The Computer Forensic Unit of the Lancaster County District Attorney's office has been using Cellebrite for the past three years and has examined hundreds of mobile devices. The UFED (Universal Forensic Extraction Device) is portable and can be readily used in both the laboratory and field.
The US Supreme Court ruled that the warrantless search and seizure of digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional:
Complete contradiction. How can the new device be used "in the field" if a warrant is necessary?
Anyone that had a phone seized during an arrest (without a warrant) after June 25, 2014 needs to begin a lawsuit promptly.
Talking to a law enforcement friend I found there are many times phone data is needed ASAP when a warrant is not needed, such as when a victim of a crime has data on a phone that is needed, for example, a homicide victim. Also, I was told a phone can be confiscated if it was used in the commission of a crime and a warrant can be obtained rather quickly. I don't see a contradiction.
Better read again. The courts decided law enforcement need a warrant to search the contents of a phone if seized. Police can still seize a phone if they have probable cause to believe it was used in the commission of a crime.
Post a Comment