Cell Phone Records Training Materials A1 Cell Phone Records Training Materials ) California District Attorneys Association ADVANCED ASSET FORFEITURE UPDATE COURSE March 16-18,2010 Embassy Suites, Napa Tuesday, March 16, 2010 8:00- 9:00 9:00- 9:15 REGISTRATIONIROSTER SIGN IN (All course participants) WELCOMING REMARKS 9:15-10:15 CASE LAW UPDATE 10:15-10:30 10:30-11:30 Break JOINT FINANCIAL INVESTIGATIONS WITH CDCR 11 :30- 1:00 1:00-3 :00 Lunch Break CELL PHONE EVIDENCE 3:00-3:15 3:15- 5:00 Break CHINA CONNECTION: AN EMERGING MONEY LAUNDERING TREND ***Attorneys & Paralegals required to sign out/or MeLE credit*** Typical Cell Phone Questions Cell Phone Class How to get the Good Stuff What do I need to get a cell site tower location? How can I see if a phone is registered on the netw,>rk? Can I look at a phone wlo a search warrant - for the purpose of determining its number - for the further purpose o ofwriling a search warrant for the service provider I What if provider drags its feet complying wi SW - Any recourse - Any recourse after the fact Cell Phone Records Where is the Evidence - Celt Phone o Search Wal1'3nt o Search Incident to Arrest Olmstead V. United States Q. when was this written Subtler and more far-reaching means of invading privacy have become available to the Government. Discovery and invention have made it possible for the Government ... to obtain disclosure in court of what is whispered in the closet. - Cell Phone Historical Records o Search WSl1'3nt o SubpoflllS - Ceff PhOne Real-Time Information o Tracking - Searo;hWarrarrt - Subpoena o Woretap - Searo;hWarranl'1 - Subpoena '1 Billing Searches 4th Search Incident to Arrest Chimmel Search Incident to arrest must be justified by Amendment "Search" requires - Danger to arresting officer - reaching distance - Preserving evidence - Search Warrant - Exception to need for Search Warrant o Exigent circumstances o Consent o Search Incident to Arrest Belton - In a car: reaching distance = interior of car - Predominantly und.erstood to mean o area reachable by arrestee b4 arrest, _ Brennan dissent: rests on "fiction ... that interior of car is afways within the immediate control of an arrestee who has recently been in the car" Call Detail Records A TT Example [ Tcwo, Re<:o":Is ""';,~::-" n,,'_'''''.'' ,~" ~." w.,"'" "' J How Much Does All This Cost $$$$$$$$ (' " You want it, You Gotta NlrCi'CS CIlqtI. "' torlOmt Uf'o1?M; Billing Practices of ISPs -1.-';'''' , _ _ ..... _ _ \~nl ~~...........-. ~~E.~~=:~~~-:=~ Federal - ECPA 1501<< cal dJbi.1I<i&eoce rj!his crd!!foc Wdar.; in !hal sudl adsdo&n wd gve too sWsc!ibeI an ~i to oostrO'j' 1'Mdef\ce, flOtit'i coo!OOera';es, or ~ (X coom ffi ~ from p:oseotj;l1l 18USC 3123 Pe9 1hl11 1j "" . What are the Steps to Get the Stuff Identify the target phone number Identify the ECSP (Cell Carrier) Locate where to serve the SW Write the SW Serve/Pay for the SW/Records ResidenHal Pho~". Arbculable Facts 2703 Cl.der, Pen/Trap R!:gister - Cellular Phone. ? cawomia. sw Loea~(ln o F...... -Arti:ct.cnbc:~t-peo,*""",~whi<:h!edl.""~"'" _ Oeo.erlbe Ienglhoc'u ..... boo_per will be monil<SW~ - ~41~~~pl}:~~"r.1?t;,~4~'~~_Coi."'YI\OSW o Inside _ lleq.O ."",..IlI_co, opt. I., covrt "rd ... w'""'''"i:<. opt 3 for cou'" O.d., flo S... rd> 'Inn-ant "~"~n<' 90e?30~?1'91., '08,.-306-7'9l What Do the Records Look Like Call Detail Report Tower Records Belton Lower courts began to treat ability of police to search interior of car incident to arrest as an "entitlement" Indeed, arresting officer in Arizona v. Gant - Q. Why was the search conducted -A. "Because the law says(we can do it." Search Incident to Arrest Arizona v. Gant 173 L.Ed.2d 485 Search Incident to Arrest OK - 1. Danger to Arresting Officer o But, no danger if arrestee is handcuffed in back of car o I.E. danger Is measured at time of seardl, does not relate back to earlier time of arrest. - 2. For Evidence Related to Crime of Arrest o "when it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle" o Q. isn't that the same as - Probable cause Using a Search Warrant SW requires - Particularity of place and items searched for o How do you desClibe a cellphone o How do you articulate vma! you want Getting the Phone Itself Describing the Phone - Physical Description - color, manufacturer, model, etc -IMEINumber-~m - Forthe coun - Fertile electronic communications service provider (ECSP) -ESN -SIM Number 2. - Describe evidentiary relevance - State the training/experience relied upon State conclusion o 'I believe, baseO upon my training and experience, that relevant In!onnaoon YOUAE.EHEREB'Y AurnDRlZED g,ndDIP..EC'IEDto ~!be CUlT't1:I~. ~ Is containe:;lwithln ttle telephone' Grty MQtorob cillubrttiephoAe, IlfEI OlOOS66'r"..93..~.!lO, PO!M~k1l1ot~NnfYort{.~tyPol:i~~HJt, tllf 3. Getting Info From the Phone Company it ? Preserve to Step ~freeze~ the records ?18 U.S.C. 2703(d and f) orders, direct 3d party ECSP o Maintain records for 90 days o Not disclose the investigation to suspect Can ask for anything (content or noncontent) to be preserved for 90 days Does not have prospective effect - Applies only to materials in the possession of the provider at the time of the request 2d Step Search Warrant for the records - Feds and some other states allow some records to be obtained with less than probable cause - Califomia, basically requires a SW - SW will get records, stored communications etc - Include "Non~Disclosure" language in SWaffidavit ( .J ECPA Billing Contd. What is a "Reasonable Amount" ECPA ECPA Billing Continued Record holder wlU eilher - Produce for free - produce Ihe records with a bill or . .' - withhold !he production of Ihe records unlll payment IS recewed If there is a fee dispute coun If Ihe provider chooses 10 challenge the .nl,on'Pkaym~~le:g~~~n as 10 thaI issued the ordered for production WI rna e a the proper fees the 10sil111 party inlhis fee dispute may have 10 pay reasonable expenses Including attomey fees. - houl the o B<.rt an Ilwestl,:ialive agency could net recover atlemey'~ lees Wlt court expressfy finds o the witness not only charged excessive costs. and 3d o acted in bad faith. See In Ie Marrioge of Stepl>cns ('984)d~mCpal':' OSc 909,91219.) agreed upon. states the amount of the fee is to be mutually - If no agreement, amount to be determined by the court thai issued the order. What is a reasonable cost in Califomia, see E.C. 1563(b}(1} $.10perB~by11 sheet of paper - 10.00 per hour of derical time - Actual costs if provider reimburses a 3d party for records held by 3" o Caes nol apply if 3'" is a division of the provider In re Marriage of Steplloos o"",pl,,"' , 9/34, "6 )f the provider withholds - !hell the 10 pay Thank You o Questions ~) NTI Law Enforcement Systems and Services Tel-Tales January 15, 2007 Text Messaging aka SMS Why do people need text messaging on cell phones? I don't need it. I can send text messages on my cell phone if I want, but I don't want. I do realize that it has become a sort of life support system for kids; if they're not talking on their cell phone, they are holding it and text-messaging up a storm. An investigator's life would be so much better if there were no such thing. Since text messaging (aka SMS-Short Message Service) appears to be here to stay and some ([ots of?) bad guys use it, we'd better [earn what it is, how it's used, and how we can legally obtain information about its use to support our investigations. What Short Message Service (SMS) is: It's called "Short" because there is a [imitation on how many characters you can put in a message. This is necessary so that the cell companies can easily handle the traffic. If you have SMS service on your cell phone, you type an alphanumeric message using your keypad and then "send" it to your intended recipient. If the recipient's phone is on, s/he can view the text you have sent. Obviously, text messaging is a one-way affair, much [ike push-to-ta[k. Where and how it's stored and for how long: This is probably the most misunderstood issue regarding SMS. I have received many calls from investigators who have been informed that a particular text message was sent last week/monthfyear - you name it - which could have a major impact on a case. If only they could somehow subpoena the text of that message, the case could be resolved. They don't like it when the cell company tells them that the text message is long gone and irretrievable. This is usually when the call me and ask if there is some way they can get the contents of that message; I have to tell them the bad news and verify that what the cell company told them was correct. The life of a text message is, sadly, very short; here's the sad ta[e ... When a text message is sent, it goes to the cell company's text message server where it is temporarily (for seconds) stored. The cell company communication system checks if the recipient's telephone is turned on. If it is, the text message is sent and, within a short period of time (typica[[y minutes or seconds) is deleted from the cell company server. The message is now resident on the recipient phone's memory. It will stay on the recipient's phone until s/he deletes it or it gets automatically "bumped off" when the phone's text message storage memory is exceeded and the phone needs to make space for a new message. If the intended recipient's phone is turned off, obviously the message cannot be sent and it is retained for a short period (most cell company systems hold it for 72 hours - three days) on the server while it is waiting for the recipient phone to be turned on. If 72 hours has passed and the recipient phone has not been turned on, most cell companies delete it permanently and it is lost forever. At [east one company representative told me that in their system, the message would be 1 ( transferred after 72 hours to an archival system where it will wait for an unspecified period (around a month or so) for the recipient phone to be turned on. After that period has passed, it will be deleted. I have not been able to verify if this information is accurate; you should assume that it is kept for only three days and then deleted. As always, I recommend that before you write your legal demand, call the cell company compliance department and find out their policy. Getting SMS traffic and content: You might think of SMS information as being analogous to telephone call information. You can get tolls (aka call detail records - CDRs) for telephone calls. CDRs give you information such as the date, time and duration of a call and what number called what other nu mber. If you want to know what the people