If a photographer was arrested for a crime (in this case, assault) and he had his camera on his person at the time of both the crime and arrest, would the cops need a warrant for the photos on the device or could they take them into evidence without one?
Warrant needed for photos on a camera?
- Thread starter NovelorBust
- Start date
Yes, in the US, the police would normally need a warrant to search an electronic device. Warrant exceptions tend to revolve around an immediate danger to the police or to someone else, or the presence of evidence that could be removed/destroyed. But, a camera that was seized from the arrested person, and which is now in police custody, does not involve either of these two circumstances. So, the police would need to get a warrant.
It's always possible that the cops do not give a cuss and searched it without a warrant, found what they wanted, and then got a warrant after the fact, hoping that the photog (or his lawyer) could prove the order of events.
I think the below might help you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI–Apple_encryption_dispute
"The most well-known instance of the latter category was a February 2016 court case in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) wanted Apple to create and electronically sign new software that would enable the FBI to unlock a work-issued iPhone 5C it recovered from one of the shooters who, in a December 2015 terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, killed 14 people and injured 22. The two attackers later died in a shootout with police, having first destroyed their personal phones. The work phone was recovered intact but was locked with a four-digit password and was set to eliminate all its data after ten failed password attempts (a common anti-theft measure on smartphones). Apple declined to create the software, and a hearing was scheduled for March 22. However, a day before the hearing was supposed to happen, the government obtained a delay, saying they had found a third party able to assist in unlocking the iPhone and, on March 28, it announced that the FBI had unlocked the iPhone and withdrew its request. In March 2018, the Los Angeles Times later reported "the FBI eventually found that Farook's phone had information only about work and revealed nothing about the plot."[4]"
- - - Updated - - -
I think the below might help you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI–Apple_encryption_dispute
"The most well-known instance of the latter category was a February 2016 court case in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) wanted Apple to create and electronically sign new software that would enable the FBI to unlock a work-issued iPhone 5C it recovered from one of the shooters who, in a December 2015 terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, killed 14 people and injured 22. The two attackers later died in a shootout with police, having first destroyed their personal phones. The work phone was recovered intact but was locked with a four-digit password and was set to eliminate all its data after ten failed password attempts (a common anti-theft measure on smartphones). Apple declined to create the software, and a hearing was scheduled for March 22. However, a day before the hearing was supposed to happen, the government obtained a delay, saying they had found a third party able to assist in unlocking the iPhone and, on March 28, it announced that the FBI had unlocked the iPhone and withdrew its request. In March 2018, the Los Angeles Times later reported "the FBI eventually found that Farook's phone had information only about work and revealed nothing about the plot."[4]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI–Apple_encryption_dispute
"The most well-known instance of the latter category was a February 2016 court case in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) wanted Apple to create and electronically sign new software that would enable the FBI to unlock a work-issued iPhone 5C it recovered from one of the shooters who, in a December 2015 terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, killed 14 people and injured 22. The two attackers later died in a shootout with police, having first destroyed their personal phones. The work phone was recovered intact but was locked with a four-digit password and was set to eliminate all its data after ten failed password attempts (a common anti-theft measure on smartphones). Apple declined to create the software, and a hearing was scheduled for March 22. However, a day before the hearing was supposed to happen, the government obtained a delay, saying they had found a third party able to assist in unlocking the iPhone and, on March 28, it announced that the FBI had unlocked the iPhone and withdrew its request. In March 2018, the Los Angeles Times later reported "the FBI eventually found that Farook's phone had information only about work and revealed nothing about the plot."[4]"
- - - Updated - - -
I think the below might help you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI–Apple_encryption_dispute
"The most well-known instance of the latter category was a February 2016 court case in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) wanted Apple to create and electronically sign new software that would enable the FBI to unlock a work-issued iPhone 5C it recovered from one of the shooters who, in a December 2015 terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, killed 14 people and injured 22. The two attackers later died in a shootout with police, having first destroyed their personal phones. The work phone was recovered intact but was locked with a four-digit password and was set to eliminate all its data after ten failed password attempts (a common anti-theft measure on smartphones). Apple declined to create the software, and a hearing was scheduled for March 22. However, a day before the hearing was supposed to happen, the government obtained a delay, saying they had found a third party able to assist in unlocking the iPhone and, on March 28, it announced that the FBI had unlocked the iPhone and withdrew its request. In March 2018, the Los Angeles Times later reported "the FBI eventually found that Farook's phone had information only about work and revealed nothing about the plot."[4]"
Trapper, what you're talking about is slightly different. Smartphones, especially iPhones, usually have a password/pin/bio-metric lock (your face, your fingerprint). The data on your phone is encrypted and cannot be read or accessed unless you put in the password/pin/fingerprint/etc. The shooter in the attack in question died, so obviously he cannot provide the info. If this was, say, a laptop, the FBI could just take out the hard drive and read it (since passwords to computers is usually to turn them on and data on them is usually not encrypted). Apple, as the creators of the encryption, has the ability to de-encrpyt it. But they chose not to, because once you make a master key....well, someone can get a hold of it, and open every lock. I do not like Apple at all and I honestly believe they did the right thing here.
