Judge OKs text message use in drug case

[fnord]

[top]Judge OKs text message use in drug case

What: A man accused of involvement in a Washington, D.C., cocaine-distribution ring objects to his text messages being handed over to police.
When: U.S. District Judge ruled on Aug. 10.
Outcome: Huvelle lets text messages be used as evidence.
What happened, according to court documents:
Broadband companies tend not to save copies of people's e-mail. That means snoopy divorce lawyers and curious FBI agents who show up with a subpoena or search warrant generally will be out of luck.
But text messages sent on one's cell phone are a different story, as one alleged drug dealer in the Washington, D.C.-area learned firsthand.

On Oct. 24, 2005, federal police raided a home on Potomac Drive in Fort Washington, Md.--just south of the Washington Beltway. They allegedly seized about 213 pounds of cocaine and about 6.5 pounds of crack cocaine. Antoine Jones and four other men were caught up in the raid. The raid represented the culmination of an extensive amount of surveillance that the FBI and other federal police had conducted--both physical and electronic.
Part of the electronic surveillance was done by obtaining logs from two unnamed wireless providers. According to federal authorities, the logs contained archived text messages that were sent by Jones and alleged co-conspirator Lawrence Maynard.
In the words of the court: "On Aug. 10, 2005, and again on Aug. 18, 2005, Magistrate Judge Alan Kay issued search warrants to two electronic communication service providers for stored text messages that had been transmitted over cellular telephones used by Jones and Maynard."
Jones, who is awaiting trial on charges of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and use of a communication facility to traffic in drugs, filed a brief claiming that the search warrants violated the federal Wiretap Act.
Huvelle ruled on Aug. 10 that the search warrants were permissible "because the Wiretap Act does not apply to the government's acquisition of text messages held in storage at electronic communication service providers."
Translation: The Wiretap Act only applies to live intercepts, not archived e-mail or SMS messages. In general, a lower legal standard applies to archived messages. (As an aside, the government claims that technology to capture the contents of text messages had "only become available to law enforcement within recent weeks.")
Jones also was wiretapped, which Huvelle concluded was done in compliance with relevant federal law.
In addition, his movements were monitored through a GPS tracking device placed on his Jeep Cherokee. While the feds obtained a court order for the GPS tracker, they kept it on Jones' truck after the order expired, claiming that no court approval was necessary anyway. ("Even in the complete absence of a court order," it is legal, the U.S. Justice Department claims.)
This is not a new debate. A CNET News.com article published in January 2005 shows that courts are divided about whether a court order is required to install GPS trackers. Huvelle split the difference, saying that no court approval was necessary when the Jeep Cherokee was on a public road.
Excerpt from Huvelle's opinion:
Jones' argument that the text message affidavits lacked probable cause also misses the mark. The task of an issuing magistrate, when assessing probable cause for search warrants is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the "veracity" and "basis of knowledge" of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place...The court easily concludes that the information contained in Special Agent Yanta's supporting affidavits was sufficient to establish probable cause for the text message warrants.
The 29-page Aug. 10 affidavit, which served as the foundation upon which subsequent affidavits submitted in support of wiretap and search warrant applications were based, references information provided by three confidential sources who had firsthand knowledge of Jones' illicit activity...The affidavit further provides the basis for investigators' belief that Jones and Maynard were using text messaging in an attempt to conceal their alleged narcotics trafficking activities.
First, analysis of pen register data indicated that several weeks prior to Aug. 10, 2005, the target cellular telephones showed an increase in text messaging from 50 percent of all activations to 90 percent. And second, the technology to capture the contents of text messages had "only become available to law enforcement within recent weeks."
http://news.cnet.com/Police-blotter-...3-6110525.html

[Horiz]

brb destroying cell phone, PC and my personal freedom.

[discodave]

Horiz, my northern neighbour. For us in the UK it is worse, broadband providers DO save our internet e-mails and web sites surfed and the government can snoop on them pretty much at will for whatever reason they want. Even job centres and the school inspector are allowed to spy on anyone in the UK, anywhere (the reasons in the RIP act are so broad and vague it is possible to justify spying on anyone and everyone at once). They almost certainly watch what we do on this site, and I really don't know why they don't take action over it. Maybe they do with Mr Bigs and simply don't mention where their info came from.