talked about, i. e. you want to listen to the conversation, this requires additional justification, legal paper, and equipment, but Title II intercepts can be and are regularly done on both landline and cell phones. With an SMS text message, you can get the equivalent of CDRs - who sent a message to whom and when. Remember the comment I made earlier - text messaging is only one way. Consider this. If you introduce subpoenaed information at a trial that shows Subject A sent 35 text messages to Subject B on a given day, and you didn't subpoena Subject B's SMS records, couldn't Subject B's attorney argue that Subject B's phone was off for several days and he never received them? Or couldn't learned counsel argue that his client might have seen the messages, but didn't recognize the sender and just deleted them? You're on the stand; it's too late to serve another subpoena! Lesson: get both sides. If you want the actual message content - the equivalent to Title III, and you can generate the appropriate legal paper, you can get it only in real time in a Title III CALEA intercept. On all occasions where I have had to get text message information, each and every cell company has stated emphatically that the only way to get content is via a CALEA intercept and only in real time. Remember that if you want to show that two people were communicating via text messaging, it will be necessary to subpoena or otherwise legally capture both sides of the SMS "conversation" and put them together to show the extent of the dialog. Otherwise, if you only look at only one subject's SMS information, you will just be able to establish a monologue in court. Bottom line is, if you want SMS traffic information, you have all kinds of time. If you want SMS content, i.e. the actual text of the message, you have to plan ahead for the necessary legal paper and grab it real ti me. Of course, if you can get your hands on that cell phone and you have the appropriate legal paper, you can read any messages that have not been deleted. Even if a message has been deleted by the recipient and not much time has passed, you may be able to recover some or even possibly the entire message forensically. OK, OK, OK, there are a couple of other options. The above discussion covered the 99+ situations you will encounter. There are two circumstances that could occur. Both possibilities are unlikely, but I would be amiss if I didn't mention them. o Way out possibilitv #1: If you know an SMS was sent to a particular cell phone on a certain date/time and if you know that the message was never received because the recipient cell phone was turned off, and if it has been less than 72 hours since the message was sent, that SMS is still sitting on the cell company's server. Even if you have a court order for a CALEA Title III, you still can't read the message because the recipient cell phone is off so the SMS will never be sent and will die a natural death after the 72 hours is up. Your only solution is get the cell company to copy, extract, freeze, or do whatever they have to do to retrieve that message before it dies. Thy will tell you it can't be done or they may tell you 2 they just won't do it. Don't believe them; it can be done; you just have to exert the proper amount of legal and "other" force (refer to your telephone force continuum training) to make it happen. Just do what you have to do before the 72 hours is up. (Idea ... have them set up a clone cell phone to the one that's turned off. When the clone is turned on, the SMS will be sent.) o Way out possibilitv #2: If "Way out possibility #1" happens and, if the 72 hours has passed but only by a very short time (minutes or maybe just an hour or so), and if the situation is exigent, and if you have the mental fortitude, legal paper, and determination, you could always execute a search warrant at the cell company office, grab their SMS server and possibly recover the deleted SMS forensically. Actually, if the cell company wanted to help, they could do all that for you, but as you know, their first responsibility is to their shareholders. If you do exercise this o'ption, let me know how it turned out! If you like the done phone idea mentioned above and you are a covert operator with a "Mission Impossible" bent; a great trick is to remotely "shut down" a subject's cell phone by using a Triggerfish-type unit (the latest man-portable version is the "Kingfish''). Appropriate legal paper should get the cell company to build you a clone of the shut-down phone. Then you could receive all the text messages that would have been sent to that subject (and you could even respond to them). Just be sure you keep his phone shut down. Selected short subjects: You don't forget your buddies; don't forget the bad guy's buddies: Sprint, to name one, and lots of other cell companies offer special deals to customers who have a small, select group of people that talk to each other a lot. The advertising types call it the "buddy" plan, "friends and family" plan or some other catch phrase, but they all basically work the same. I guess they do it to encourage groups of people to all sign up together and all stay with their company. For example, when you and a group of friends apply for Sprint cell phone service, you can ask that you and your buddies be put on the "buddy plan so that calls between any two members of the group are at the bargain rate. Some cell companies allow free calls among members of a "buddy" plan. What a great way to find out quickly who all your target's close associates are! Not all bad guys are stupid enough to put a list of their co-conspirators on file, but enough of them do it to make it worthwhile for you to include a request for a target's "buddy list" in your subpoena. Note that this doesn't work for Verizon Wireless - they don't charge minutes for "in-calling", communication between any Verizon Wireless customers. Some telcos will email you a spreadsheet instead of paper if you reguest it? Isn't that great! Now you can easily dump the calls into your analytical system or at least sort and study them on the spreadsheet. No more fat-fingering for you. Don't you wish all telcos would send all info this way? So far, I'm in agreement with you. Electronically-delivered tolls do save a lot of time. But you need to be aware of a possible disaster that could blow your case. Let's look at a scenario. You take the stand at the trial and testify that the defendant called his alleged co-conspirator (whom he claimed he did not know) 237 times during the past four months. You sit there all smug while the defense attorney springs his planned strategy on you. He claims that his review of the discovery information that you provided revealed that the telco you subpoenaed emailed you the tolls on his client's cell phone in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. How, he asks, can you expect the jury to believe that 237-call figure you quoted when anyone knows that you could have easily edited that spreadsheet to show anything you wanted in your efforts to frame his poor, innocent client? You may want to think twice about introducing evidence that could be challenged in this manner. Sure, get spreadsheet format call and/or subscriber records for your analytical/investigative 3 convenience, but when you go to court; be sure you have a parallel set of original, from-thetelco paper or read-only, graphic subscriber and call detail record information to introduce as evidence. For all practical purposes, if you have a CD from the telco with some sort of "official" telco logo on it, you're good for court. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself... Here is an email I received recently: JUST A REMINDER!!! .... 9 days from today, all cell phone numbers are being released to telemarketing companies and you will start receiving sale calls. .. YOU WILL BE CHARGED FOR THESE CALLS - To prevent this, call the following number from your cell phone: . It is the National DO NOT CALL list. It will only take a minute of your time. It blocks your number for five (5) years. You must call from the cell phone number you are wanting to have blocked. You cannot call from a different pi/one number. Thought you may want to know this... ~Nora Fear not: this has all the earmarks of an urban legend. I think you are wasting your time registering. No one will be releasing cell numbers to telemarketers. If you do register your number I don't think it will make much difference; FCC does not enforce the Do Not Call law! In fact, no one enforces this law and the telemarketers know this. The only reason any of them honor this list is because they are afraid of more stringent laws that willbe enforced if they don't act honorably. FCC does, however, release the Do Not Call list to telemarketers so they11 know what numbers they are forbidden to call. Many unscrupulous (are there any un-unscrupulous telemarketers?) telemarketers use this list to make calls, particularly those from safe, overseas telemarketing bOiler rooms. This being said, if/when a national 411 directory of cell phone numbers is published, it will not be distributed as such, but will be only given out on a specific query basis - i.e. you give them a name and they give you the number. My advice ... if you're worried about such a release ask that your number be non-published. As far as telemarketers are concerned, wait until you get a call - then register. Never call a telemarketer back. " a monthly ne:vvsletter written by for investigators, intelligence analysts, and prosecuting attorneys. A swo17l1aw enforcement office' JrDvides direct assistance regarding telephone issues to federal, state, and municipal agencies. He also conducts in-depth, training programs for investigators. prosecutors, and analysts either directly or off the GSA schedule for federal aRencies on using telephone information to support Climinal and counter-terrorism investigations. Each s issue covers techniques and innovative approaches to the acquisition and use of telephonic info17nation to build and prosecute cases. Call if you have any questions or want more detail on or the info1711ation presented here. The material presented in ' and may not be reproduced and/or distlibuted in whole or in part wltllout the express permission of the author. Previously unpublished investigative and analytical techniques presented herein may not be used by any person or entelplise for commercial pUlposes. NT! publishes 4 Search Warrant Language For Cellular Phones! (4/11) Cellular phones have become the virtual biographer of our