The original question was about a photographer's camera, which is going to be an slr (d or otherwise). There are some dslrs that have on-device encryption (so it encrypts the pictures and then writes it onto the SD card/flash storage), but they have been compromised, so the feds can get to it. Even if the camera had some sort of password to turn it on, it doesn't stop the cops from opening the camera up, taking the sd card out and then sticking it into a computer to read. And if it's a film camera, well, nothing's stopping them from opening it up and developing the film themselves.
What you're talking about is ONLY going to be relevant if the "photographer" in question is going to be using an iPhone, but at that point it's probably not a professional photographer/journalist, but a private citizen. In journalism school we're taught media law so not only do we not get into hot water, we can make sure that the cops can't access our stuff, either. There are some specific laws/cases that are relevant to journalists knowing something that can't be obtained elsewhere, but if this is a regular photographer (like a wedding photographer or for models or ads or something) then those won't apply.
The original question was about a photographer's camera, which is going to be an slr (d or otherwise). There are some dslrs that have on-device encryption (so it encrypts the pictures and then writes it onto the SD card/flash storage), but they have been compromised, so the feds can get to it. Even if the camera had some sort of password to turn it on, it doesn't stop the cops from opening the camera up, taking the sd card out and then sticking it into a computer to read. And if it's a film camera, well, nothing's stopping them from opening it up and developing the film themselves.
What you're talking about is ONLY going to be relevant if the "photographer" in question is going to be using an iPhone, but at that point it's probably not a professional photographer/journalist, but a private citizen. In journalism school we're taught media law so not only do we not get into hot water, we can make sure that the cops can't access our stuff, either. There are some specific laws/cases that are relevant to journalists knowing something that can't be obtained elsewhere, but if this is a regular photographer (like a wedding photographer or for models or ads or something) then those won't apply.
For story purposes, you need not make the situation overly convoluted. If the photographer was arrested with the camera in his possession, it, like all personal property, would be taken from him, examined (for the protection of those who must handle and preserve such personal property), inventoried, and preserved. Personal property would be returned to the owner upon his release from custody--provided a court has not ruled otherwise. The examination phase is most likely when sufficient probable cause might be discovered to support a subsequent search warrant for the seizure of evidentiary material.
Keep it simple, like a suspicious file name on the memory card that references a potentially related ongoing investigation (think threats, IEDs, kiddie porn, etc.). The actual file data (photos, etc.) once revealed, can turn out to be largely unrelated to the file name, but that name, combined with the info from another case, might be enough PC to get the warrant and examine the entire contents.
Keep it simple, like a suspicious file name on the memory card that references a potentially related ongoing investigation (think threats, IEDs, kiddie porn, etc.). The actual file data (photos, etc.) once revealed, can turn out to be largely unrelated to the file name, but that name, combined with the info from another case, might be enough PC to get the warrant and examine the entire contents.