[Horiz]

Jesus jumped up Christ. I thought only the USA had such crazy laws. This is utter madness! (sparta kind)

SWIM will never be ordering anything over the internet again (especially grow equipment) using his home PC or real name. Pre-paid credit cards and delivered to a safe-house only. Paranoia is completely justified.

[discjunkie313]

The 4th amendment dissapeared a long time ago..when it became sober checkpoints became legal michigan Michigan V sitz..now police dont even need a reason to stop you just a hunch your drunk..as far informations being private forget about it..ever since 911..the patriot act guarentees that any wire taps on phones emails any information routs whatsoever can be confiscated in case your a terrorist thanks bush..now they using texts for court, good grief. how do they know someone else wasnt typing that info, this speculation crap is recidulous, whatever happened to concrete evidence or prood beyond a reasonable doubt, the fact that is information first of all is personal and should require a warrant to get, and second of all, is reasonably douted for it's indeirect observation( falling not under the exception to hearsay rule) should be inadmissable, especially if that's the prosecutions foundation for bringing the charges. were only 1 step away from brain implant tracking devices, the constitution that written to protect 1's natural born freedome has been eroded with subtitutions and inferences that it has been a completely different document that is contrary to the original 1 the framers of the constituion intended to promote..enough rambleing i'm pissed off-DJ out

[AntiAimer]

Better not lend your cell phone out, never know what you might be accused of doing.

Note to self, never text msg, the old fashion way has worked fine.

[discjunkie313]

Lol, nice 1 Swiaimer..swidj knows that the possibility of someone else using your phone to text som1 is slim to none, but it is still a possibility..thats the reasonable doubt, no1 can say for sure it was you typing those messages and it should be inadmissable for those reasons..unless som1 directly observed the person typing the messages and called the cops and 2 minutes later he was arrested, then the messages would be within a reasonable time frame, corroberated by direct observation, then and only then would they be admissable in a court of law..swidj has studied a bit, lol mostly to represent hiself, and knows that 3rd party evidence is hearsay.-DJ

[fnord]

Originally Posted by discjunkie313

Lol, nice 1 Swiaimer..swidj knows that the possibility of someone else using your phone to text som1 is slim to none, but it is still a possibility..thats the reasonable doubt, no1 can say for sure it was you typing those messages and it should be inadmissable for those reasons..unless som1 directly observed the person typing the messages and called the cops and 2 minutes later he was arrested, then the messages would be within a reasonable time frame, corroberated by direct observation, then and only then would they be admissable in a court of law..swidj has studied a bit, lol mostly to represent hiself, and knows that 3rd party evidence is hearsay.-DJ

Shouldent this make cell phones even more safe? if your phones tapped they will have a recording of your voice and there's no way to scam your way out of that in court,at least this way you can say you lost your phone,you let some random person use it on the buss,your roomates use it,your friends use it. hell, just giuve htem a list of like 50 differnet friends and desrictionms of like 50 more people that ight have used you phone at partys.

Reputation Comments on this post:

makes a really good point and adds to the argument that text messages should not be used

[discjunkie313]

very good point swif, and any lawyer that doesnt play golf with the D.A..(court appointed) should be able to raise this issue and have the text messages and other indirect evidence excluded on a motion to quash..swidj thinks this news will definitely spark the attention of the aclu(american civil libertys union)..and end up going to the supreme court..where hopefully it's gets overturned. this pattern of injustice have slowly but surely degraded our rights to the point, law enforcement have been written a blank check to infringe on our freedoms at will. they live by the motto been better safe than sorry, by this logic, since 1/3 of people who leave prison return within 5 years, why not keep them in(IN CASE THEY COMMIT ANOTHER CRIME RIGHT) it's plain rediculous, same as allowing these text message ,although not as extreme, they are allowing this evidence on the premise these might have been him-DJ

[Alfa]

Please note that the way we post news has changed, because of our main news page.
You can find the full instructions here.

The most important changes are:

• Articles are no longer posted in quotes.
• The introduction of the article should be in bold.
• Images should be added if possible and placed in the article, following the instructions linked to above and here.
• Information about the article, like link, author, date should be posted below the article.
• Your personal comments about the article can be posted either in quotes at the end of the article or in a separate post.
• The news forums may contain news articles only.

Please be so kind to correct this.

Further I it may be good to know that recent articles with the highest thread ratings show up on the main news page. So without ratings, many people will not see it. So please rate news treads.
The main news page is accessible from the tabs on the top of any DF page.