daily activities. It tracks who we talk to and where we are. It will log calls, take pictures, and keep our contact list close at hand. In short it has become an indispensable piece of evidence in a criminal investigation. Want to know where your suspect was last Saturday? The cellular service provider can provide you the location information of the cellular phone as it relates to the provider's network. What about the last person your victim called? Both the cellular phone and the cellular provider will keep a record ofthis. How about fmding gang member photos associated with their gang moniker? It will be located within their cellular phones. Information relating to a cellular phone will be found in two places. In the records possessed by the cellular service provider and in the cellular device itself. Getting Information From The Cellular Provider The following is offered to provide guidance on drafting a search warrant for the production of records maintained by the cellular provider. The first step in obtaining records from a cellular service provider is to identifY the provider. A cellular phone carrier can be queried directly to ascertain if they provide service to a known number. Information on legal contacts for cellular service providers may be found at http://www.search.org/programs/hightechlisp/ The North American Numbering Plan Administration also tracks the numbers that have been assigned to service providers. (http://www.nationalnanpa.com) Since a cellular phone number may now be ported (transferred) by a consumer to another cellular service provider, law enforcement should make a number porting check. Law enforcement may sign up for the service at (http://npac. cornllawenforcementl ivr. shtml) The second step in obtaining records from a cellular service provider is a preservation request to "freeze" stored records and communications pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ? 2703(f). Many cellular service providers maintain records for only a short period of time. This request can be used as a directive to third-party providers to preserve records and not disclose the investigation to the suspect. This is an important tool to use to prevent third-paJiy providers from writing over or deleting data you need while you obtain a warrant. Currently there are no laws which govern how long a third-party provider must retain log or other information. Sample preservation orders can be found at" , (Appendix C), 1 It is also recommended that you contact the cellular service provider to ascertain the type and nature of records kept and any special terms or defmitions that the carrier uses to describe those records. Any request for records should be limited to only the records that are needed. Do not request all of the categories ofrecords listed unless it is truly needed for your case. Cellular phone records can be described in the warrant as follows: A.) Subscriber information Note: This should give you the name, address, phone numbers, and other personal identifying information relating to the subscriber. B.) Account comments Note: Anytime the provider has contact with the customer or modifies the customer's account a notation will be made by a service representative on the account. C.) Credit information Note: Most providers run a credit report on customer prior to activating the account D.) Billing records Note: Do not askfor toll information; that is a landline term for long distance. Specify period desired. E.) Outbound and inbound call detail Note: This is the real time, current activity that is not yet on the customer's bill. "Inbound" is usually available for only a limited time (45 days) which gives other cellular phones calling the target number. F.) Call origination / tennination location Note: Available for a limited time (45 days) and gives location information on cell sites used, length of call, date, time, numbers dialed. With a GPS enabled phone it gives location ofphone. G.) Physical address 0 f cell sites and RF coverage map H.) Note: Needed to determine where cell site is located when you receive inbound & outbound or call origination & termination location. The RF coverage map models the theoretical radio ji-equency coverage of the towers in the system. You will want to limit this request to a specified geographical area. Any other cellular telephone numbers that dial the same numbers as (xxx) xxx-xxxx 2 Note: Ifyou want to know who calls the same number the target calls (for example a pager or landline number). Availablefor only a limited time (45 days). I.) Subscriber information on any cellular numbers that (xxx) xxx-xxxx dials Note: Subscriber information on the carrier's network that is dialing the target. J.) All of the above records whether possessed by cellular service provider [target of warrant] or any other cellular service provider Note: If you anticipate the suspect may be roaming or if the number is roaming in the providers market, you may be able to obtain informationFom other cellular carriers if you include this language in your description of records. K.) All stored c0ll11nunications or files, including voice mail, email, digital images, buddy lists, and any other files associated with user accounts identified as: account(s) xxxxxx, mobile numbers (xxx) xxx-xxxx, or e-mail account Note: Cellular service providers now offer similar services to an internet service provider (ISP)and maintain the same type o/records such as text messaging, e-mail, and file storage for the transfer of data including digital pictures. Limit your request to what you need. L.) All connection logs and records of user activity for each such account including: I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Connection dates and times. Disconnect dates and times. Method of connection (e.g., telnet, fip, http) Data transfer volume. User name associated with the connections. Telephone caller identification records. Any other connection information, such as the Internet Protocol address of the source ofthe connection. 8. Connection information for the other computer to which the user ofthe above-referenced accounts connected, by any means, during the connection period, including the destination IP address, comlection time and date, disconnect time and date, method of connection to the destination computer, and all other infoDnation related to the connection from cellular service provider. Note: The above is a standard request made to ISP to trd1:kccmnection iriformation. Remember with the type of cellular service offered today the user can send a message ji-om the phone orFom the associated account via a computer or other access device. M.) Any other records or accounts, including archived records related or associated to the 3 above referenced names, user names, or accounts and any data field name defmitions that describe these records. Note: This is the catch all to use when you want everything. This request also includes "archived" information. Many companies now "archive" records thus allowing for the preservation of subscriber records for a significant time. Archived records are usually stored in a spread sheet format encompassing a variety of data fields. You must request the data field name definitions in order to understand the spreadsheet. N.) PUK for SIM card # _ _ __ Note: Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) is a smart card inside of a GSM cellular phone that encrypts voice and data transmissions and stores data about the specific user so that the user can be identified and authenticated to the network supplying the service. The SIM also stores data such as personal phone settings specific to the user and phone numbers. SIM cards can be password protected by the user. Even with this protection SIM cards may still be unlocked with a personal unlock key (PUK) that is available ji-OIn the service provider. Note that after ten wrong PUK codes, the SIM card locks forever. 0.) All connection logs and records of user activity for the cellular tower identified as (describe cell towers location and identification #) for the time period between (list time period). Note: Often referred to as a "tower dump, " this request allows you to review all users that connect to a specific tower during a specified time frame. This search warrant of last resort is used to see if the tower data can provide possible suspects that were in the area when a crime occurred. Datafrom a tower may consist of a list of telephone numbers, call start times and end times. Cellular service providers maintain the physical address of their cell sites. (See "G. '') Multiple carriers may share a tower. In that each carrier maintains its own records, a search warrant would have to be served on each carrier that uses the identified tower. You will want to request that these records be produced to you in an electronic format such as excel or txt. A search warrant for the production of records held by a cellular service provider should always include an order for non-disclosure. The cellular service provider will notifY the customer of the search warrant unless there is a non-disclosure order. This order will delay notification for 90 days and can be extended for an additional 90 days. (See California Public Utilities Commission decision No. 93361 (712111981).) A non-disclosure order may be phrased as follows: ORDER FOR NON-DISCLOSURE OF SEARCH WARRANT 4 It is further ordered that cellular service provider not to notifY any person (including the subscriber or customer to which the materials relate) ofthe existence of this order for 90 days in that such a disclosure could give the subscriber an opportunity to destroy evidence, notifY confederates, or flee or continue his flight from prosecution Now that we have listed what records we are seeking, probable cause must be shown in the affidavit for each of the listed items. The following is sample language justifYing the need for the production of specified records that can be used as a starting point for drafting the search warrant affidavit: P.) Through experience and training, your affiant knows cellular service providers maintain records related to subscriber information, account registration, credit information, billing and airtime records, outbound and inbound call detail, connection time and dates, Intemet routing information (Intemet Protocol numbers), and message content, that may assist in the identification ofpersonls accessing and utilizing the account. Tln'ough experience and training, your affiant knows that the cellular service provider maintains records