a search warrant to go through your box at the police station to look for evidence while you are being held, which is what the FBI did here.