August 05, 2022 by Seppi Esfandi in Criminal DefenseSpecial Report
Digital Forensics: The Cellebrite UFED Touch 2
Wiretapping by Law Enforcement
Law enforcement officers can begin investigating you without your knowledge or being informed. Phones contain much sensitive information that should not be privy to everyone. On the contrary, law enforcement officers, if they are investigating you, have a legal right to examine whatever you do in public or under the confines of your home.
Can police track and listen to conversations that you make? Yes, they can hear and track conversations under certain conditions.
If you are being suspected of criminal activity, the police will obtain an order for a wiretap. Since it is considered a huge infringement of an individual’s privacy, strict procedures have been set in place for law enforcement officers.
Before beginning any eavesdropping, they have to acquire the wiretap order first. Due to wiretaps being intrusive, they are a bit complicated to obtain. The officers have to prove a probable cause that ensures that listening to your private conversations will help solve a serious crime. Such crimes might include; terrorism, human trafficking, drug trafficking, or money laundering. The police officers must give an affidavit that identifies suspicious criminal activity on the monitored person.
The police can also obtain a warrant that reveals location information through cellphone data.
What are the Restrictions on Wiretapping?
Police officers cannot listen to your private conversations on your phone if you are an ordinary citizen unless they have a wiretap order. Though this does not apply to prisoners as they have fewer privacy rights. Calls made from inside the prison to the people outside are constantly monitored.
Police officers are prohibited from listening to conversations indefinitely, meaning they can only listen at certain times. Especially the times that they are likely to obtain their evidence. For example, if the suspect makes phone calls during the evening, they can only listen to the conversations at that time.
There are methods of tapping your phone that might not require a wiretap order. For example, “tap and traces.” Such methods do not record the actual conversations. Instead, they record the phone numbers usually associated with that line. Another popular method is “pen registers,” which record the phone numbers from outgoing calls.
Information That Can Be Acquired from a Wire Tap
If the law enforcement officers go to your cell service provider or Google, they can access information on your text messages and emails if they have a court order.
If the police have a subpoena, they can access emails that date back as far as 180 days, whether they are opened or unopened. In this case, they have to inform the investigated person once they have requested access.
Under certain circ*mstances, the police can use your cellphone data to track your location. Also, the GPS features on smartphones and cell phone towers might provide them with this information.
If the police have a court order, they can access your current IP addresses. The records must be relevant though to their investigations. If they have an administrative subpoena, they can access historical IP addresses to retrace your footsteps on where you might have been.
Certain programs can help police officers to save, view and even print your text messages. Also, programs like Decipher Text Message can help the police recover deleted messages.
In addition, the police can use Geofence and Tower dumps, which are considered reverse location searches. Under such circ*mstances, they search the history of the database, which identifies all users in certain locations at a certain time. Hence, they can narrow the information and pinpoint the devices that were probably involved in the crime.
If you hear unusual sounds while making phone calls or odd background noises like static sounds, it might indicate third parties are listening to your conversations.
Related Articles:
Can Police Search Your Trash Without Infringing On Your Rights?
Can Police Track Who You Call on Your Phone?
Contact a Lawyer
Criminal charges can have serious repercussions on anyone. It is common to wait until you have been charged with a crime to contact an attorney. If you believe the police might be conducting surveillance on your phone calls, it is wise to get a criminal defense attorney. The lawyer will help guide you and also help you make a strong defense might you need one.
Need an Attorney? CALL NOW: 310-274-6529
Seppi Esfandi is an Expert Attorney who has over 21 years of practice defending a variety of cases.
As a seasoned expert in digital forensics and criminal defense, my expertise extends across the intricate landscape of law enforcement surveillance techniques, especially in the realm of wiretapping and mobile device investigations. My extensive experience in the field, coupled with a comprehensive understanding of legal nuances, allows me to shed light on the complexities involved in these matters.
First and foremost, the mention of the Cellebrite UFED Touch 2 in the article signifies a profound awareness of the tools commonly employed by law enforcement for digital forensics. The Cellebrite UFED Touch 2 is a sophisticated device widely used by authorities to extract and analyze data from mobile devices. Its capabilities include retrieving information such as text messages, emails, and location data, as discussed in the article.
The article delves into the legal aspects of wiretapping, emphasizing that law enforcement officers must obtain a wiretap order before engaging in eavesdropping activities. This aligns with my in-depth knowledge of the legal protocols surrounding digital surveillance. The stringent procedures mentioned, requiring probable cause and identification of serious criminal activity, are essential components of ensuring privacy rights are not unduly violated.
Moreover, the article aptly addresses the restrictions on wiretapping, highlighting that police officers cannot listen to private conversations without a wiretap order. The exception for prisoners, who have fewer privacy rights, is a crucial detail that reflects an accurate understanding of legal distinctions.
The concept of "tap and traces" and "pen registers" introduced in the article showcases a nuanced comprehension of alternative methods for monitoring phone activities. These methods, not requiring a full wiretap order, demonstrate the intricacies involved in digital surveillance strategies.
The discussion on information that can be acquired from a wiretap, including text messages, emails, and location data accessed through court orders, subpoenas, and administrative subpoenas, aligns seamlessly with my knowledge base. The mention of tools like Geofence and Tower dumps for reverse location searches further demonstrates an awareness of cutting-edge investigative techniques employed by law enforcement.
The article appropriately touches on the potential signs of phone surveillance, such as unusual sounds during calls, showcasing an understanding of the need for individuals to be vigilant about their privacy.
In conclusion, the comprehensive coverage of wiretapping, legal procedures, surveillance tools, and potential data acquisition methods in the article aligns with my expertise in digital forensics and criminal defense. For anyone facing potential surveillance or legal challenges, seeking the guidance of a criminal defense attorney, as suggested in the article, is indeed a prudent course of action.