that include cell site information and GPS location. Cell site information shows which cell site a particular cellular telephone was within at the time of the cellular phone'S usage. Some model cellular phone are GPS enabled which allows provider and user to determine the exact geographic position of the phone. Further, the cellular service provider maintains cell site maps that show the geographical location of all cell sites within its service area. Using the cell site geographical information or GPS information, officers would be able to determine the physical location of the individual using the cell phone number (xxx) xxx-xxxx, which according to corroborating sources listed above was/is in use by the suspect. That infmmation is necessary to the investigating officers in order to _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Cellular tower (describe location and tower #) is located approximately from the location where John Does body was discovered, Through experience and training, your affiant knows that cell towers maintained by cellular service providers contain records that include connection logs and records of user activity that have accessed the cell tower. These records may include telephone numbers, call start times and end times. Accessing this information would enable officers to identifY individuals who cellular device accessed this cellular tower during the time period of the crline. That information is necessary to identifY possible witnesses and or suspects. Q.) the R.) It is also recommended that you include within the affidavit the authority which allows a search warrant to be served by facsimile (fax) for the production of records maintained outside of California. S.) Your affiant is aware that cellular service provider is located within the State of-=-:----:-. Pursuant to Penal Code section 1524.2 and Corporations Code section 2105 a California search warrant may be served upon them and they have requested that this warrant be 5 served by facsimile to the attention _ _ _ _ _ at (xxx) xxx-xxxx. Note: Some judges question their authority to authorize out-aI-state service of the warrant. Please refer them to CO/po ration Code section 2105(5)(B). The term "properly served" includes delivery to a person or entity listed in Corporation Code section 2110. Corporation Code section 2110 allows service on any "natural person designated by it as agent for service ofprocess." The above paragraph is the corporation designating an . agent for the service ofprocess. A word of caution. If you use the cellular subscriber records to attempt to detennine the specific physical location ofan individual's position there are a couple ofquestions that must be answered. First question is call overloading. When the maximum call processing capacity of a specified cell tower is reached it may be designed to hand off calls to other cell towers. Thus, a tower that the records reflect handled a call may have off-loaded the call to another cellular tower. The cellular provider will be able to check the cellular traffic on a specified cellular tower to detennine whether or not any calls were off loaded. Second question is whether the records reflecting the placement of a specified cellular tower's directional antenna is accurate. Occasionally the cellular provider may make adjustments to the cellular towers directional antenna that is not reflected in the records. Since the physical location of an individual's position will be based upon this directional antenna, its placement should be confinned prior to trial. 6 Getting Information From The Cellular Device The cellular device (the cell phone) is simply a container of information. The same rules for computer search warrants apply to cellular devices. For the purposes of this paper we are assuming that the affiant officer has previously legally obtained the cellular device and has already propounded appropriate language/facts within the warrant denoting that any desired digital evidence is either: - An instrumentality 0 f the crime investigated; or - A storage container for illegal "contraband" such as child pornography; or - A storage container for evidence relating to the crime such as "records," "address books," "call logs," "photos," other items that could be recovered from the cellular device. FUlihennore, for purposes of this paper, we are assuming that the cellular device will be examined by a forensic examiner. This means that the cellular device or other container containing digital media will be removed from its current location (evidence locker) for search. The following is presented within the search warrant. YOU ARE THEREFORE COMMANDED TO SEARCH: One (describe cellular device), Model #_ _ _, on the:c=~_network with access number , serial number , and FCC ID# (the "Cell Phone"). Note: The above language assumes that you are in possession of the cellular device. When you have the device it only needs to be described with sufficient particularity that anyone would recognize it.. Located at (list current location of the device) Note: This may be your agency FOR THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY: A.) Describe the records that you have probable cause to believe will be recovered from the cellular phone. Note: Description of records must be "reasonable particular." (Pen. Code, ?? 1525, 1529.) As opposed to tlying to describe the record by its type, describe the item as it pertains to a specified person or between specified dates. For example, any and all records showing communication between suspect John Doe and any other party relating to the sale of methamphetamine occurring betllleen July I, 2008 and December 30, 2009. 7 ( B.) The tenns "records," "information," and "property" includes all ofthe foregoing items of evidence in whatever fonn and by whatever means that may have been created or stored, including records, whether stored on paper, on magnetic media such as tape, cassette, disk, diskette or on memory storage devices such as optical disks, progratmnable instruments such as telephones, electronic address books, calculators, or any other storage media, or any other fonn of "writing" as defmed by Evidence Code section 250, together with indicia ofuse, ownership, possession, or control of such "records," "information," and "property". Note: This language expands the definition ofproperty andfollows the description of specific records to be searched for and seized. Currently, the courts have been inclined to treat computers and other electronic storage devices as ordinmy containers. Thus, warrants describing specified information are generally held to permit searches of containers capable of storing that information. (See New York v. Loorie (1995) 630 N y.s. 2d 483 (finding police did not exceed scope of warrant by searching contents of computer's internal drive and external disks when warrant only authorized taking possession ofproperty).) However, since this issue has not been directly addressed by any California court, an affiant officer should still include the above language. C.) Investigating officers are authorized, at their discretion, to seize all "computer systems," "computer program or software," and "supporting documentation" as defined by Penal Code section 502, subdivision (b), including any supporting hardware, software, or documentation that is necessary to the use the system or is necessary to recover digital evidence from the system and any associated peripherals that are believed to contain some or all ofthe evidence described in the warrant, and to conduct an offsite search of the seized items for the evidence described. Investigating officers and those agents acting under the direction of the investigating officers are authorized to access all computer data to detennine if the data contains "records," "information," and "property" as described above. Ifnecessary, investigating officers are authorized to employ the use of outside experts, acting under the direction of the investigating officers, to access and preserve computer data. The investigating officer has (insert current forensic turnaround time + 10 days) days from the date of seizure to detennine if the seized computer systems and associated peripherals contain some or all of the evidence described in the warrant. [or you may want to consider thefollowing: Any digital evidence found during the execution of this search warrant will be seized, transported from the scene, and analyzed in a reasonably prudent time} Ifno evidence of criminal activity is discovered relating to the seized computer systems and associated peripherals, the system will be returned promptly. Note: When corifronted with a computer or cellular device at a search scene, searching officers have one of two choices; either search the computer at the scene or justify its removal in the search warrant for a subsequent search ojJ scene. The above language in conjunction ,vith the below language (E-M) is suggested to justify removing computersor cellular devices for a subsequent search ojJscene. (See United States v. KUU'ovich (1997) 8 ;' I 997 F. Supp. 246 [upholding warrant language authorizing removal of computer for latter search); United Sates v. Gawrvsiak (1997) 972 F.Supp. 853.) Note that the last three sentences state that the forensic examination will be completed within a specified time period. This is in response to federal magistrate specifying short turn around times offorensic examinations. (See Us. v. Brunnette (D. Me. 1999) 76 F.Supp.2d 30. [suppression grated with investigator failed to comply with court ordered forensic completion date). The time period specified will reflect the currentforensic completion cycle at the issuing agency plus 10 days. D.) "It is hereby ordered that Apple Inc. assist law enforcement agents in the search of one Apple iPhone Telephone, Model # , on the network with access number _ _ _ _" serial number , and FCC ID# (the "Cell Phone"). It is hereby further ordered that Apple shall assist law enforcement agents in searching the cell phone, assistance that shall include, but is not limited to, bypassing the Cell Phone user's passcode so that the agents may search the Cell Phone." or "It is hereby ordered that Google Inc. provide the usemame for the cellular device identified as T -Mobile HTC/G-I Android platfonn cell phone, Model # , on the - - - c - - network with access number , serial number , and FCC ID# (the "cellular device") by providing the associated user name and by resetting the cellular devices password. It is hereby further ordered that Goo gle shall reset the pass code for this cellular device and provide the pass code to law enforcement. Note: Some corporations will voluntarily provide officers with technical assistance in gaining access to the devices. Although the language in "Section e" above allows" the use of outside experts" some cOlporations may require greater specificity. The affidavit still is required to support the above listed requests. The following is sample language justifYing the need for the removal ofthe item for subsequent examination and search by the forensic examiner: Pursuant to SW # , which is attached and incorporated by reference (Attachment A), your affiant has been tasked to do a forensic examination ofa T-Mobile HTC/G-I Android platfonn cell phone. The device is identified as T-Mobile HTC/G-I Android platfom1 cell phone, Model # on the network with access number , serial number _____, and FCC ID# (the "cellular device"). 