S3SS10N Wednesday – Cellphone Search and Seizure Laws

Join Cybrary

Begin Learning Cyber Security for FREE Now!

FREE REGISTRATION
Already a Member Login Here

< Back to Blog Posts

S3SS10N Wednesday – Cellphone Search and Seizure Laws

Published: February 10, 2016 | By: Tatianna | Views: 1447
save

You must be a Cybrary member to view this S3SS10NS. Membership is free!

Register Now

Login

Whiteboard Notes (Click the picture below to open in a new tab)

 
Max Session Notes
The Supreme Court Decisions of Riley v. California and U.S. v. Wurie (seizure of cell phones and search of cell phone data incident to arrest). These cases limit the ability of law enforcement to view cell phone data after a subject is arrested.
Therefore there are 4 key take-a-ways for law enforcement.
1. The ability to search an arrestee’s phone is limited
2. There is a need to preserve digital data on these phones (Faraday bags)
3. The ruling does not cover cloud storage on phones
4. Law enforcement must be familiar with local rules governing remotely obtained telephonic and e-warrants

The most applicable point to street level officers is the use of Faraday bags to
1. Ensure the phone does not connect to a data network
2. Prevent someone from wiping the phone remotely



Listen to/Download the MP3


< Back to Blog Posts
Enjoy this blog post? Want more Cybytes?
Invite a Friend
and share now
Facebook Twitter Google+ LinkedIn Email
Join Cybrary
9 Comments
  1. That makes sense. Thanks for replying and sharing that info.

  2. Good information. I wonder how this would be applied to seizure of a phone that does not belong to the suspect but rather the company they work for. Doesn’t the device and or the data belong to the company then? Does law enforcement have to get the consent of the company before attempting to collect any data from the device?

    • If the phone is in the possession of the individual being arrested and LEO can show a reasonableness that only that individual uses that phone, the fact it was issued by a business is irrelevant. In point of fact, if the the phone was issued by the ACME Corp. to John Smith and there is “not” a Rules of Behavior or other binding agreement stipulating that the employee has no expectation of privacy on this device — even if LEO went to CEO of company and CEO said, “We will get you the password” You may get the information but it will likely be inadmissible.

      The person whom has the device in their possession, if LEO can conclude that suspect is using that device, then all bets are off after a warrant is obtained.

Page 2 of 2«12
Comment on This

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Our Revolution

We believe Cyber Security training should be free, for everyone, FOREVER. Everyone, everywhere, deserves the OPPORTUNITY to learn, begin and grow a career in this fascinating field. Therefore, Cybrary is a free community where people, companies and training come together to give everyone the ability to collaborate in an open source way that is revolutionizing the cyber security educational experience.

Cybrary On The Go

Get the Cybrary app for Android for online and offline viewing of our lessons.

Get it on Google Play
 

Support Cybrary

Donate Here to Get This Month's Donor Badge

 
Skip to toolbar

We recommend always using caution when following any link

Are you sure you want to continue?

Continue
Cancel