Should Apple Have Helped the Government Break Into iPhones?

As part of the investigation on the San Bernardino, California shootings that happened last September, the FBI obtained a search warrant to search the contents of shooter Sayed Farook’s iPhone. Many of Apple’s security mechanisms, however, have stood in the way of unlocking the phone. Apple allows for encryption and password protection on its phones. Ten failed attempts at guessing the password wipes the data on the phone. A password is required to view the data in an unencrypted way. As it stood, there was no backdoor method to skirt around the security features in order to get into the phone. The FBI obtained a court order to unlock the phone, but Apple wasn’t happy and hadn’t complied so far.

High Stakes Privacy Face-Off for the Record Books Stalls After FBI Cracks iPhone

Here was the gist of the arguments on the two sides. The FBI wanted to continue its investigation on the shootings and thought Apple was standing in the way. The FBI wanted Apple to create new software to enable a backdoor to get into the phone, getting around its security gateways. It based its argument on the All Writs Act, a 227-year-old law that George Washington signed into law allowing a court to issue orders to carry out its existing powers. This sounds pretty broad, but it is not a law without limits. It cannot infringe on Constitutional rights, and it cannot be unreasonably burdensome on a third party.

Apple argued that the FBI has no legal right to make it create such a software that would undermine and weaken its security measures. Apple said that this could lead to hackers being able to get into the phone as well. It argued that the All Writs Act was not intended for such a purpose. If applied, it would make them an arm of government will and creating a mandate that Congress has so far not created itself. Apple went on to argue that it will be unreasonably burdensome to create brand new software just to undermine security it took many years to make. It also did not want to open the floodgates to more and more of these requests. Apple also argued that complying with the order violates its First and Fifth Amendment rights. Computer code is considered speech, and breaking apart its security code violates its free speech First Amendment rights. The Fifth Amendment protects people from being deprived of liberty without due process, and the order, said Apple does just that. Apple wasn't going to give up and its new model, iPhone SE, which will go on sale later this month, will have the same strong security features.

there wasIf it did not work, the FBI would have still taken Apple to court. Just on March 28th, the government dropped its case after the FBI managed to crack into the iPhone without Apple's help. With the point of the case being moot, it dropped it. Questions still arise about whether or not the government will release the method by which it cracked into the phone. Apple wants to know so it can fix any weaknesses in the code. However, the government may classify the information. It remains to be seen what the outcome will be.

When Can Your Phone or Computer be Searched in Ohio?

The laws governing protection of privacy and the right to search have both federal and state counterparts in each state. For example, there was a similar case where a request came in to Apple in New York to unlock one of its phones. In that case, Apple had the opportunity to oppose the order before it was issued, and it made similar arguments, successfully blocking the order from being issued.

The federal constitution protects you no matter which state you're in. More specific federal laws apply for certain types of crimes, when the crime crosses state lines, for certain specific areas of law. Ohio also has criminal laws for when a court can order searches of your phone, computer, text records, and phone records. These all fall under the purview of the Fourth Amendment, which protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures. Generally, in order to search a person or their belongings, an officer must have probable cause, meaning it is more likely than not that a crime has been committed. 

Unreasonable searches and seizures typically have to do with drug offenses, theft, or murders. Although probable cause is required, officers frequently search without proper justification. This can create serious evidentiary problems down the line that cast doubt not only on the evidence gained without probable cause, but also any evidence stemming from it thereafter. The government may have a need to gather evidence in investigating crimes, but this must be balanced against individuals' fundamental rights against unfettered searches and seizures.

Wolfe Legal Services Provides Top-Notch Federal Criminal Defense Representation

Wolfe Legal Services offers trusted and experienced advocacy in federal criminal defense. Don't go it alone if you have been arrested and charged with a crime. A good Columbus, Ohio criminal defense attorney will know how to defend against the government and leave no stone unturned in your case. Improper search and seizure happens frequently but only a professional will know the nuances of the law that could help get evidence thrown out or dismiss charges. Contact Attorney Wolfe today for a free, confidential consultation at (614) 263-5297 or fill out our online form.