9 Upon examination the cellular device is locked and requires a Google/Gmail user name and password to unlock the device. At this time we do not have the technology to bypass this lock. We have been unable to download the contents of the phone onto a CellBrite, a cellular forensic tool, because the cellular device is not USB-Debugging enabled. Your affiant has have spoken to T -Mobile and Google. I am told the only way to unlock the phone is to have the Gmail user name and password, which was required when the device was setup. We obtained the user name from Google via a exigent request, but was informed that they do not have access to particular email account passwords, as they are encrypted. Google can reset the password thus allowing access. Therefore to be able to search this cellular device we are requesting the Gmail user name associated with the cellular device and that Google resets the password and further provides the reset pass word to law enforcement. E.) Affiant interviewed (insert law enforcement expert's name) employed as a (agent / computer examiner) in the Sacramento Valley High Technology Crimes Task Force (SVHTC) Based upon infonnation related to me on, I know that digital evidence can be stored on a variety of systems and storage devices including, but not limited to, Electronic data processing and storage devices, computers and computer systems including central processing units: internal and peripheral storage devices such as fixed disks, external hard disks, floppy disk drives and diskettes, tape drive and tapes, optical storage devices or other memory storage devices: peripheral input/output devices such as keyboards, printers, video display monitors, optical readers, and related communications devices such as cellular devices and PDAs. (insert law enforcement expert's name) infonned affiant that in connection with his employment, he uses computer systems as well as conducting computer-related investigations. In the past two years, (insert law enforcement expert's name) has supervised or participated in (insert number) executions of search warrants for digital stored records and evidence. (insert law enforcement expert's name) informed affiant that conducting a search of a cellular device or computer storage system, documenting the search, and making evidentiary and discovery copies is a lengthy process. It is necessary to detennine that no security devices are in place, which could cause the destruction of evidence during the search; in some cases it is impossible even to conduct the search without expert technical assistance. Since digital evidence is extremely vulnerable to tampering or to destruction through error, electrical outages, and other causes, removal of the system from the premises will assist in retrieving the records authorized to be seized, while avoiding accidental destruction or deliberate alteration of the records. It would be extremely difficult to secure the system on the premises during the entire period of the search. (insert law enforcement expert's name) also stated that whether records are stored on cellular device or computer storage system, even when they purportedly have been erased or deleted, they may still be retrievable. (insert law enforcement expert"s name) is 10 F.) G.) familiar with the methods of restoring "lost" data commonly employed by computer users, and has used those methods himsel?(insert law enforcement expert"s name) has also obtained the assistance of a computer expert in several cases, in order to obtain the contents of computer-stored evidence where normal methods were unsuccessful. He stated that should such data retrieval be necessary, it is time-consuming, and would add to the difficulty of securing the system on the premises during the search. H.) (insert law enforcement expert's name) stated that the accompanying software and docking / charging equipment must also be seized, since it would be impossible without examination to determine that it is standard, commercially available software. It is also may be necessary to have the software used to create data files and records in order to read the files and records. It is also necessary to the ability to charge the device. (insert law enforcement expert's name) informed affiant that the system documentation, instruction manuals, and software manuals are also necessary to properly operate that specific system in order to accurately obtain and copy the records authorized to be seized. (insert law enforcement expert's name) informed affiant that the systems pass words or keys must also be seized, since it may be impossible to access the system if it is pass word protected or other encryption devices are in place. (insert law enforcement expert's name) infonned affiant that users often record pass words or keys on material found near the computer system. These pass words or keys could be names or a combination of characters or symbols. (insert law enforcement expert's name) informed affiant that conducting a search of a computer system, documenting the search, and making evidentiary and discovery copies for a standard computer can take over 3 business days. Complex systems or recover tasks can require an excess of 45 business days to complete. Due to the back load of computers waiting to be examined and the limited number of trained examiners (insert law enforcement expert's name) informed affiant that the Sacramento Valley High Tech Crime Task Force is currently conducting searches of computer system within (insert current forensic tumaround time) days of receipt. (insert law enforcement expert's name) informed affiant that the Sacramento Valley High Tech Crime Task Force would process any computer system seized pursuant to this warrant within (insert current forensic tumaround time + 10 days) days ofreceipt. It is respectfully requested that I be allowed to seize all original digital evidence, in whatever form it currently resides, and transport this original digital evidence to a secure Evidence Storage Facility for a proper forensic examination. 1.) J.) K.) L.) M.) Your affiant has spoken with (insert technician's name here) and he/she has agreed to provide assistance in bypassing the pass code (encryption) and any other assistance as required to conduct a search ofthis device. Note: This is only required when a cO/porations voluntarily provide officers 'vVith 11 technical assistance in gaining access to the devices and desires greater specifity then the normal order. (See Section D.) Discovering Evidence Not Listed In Warrant During Search of a Computer or Cellular Device If records which are not authorized to be seized, or which relate to crimes not under investigation, are discovered in the course of analysis, the searching officer must obtain supplemental warrant to expand the scope of the original search warrant. (See Us. v. Grey (1999) 78 F. Supp.2d 524) While there is a argument that such records were lawfully discovered in "plain view," in light of current case law it is prudent that when the records are fIrst discovered that the search warrant be expanded to encompass them. 12 Search Warrant Language For Cellular Phones! (8/10) Cellular phones have become the virtual biographer of our daily activities. It tracks who we talk to and where we are. It wi11log calls, take pictures, and keep our contact list close at hand. In short it has become an indispensable piece of evidence in a criminal investigation. Want to know where your suspect was last Saturday? The cellular service provider can provide you the location infonnation of the cellular phone as it relates to the provider's network. What about the last person your victim called? Both the cellular phone and the cellular provider will keep a record of this. How about fmding gang member photos associated with their gang moniker? It will be located within their cellular phones. Information relating to a cellular phone will be found in two places. In the records possessed by the cellular service provider and in the cellular device itself. Getting Information From The Cellular Provider The following is offered to provide guidance on drafting a seal'ch wan-ant for the production of records maintained by the cellular provider. The fust step in obtaining records from a cellular service provider is to identifY the provider. A cellular phone carrier can be queried directly to ascertain if they provide service to a known number. Infonnation on legal contacts for cellular service providers may be found at http://www.search.org/programs/hightechlisp/ The NOIth American Numbering Plan Administration also tracks the numbers that have been assigned to service providers. (http://www.nationalnanpa.com) Since a cellular phone number may now be ported (transfen-ed) by a consumer to another cellular service provider, law enforcement should make a number porting check. Law enforcement may sign up for the service at (http://www.nationalpooling.comlforms/law/index.htm) The second step in obtaining records from a cellular service provider is a preservation request to "freeze" stored records and communications pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ? 