Michigan State Police responds to ACLU’s data extraction claims

by Steve Ragan - Apr 21 2011, 06:15

The Michigan State Police has responded to the ACLU, after they claimed the law enforcement agency was secretly extracting information from cell phones during traffic stops. In addition, the agency also commented on the ACLU’s attempts to learn more about the handheld devices used by the troopers.

For nearly three years, the ACLU has attempted to get the Michigan State Police (MSP) to answer questions over their use of CelleBrite’s UFED Physical Pro scanner. The handheld device allows police to extract data from phones and SIM memory. In addition to the normal information, such as contact lists, email, and text messages, the UFED is also able to recover hidden and deleted data.

In a letter sent to the MSP, the ACLU remarked that troopers were able to access the mobile devices without the owner being aware. Expressing concern that the UFED device makes data collection too easy, the letter concluded that there is a risk troopers might ignore the Fourth Amendment if they have access to them.

“…Additionally, if racially disproportionate incarceration rates in this state are the result of racially disproportionate contact with law enforcement officers, then there is reason to be concerned that Michigan residents of color are more likely to have their cell phones searched by Michigan State Police.” [ACLU Letter - PDF]

The first FOIA request for information on how the UFED devices were used was sent in 2008. The MSP responded that the cost of such a request would total $544,680 USD. In order for the ACLU to receive anything, they needed to pay $272,340 USD as a deposit.

“However, each time the ACLU submitted more narrow requests, MSP claimed that no documents exist for that time period and then it refused to reveal when the devices were used so a proper request could be made,” the ACLU said in a statement.

On Wednesday, the MSP issued a statement of their own, addressing the ACLU's claims. In addition, they offered an update on the FOIA requests.

“Since 2008, the MSP has worked with the ACLU to narrow the focus, and thus reducing the cost, of its initial Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. To date, the MSP has fulfilled at least one ACLU FOIA request on this issue and has several far-lower cost requests awaiting payment to begin processing,” the statement explained.

As for the UFED, which the agency calls a data extraction device (DED), the MSP said they are used only when a warrant has been obtained and by specialty teams. Moreover, they’re not being used to extract citizens' personal information during routine traffic stops.

“The MSP only uses the DEDs if a search warrant is obtained or if the person possessing the mobile device gives consent. The department’s internal directive is that the DEDs only be used by MSP specialty teams on criminal cases, such as crimes against children…The MSP does not possess DEDs that can extract data without the officer actually possessing the owner's mobile device. The DEDs utilized by the MSP cannot obtain information from mobile devices without the mobile device owner knowing.”

As a final jab, the statement ended with a note that the implication by the ACLU that the MSP uses the devices to bypass Fourth Amendment protections “…is untrue, and this divisive tactic unjustly harms police and community relations.”

Yet, while the MSP is working with the ACLU now, why did it take nearly three years and a decent amount of press coverage? Perhaps it's the new leadership within the MSP, as previous FOIA requests were handled under a different administration.

We’ve asked the ACLU for additional comments on the MSP’s statements. We’ll update if they respond.

For the curious, a PDF brochure on the UFED is here.

Around the Web

comments powered by Disqus