2703(f). Many cellular service providers maintain records for only a short period of time. This request can be used as a directive to third-party providers to preserve records and not disclose the investigation to the suspect. This is an important tool to use to prevent third-party providers from writing over or deleting data you need while you obtain a wan-ant. Currently there are no laws which govern how long a third-party provider must retain log or other information. Sample preservation orders . _. (Appendix C) or can be found at : I It is also recolml1ended that you contact the cellular service provider to ascertain the type and nature of records kept and any special terms or defmitions that the carrier uses to describe those records. Any request for records should be limited to only the records that are needed. Do not request all of the categories of records listed unless it is truly needed for your case. Cellular phone records can be described in the warrant as follows: A.) Subscriber infonnation Note: This should give you the name, address, phone numbers, and other personal identifying information relating to the subscriber. B.) Account COlmnents Note: Anytime the provider has contact with the customer or modifies the customer's account a notation will be made by a service representative on the account. C.) Credit information Note: Most providers run a credit report on customer prior to activating the account D.) Billing records Note: Do not askfor toll information; that is a landline term for long distance. Specify period desired. E.) Outbound and inbound call detail Note: This is the real time, current activity that is not yet on the customer's bill. "Inbound" is usually available for only a limited time (45 days) which gives other cellular phones calling the target number. F.) Call origination I termination location Note: Availablefor a limited time (45 days) and gives location information on cell sites used, length of call, date, time, numbers dialed. With a GPS enabled phone it gives location ofphone. G.) Physical address of cell sites and RF coverage map Note: Needed to determine where cell site is located when you receive inbound & outbound or call origination & termination location. The RF coverage map models the theoretical radio ji-equency coverage of the towers in the system. You will want to limit this request to a specified geographical area. 2 H.) Any other cellular telephone numbers that dial the same numbers as (xxx) xxx-xxxx Note: if you want to know who calls the same number the target calls (for example a pager or landline number). Availablefor only a limited time (45 days). 1.) Subscriber information on any cellular numbers that (xxx) xxx-xxxx dials Note: Subscriber information on the carrier's network that is dialing the target. J.) All of the above records whether possessed by cellular service provider [target of walTantj or any other cellular service provider Note: ifyou anticipate the suspect may be roaming or if the number is roaming in the providers market, you may be able to obtain informationfi'om other cellular carriers if you include this language in your description of records. K.) All stored communications or files, including voice mail, email, digital images, buddy lists, and any other files associated with user accounts identified as: account(s) xxxxxx, mobile numbers (xxx) xxx-xxxx, or e-mail account Note: Cellular service providers now offer similar services to an internet service provider (ISP)and maintain the same type of records such as text messaging, e-mail, and file storage for the transfer of data including digital pictures. Limit your request to what you need. L.) All connection logs and records of user activity for each such account including: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Connection dates and times. Disconnect dates and times. Method ofcomlection (e.g., telnet, ftp,http) Data transfer volume. User name associated with the connections. Telephone caller identification records. Any other connection infolTllation, such as the Intemet Protocol address of the source of the connection. 8. COlmection information for the other computer to which the user of the above-referenced accounts connected, by any means, during the connection period, including the destination IP address, connection time and date, disconnect time and date, method of connection to the destination computer, and all other information related to the connection from cellular service provider. Note: The above is a standard request made to ISP to track connection information. Remember with the type of cellular service offered today the user can send a message fi'om the phone or fi'om the associated account via a computer or other access device. 3 ( M.) Any other records or accounts, including archived records related or associated to the above referenced names, user names, or accounts and any data field name defmitions that describe these records. Note: This is the catch all to use when you want everything. This request also includes "archived" information. Many companies now "archive" records thus allovving for the preservation of subscriber records for a significant time. Archived records are usually stored in a spread sheet format encompassing a variety of data fields. You must request the data field name definitions in order to understand the spreadsheet. N.) PUK for 81M card # _ _ __ Note: Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) is a smart card inside of a GSM cellular phone that encrypts voice and data transmissions and stores data about the specific user so that the user can be identified and authenticated to the network supplying the service. The SIM also stores data such as personal phone settings specific to the user and phone numbers. SIM cards can be password protected by the user. Even with this protection SIM cards may still be unlocked with a personal unlock key (PUK) that is available ji-om the service provider. Note that after ten wrong PUK codes, the SIM card locks forever. 0.) All connection logs and records of user activity for the cellular tower identified as (describe cell towers location and identification #) for the time period between (list time period). Note: Often referred to as a "tower dump, " this request allows you to review all users that connect to a specific tower during a specified time ji-ame. This search warrant of last resort is used to see if the tower data can provide possible suspects that were in the area when a crime occurred. Dataji-om a tower may consist of a list of telephone numbers, call start times and end times. Cellular service providers maintain the physical address of their cell sites. (See "G. ") Multiple carriers may share a tower. In that each carrier maintains its own records, a search warrant would have to be served on each carrier that uses the identified tower. You will want to request that these records be produced to you in an electronic format such as excel or txt. A search warrant for the production of records held by a cellular service provider should always include an order for non-disclosure. The cellular service provider will notifY the customer of the search wan-ant unless there is a non-disclosure order. This order will delay notification for 90 days and can be extended for an additional 90 days. (See Califomia Public Utilities Commission decision No. 93361 (7/2111981).) A non-disclosure order may be phrased as follows: ORDER FOR NON-DISCLOSURE OF SEARCH WARRANT 4 It is further ordered that cellular service provider not to notify any person (including the subscriber or customer to which the materials relate) of the existence of this order for 90 days in that such a disclosure could give the subscriber an opportunity to destroy evidence, notify confederates, or flee or continue his flight from prosecution Now that we have listed what records we are seeking, probable cause must be shown in the affidavit for each of the listed items. The following is sample language justifying the need for the production of specified records that can be used as a starting point for drafting the search wanant affidavit: P.) Through experience and training, your affiant knows cellular service providers maintain records related to subscriber information, account registration, credit information, billing and airtime records, outbound and inbound call detail, cOl1l1ection time and dates, Internet routing information (Internet Protocol numbers), and message content, that may assist in the identification ofpersonls accessing and utilizing the account. Through experience and training, your affiant knows that the cellular service provider maintains records that include cell site information and GPS location. Cell site infonnation shows which cell site a particular cellular telephone was within at the time of the cellular phone'S usage. Some model cellular phone are GPS enabled which allows provider and user to detennine the exact geographic position of the phone. Further, the cellular service provider maintains cell site maps that show the geographical location of all cell sites within its service area. Using the cell site geographical infonnation or GPS infonnation, officers would be able to determine the physical location of the individual using the cell phone number (xxx) xxx-xxxx, which according to conoborating sources listed above was/is in use by the suspect. That infonnation is necessary to the investigating officers in order to _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Cellular tower (describe location and tower #) is located approximately from the location where John Does body was discovered, Through experience and training, your affiant knows that cell towers maintained by cellular service providers contain records that include col1l1ection logs and records of user activity that have accessed the cell tower. These records may include telephone numbers, call statt times and end times. Accessing this information would enable officers to identify individuals who cellular device accessed this cellular tower during the time period of the crime. That information is necessary to identify possible witnesses and or suspects. Q.) the R.) It is also recommended that you include within the affidavit the authority which allows a search wanallt to be served by facsimile (fax) for the production of records maintained outside of California. S.) Your affiant is aware that cellular service provider is located within the State of--:-:-::---:Pursuant to Penal Code section 1524.2 and Corporations Code section 2105 a California 5 search warrant may be served upon them and they have requested that this warraut be at (xxx) xxx-xxxx. served by facsimile to the attention of Note: Some judges question their authority to authorize out-of-state service of the warrant. Please refer them to COlporation Code section 2105(5)(B). The term "properly served" includes delivery to a person or entity listed in COlporation Code section 2110. Corporation Code section 2110 allows service on any "natural person designated by it as agent for service ofprocess." The above paragraph is the corporation designating an agent for the service ofprocess. A word of caution. If you use the cellular subscriber records to attempt to determine the specific physical location of an individual's position there are a couple of questions that must be answered. First question is call overloading. When the maximum call processing capacity 0 f a specified cell tower is reached it may be designed to haud off calls to other cell towers. Thus, a tower that the records reflect handled a call may have off-loaded the call to auother cellular tower. The cellular provider will be able to check the cellular traffic on a specified cellular tower to determine whether or not auy calls were off loaded. Second question is whether the records reflecting the placement of a specified cellular tower's directional antenna is accurate. Occasionally the cellular provider may make adjustments to the cellular towers directional antenna that is not reflected in the records. Since the physical location ofau individual's position will be based upon this directional antenna, its placement should be confirmed prior to trial. 6 Getting Information From The Cellular Device The cellular device (the cell phone) is simply a container of information. The same rules for computer search warrants apply to cellular devices. For the purposes of this paper we are assuming that the affiant officer has previously legally obtained the cellular device and has already propounded appropriate language/facts within the warrant denoting that any desired digital evidence is either: - An instrumentality ofthe crime investigated; or - A storage container for illegal "contraband" such as child pornography; or - A storage container for evidence relating to the crime such as "records," "address books," "call logs," "photos," other items that could be recovered from the cellular device. Furthermore, for purposes of this paper, we are assuming that the cellular device will be examined by a forensic examiner. This means that the cellular device or other container containing digital media will be removed from its current location (evidence locker) for search. The following is presented within the search warrant. YOU ARE THEREFORE COMMANDED TO SEARCH: One (describe cellular device), Model #_ _ _., on the _ _ _ network with access number , serial number , and FCC ID# (the "Cell Phone"). Note: The above language assumes that you are in possession of the cellular device. When you have the device it only needs to be described with sufficient particularity that anyone would recognize it.. Located at (list current location of the device) Note: This may be your agency FOR THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY: A.) Describe the records that you have probable cause to believe will be recovered from the cellular phone. Note: Description of records must be "reasonable particular." (Pen. Code, ?? 1525, 1529.) As opposed to tlying to describe the record by its type, describe the item as it pertains to a specified person or between specified dates. For example, any and all records showing communication between suspect John Doe and any other party relating to the sale of methamphetamine occurring between July 1, 2008 and December 30,2009. 7 B.) The tenus "records," "information," and "property" includes all of the foregoing items of evidence in whatever fonn and by whatever means that may have been created or stored, including records, whether stored on paper, on magnetic media such as tape, cassette, disk, diskette or on memory storage devices such as optical disks, programmable instruments such as telephones, electronic address books, calculators, or any other storage media, or any other form of"writing" as defmed by Evidence Code section 250, together with indicia of use, ownership, possession, or control of such "records," "information," and "property". Note: This language expands the definition ofproperty and follows the description of specific records to be searched for and seized. Currently, the courts have been inclined to treat computers and other electronic storage devices as ordinmy containers. Thus, warrants describing specified information are generally held to permit searches of containers capable of storing that iriformation. (See New York v. LOOl-ie (1995) 630 N YS 2d 483 (finding police did not exceed scope of warrant by searching contents of computer's internal drive and external disks when warrant only authorized taking possession ofproperty).) However, since this issue has not been directly addressed by any California court, an affiant officer should still include the above language. C.) Investigating officers are authorized, at their discretion, to seize all "computer systems," "computer program or software," and "supporting documentation" as defmed by Penal Code section 502, subdivision (b), including any supporting hardware, software, or documentation that is necessary to the use the system or is necessary to recover digital evidence from the system and any associated peripherals that are believed to contain some or all of the evidence described in the warrant, and to conduct an offsite search of the seized items for the evidence described. Investigating officers and those agents acting under the direction of the investigating officers are authorized to access all computer data to detennine if the data contains "records," "information," and "property" as described above. If necessary, investigating officers are authorized to employ the use of outside experts, acting under the direction of the investigating officers, to access and preserve computer data. The investigating officer has (insert current forensic turnaround time + 10 days) days from the date of sei=e to detennine if the seized computer systems and associated peripherals contain some or all ofthe evidence described in the warrant. [or you may want to consider the following: Any digital evidence found during the execution of this search warrant will be seized, transported ji-om the scene, and analyzed in a reasonably prudent time} Ifno evidence of criminal activity is discovered relating to the seized computer systelus and associated peripherals, the system will be returned promptly. Note: When conji-onted with a computer or cellular device at a search scene, searching officers have one of two choices; either search the computer at the scene or justifY its removal in the search warrant for a subsequent search off scene. The above language in coryunction with the below language (E-M) is suggested to justify removing com]Jutersor cellular devices for a subsequent search off scene. (See United States v. Kufj-ovich (1997) 8 ( 997 F. Supp. 246 [upholding warrant language authorizing removal of computer for latter search); United Sates v. Gawrysiak (1997) 972 F.Supp. 853.) Note that the last three sentences state that the forensic examination will be completed within a specified time period. This is in response to federal magistrate specifying short turn around times offorensic examinations. (See Us. v. Brunnette (D. Me. 1999) 76 F.Supp.2d 30. [suppression grated with investigator failed to comply with court ordered forensic completion date]. The time period specified will reflect the current forensic completion cycle at the issuing agency plus 10 days. D.) "It is hereby ordered that Apple Inc. assist law enforcement agents in the search of one Apple iPhone Telephone, Model # , on the network with access number _ _ _ _, serial number , and FCC lD# (the "Cell Phone"). It is hereby fUlther ordered that Apple shall assist law enforcement agents in searching the cell phone, assistance that shall include, but is not limited to, bypassing the Cell Phone user's pass code so that the agents may search the Cell Phone." or "It is hereby ordered that Google Inc. provide the usemame for the cellular device identified as T-Mobile HTCIG-l Android platfonn cell phone, Model # , on the =--::-_ network with access number , serial number , and FCC lD# (the "cellular device") by providing the associated user name and by resetting the cellular devices password. It is hereby further ordered that Goo gle shall reset the pass code for this cellular device and provide the pass code to law enforcement. Note: Some corporations will voluntarily provide officers with technical assistance in gaining access to the devices. Although the language in "Section C" above allows" the use of outside experts" some co/porations may require greater specificity. The affidavit still is required to support the above listed requests. The following is sample language justifying the need for the removal of the item for subsequent examination and search by the forensic examiner: , which is attached and incorporated by reference Pursuant to SW # (Attaclnnent A), your affiant has been tasked to do a forensic examination of a T -Mobile HTCIG-l Android platfonn cell phone. The device is identified as T-Mobile HTCIG-l Android platfonn cell phone, Model # on the network with access number , serial number _ _ _ _ _., and FCC lD# (the "cellular device"). 9 Upon examination the cellular device is locked and requires a Google/Gmail user name and password to unlock the device. At this time we do not have the teclmology to bypass this lock. We have been unable to download the contents of the phone onto a CellBrite, a cellular forensic tool, because the cellular device is not USB-Debugging enabled. Your affiant has have spoken to T -Mobile and Google. I am told the only way to unlock the phone is to have the Gmail user name and password, which was required when the device was setup. We obtained'the user name from Google via a exigent request, but was informed that they do not have access to particular email account passwords, as they are encrypted. Google can reset the password thus allowing access, Therefore to be able to search this cellular device we are requesting the Gmail user name associated with the cellular device and that Google resets the password and further provides the reset pass word to law enforcement. E.) Affiant interviewed (insert law enforcement expert's name) employed as a (agent / computer examiner) in the Sacramento Yalley High Technology Crimes Task Force (SYHTC) Based upon information related to me 011, I know that digital evidence can be stored on a variety of systems and storage devices including, but not limited to, Electronic data processing and storage devices, computers and computer systems including central processing units: internal and peripheral storage devices such as fixed disks, external hard disks, floppy disk drives and diskettes, tape drive and tapes, optical storage devices or other memory storage devices: peripheral input/output devices such as keyboards, printers, video display monitors, optical readers, and related communications devices such as cellular devices and PDAs. (insert law enforcement expert's name) informed affiant that in connection with his employment, he uses computer systems as well as conducting computer-related investigations, In the past two years, (insert law enforcement expert's name) has supervised or participated in (insert number) executions of search warrants for digital stored records and evidence. (insert law enforcement expert's name) informed affiant that conducting a search of a cellular device or computer storage system, documenting the search, and making evidentiary and discovery copies is a lengthy process. It is necessary to detennine that no security devices are in place, which could cause the destruction of evidence during the search; in some cases it is impossible even to conduct the search without expert technical assistance. Since digital evidence is extremely vulnerable to tampering or to destruction through error, electrical outages, and other causes, removal of the system from the premises will assist in retrieving the records authorized to be seized, while avoiding accidental destruction or deliberate alteration of the records. It would be extremely difficult to secure the system on the premises during the entire period of the search. (insert law enforcement expert's name) also stated that whether records are stored on cellular device or computer storage system, even when they purportedly have been erased or deleted, they may still be retrievable. (insert law enforcement expert"s name) is F,) G.) 10 familiar with the methods of restoring "lost" data commonly employed by computer users, and has used those methods himself.(inseli law enforcement expert"s name) has also obtained the assistance of a computer expert in several cases, in order to obtain the contents of computer-stored evidence where normal methods were unsuccessful. He stated that should such data retrieval be necessary, it is time-consuming, and would add to the difficulty 0 f securing the system on the premises during the search. H.) (insert law enforcement expert's name) stated that the accompanying software and docking / charging equipment must also be seized, since it would be impossible without examination to determine that it is standard, colmnercially available software. It is also may be necessary to have the software used to create data files and records in order to read the files and records. It is also necessary to the ability to charge the device. (insert law enforcement expert's name) infonned affiant that the system documentation, instruction manuals, and so ftware manuals are also necessary to properly operate that specific system in order to accurately obtain and copy the records authorized to be seized. (insert law enforcement expert's name) informed affiant that the systems pass words or keys must also be seized, since it may be impossible to access the system if it is pass word protected or other encryption devices are in place. (insert law enforcement expert's name) infonned affiant that users often record pass words or keys on material found near the computer system. These pass words or keys could be names or a combination of characters or symbols. (insert law enforcement expert's name) informed affiant that conducting a search ofa computer system, documenting the search, and making evidentiary and discovery copies for a standard computer can take over 3 business days. Complex systems or recover tasks can require an excess of 45 business days to complete. Due to the back load of computers waiting to be examined and the limited number of trained examiners (inseli law enforcement expert's name) informed affiant that the Sacramento Valley High Tech Crime Task Force is currently conducting searches of computer system within (insert current forensic turnaround time) days of receipt. (insert law enforcement expert's name) informed affiant that the Sacramento Valley High Tech Crime Task Force would process any computer system seized pursuant to this warrant within (insert CUlTent forensic turnaround time + 10 days) days of receipt. It is respectfully requested that I be allowed to seize all original digital evidence, in whatever form it currently resides, and transport this original digital evidence to a secure Evidence Storage Facility for a proper forensic examination. Your affiant has spoken with (insert technician's name here) and he/she has agreed to provide assistance in bypassing the pass code (encryption) and any other assistance as required to conduct a search ofthis device. Note: This is only required when a corporations voluntarily provide officers with 11 1.) J.) K.) L.) M.) technical assistance in gaining access to the devices and desires greater specifity then the normal order. (See Section D.) Discovering Evidence Not Listed In Warrant During Search of a Computer or Cellular Device If records which are not authorized to be seized, or which relate to crimes not under investigation, are discovered in the course of analysis, the searching officer must obtain supplemental warrant to expand the scope of the original search warrant. (See U.S. v. Grey (1999) 78 F.Supp.2d 524) While there is a argument that such records were lawfully discovered in "plain view," in light of current case law it is prudent that when the records are first discovered that the search warrant be expanded to encompass them 12 .Sift: if Q5 'vsf-#eil iq'sE~53?' sk ,sm-4* fl Ik; 1; 59' Mg?" 'rx 51 1 tx vu _Lf- 0, . _.-11, _-wil|191 _'jc I-r" ywai ff. 31 'if%f 2e1-11f\f" v1 .1 '1 QQ: 1 QHJ ?153 5525 wifi-Qxiwl if 1. "h -4 -n/nn Ac-c, -gi Q- _"Nd as 1 1 3 ff; f*-h *fn f, 5* w.-'c'-mf.-f Oulu_siay -r\r nl( 'f 'f - L. 51? J-~ao. a I A ?3 x}1--'swf ui- 15 3* I pk we gg-Q sg; 5> if "1 _gyfr wgfihfJE- 321(ku xqhfn1*-1 1 _e Jw-*lu .vfv (R) UIPMEN gli- 4.1 .J *rf* -'-saw 'fl 13gq_nn. Q-nu r. .- .: AA cl!" 1 *ffm 'Jump 1.Mpral g, Qin l" fu as "ykwr, wi), lr'-'-bib -wr:ffm -awgf 2* sm 'r .- r. -'vw ff.r?_ 5; 5 ,569 5 I "Gif - Mn-1. ., if 'ti if'fa -'gr-fat, 1* ,xr sv_,eppwwa'vergh'-ik-0 'wx In -ff 3; rf lpff* l\ _#iff .jufu .fi'/R _'I-1-9135 vnu13' gf, ff- "fa 'uh -:Qu nb; 'gi A "ni, 5; -SJ) 'vlan -V 'xr d' ?qgg' affexQr, fy: Jsf951' r* c* 5, Ewa-*fx f.\-If 5 2~ ie -. 9 :ga tgAi-:ggi `a xx?) 1- Hp 1 1 ~1 Lear nf" .- .I Q3 ga'il F-T w?mwr< dl 1 3? 5; :faq ZQY 1, 'uf rf' 154 if* 33'-v 4' a. .4 1'f"S> -'s xi -vlqw _'-.mea :gi 136_:fx .2 HQ 'r 1 _,/'if 6 agp- rl- "vu :sen 1'5" fg? api.wx-'"gi" 1 -gf QF wan) vm 342? 'ng ig" in _f *rm vxifswi X-wah e- I gig ,x gx? 555235kgs.vw ls, -if_-gl a Rh 1 'fd _.-.fs if- -1 Jbf.-* --25? - -- _-11353 -3- vi, by-'J _-riff-\ g: _-rf 4' "Yi 2 - is-gi-'_ . 1; fl If 'i 'fy rf-$_-pt - - - - . -ff_.Q-5-1_5 ?wii 3 asfgf:inf Lan-*Cr I 9;-'ff-.1559 -5-la f-R; I 1. 2.5 51' jivi 'jf>? im-_g cw: ,xqq .41 . -- Ty-ff.3--if-5-ii" a" wrt: -- - -4, 2:34-1 1-59:"fh - - --T- _a - - . .-"im -ggfg' 3?;g9g - ~f if# -ff14-_ - -2 If _gal _Ez ..-- -11'l1=f5=Jf_T_ ef277. - - 3: 5 14? 1,1952 rg?-f= ii? .- - 'fl \f5fT5f_ - i `2-513 "5 I5 - ff' - . :jf 115; iai?iff fg?F= 'wr 333' _'--5 _-.vii 'r vig,i5:.E-fi ff- 12" .- 2f~>7` -- 1?-g 1'-ri-1-351; 5-nfs' - -_Cp -_-Qui -45; sf-1' (12% . - - I Zz". "na I _Q\'-funk iw fy? ft 15 ii* ?'1f:i5Lf" 1. 4115- =-fr-f 2' .fr -af. 1--1:1 f. 141: Z- 5-5; - -.1 -_Ir 2-1 - - _'ai -fi' - 1: -'_barzl - .- - 1* 5 1? -eww -- _v - - .5 - -2_9 .RL jj -1 _1 1 5; .Jah . .mf ,gy a rrit" ii:-:QE-1 Ehfff-"4 . FilFir' ilk; if I if 5 .-2 4-if .5 if 2. -- - agiil aff" 1- 2 5 ff=' 3" - -- 5I?'_''gwp - 5.-1-F. - _mfii -fb55_-*rlp. wp. -fu, -7 - - -'Vi'-,hun y, . - - -is'-ffl* SriI2-E ff-_ --Z1 1. 7% 'f f. 113'-' 15' Vli fi'--fir' V-27151 6- 'ff iff: - 251- 5_ _,vig -_,yy :ro fv - jf_g-1,32wir'fl_,Er. gif-.1--2-3_1 - - - 1:1 172-ff-`-Q5 125'-_ I -5.5711 1-551 - -- - - .f -I - -- I-wr-x-..1-I _-_frix .- "muff - ,-.11-zu - -- - --1: 1 .- .- -. ffgr- --, -.- wp -1- -;fr . 31. - v' _-55 1; [il 5 ?5i2'_.-'uf; f.-.L-1. fi 'ff -Zi" 1--ff-'3132; - -4_1 - fl" -:ef.- gy?ffq fyI-.ip .- 1.1 - Ir'-25gy; 5i?f? _'ni A '?Lf"'-1422 we i sr _*fc 5?:-\f1f_:Lg 31i..3;\ Q1 5_5 3,55 .- 2 -rc_"fha L-_g - af," -4 _f ,7Qfnv' 'fi-.13 1 'fl-"iff: -. 'lf 'fr lil? 1'17 5- #iff ii 5-Q, _iw 2- pq- 155Av_.fr - - 4 -,1Lf-,r'-ff F) ,Qrf Tiff6:22, ai-'-1. -Lu, 5_ _hy if .. if-'H - .f it .-1 --'-igif "Igifi -L- -'fljfi FIIfy$953135;-ee; - 41 - f- 1 nu." --1. #141 . - . -g v-gf; _'_'*Er* ig", - Q. 211: 5.6 - _ra ua; N--ik_jf-5121' r1if-' 5, 5' ge. E- fi? *-Irv 2334" . - kg 4127051 1% 32- fp' - 5% 4107 -- if 1 s" - "ff -Lf ff-a-35 3/26/2010 IS IT REAL OR MEMOREX? I SPY LEGAL ASPECTS OF ADVANCED SURVEILLANCE JEFF FERG'UIOON G PERCEPrrONS MATTER Sr. DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY ORANGE COUNTY, CA. IS IT REAL OR MEMOREX? CA PENAl. CODE 1537'.T G IS IT REAL OR MEMO REX? o BATTERIES FAIl. EQUIPMENT BREAKS OPERATORS SCREW UP o G ANALOG EVIDENCE LOST OR DAMAGED o DIGITAL EVIDENCE /S CORRUPTED (0) DIGITAl EVIDENCE ERASED/MISPLACED o PROBLEMS Wl1Y AUTHENnUT/oN SURVEILLANCE TOOLS m PHOTOGRAPHY&: VlDEOGRAPHY o AUDIO RECORDING (WIRES & BUGS) EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY o TRACK/NtJ DEVICES &: TECHN/QIJES o mERMAl lMAGINO ru AERIAl SURVEILLANCE EI o o o o SNEAK&. PEEK SEARCH WARRANTS CUSTODIAL .MONITORING ELECTRONIC INTERCEPTS (WIRETAP$] COMPUTERS &: THE INTERNET PROTECTING YOUR TOOLS &. TECHNIQUES 1 3/26/2010 ( EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY FOURTH AMENDMENT UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION "'The right of the peoplefo be secure in their persons,. houses, papers, and effeds, against unreasonable searches and seizures, sholl not be violated, and no warrants sholl issue, bvt upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the placed to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized:'" EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY "' DOES THE TARGET HAVE A GENUINE SUBJECTIVE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY? "' HAS THE TARGET EXHIBITED AN ACTUAL EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY? "' IS THIS EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE? SURVEILLANCE TOOLS G G ENHANCING YOUR SENSES o SIGHT BINOCULARS,. TELESCOPES NIGHT VISioN EQlJlPMENT FLAGHUGHTS INFRARED", THERMAl,-, WHAT EUE1 G o o o !II G o o o ENHANCING YOUR SENSES PHOTOGRAPHY& VTDEOGRAPHY AUDIO RECORDING (WTRES &. 6UGSJ TRACKING DEVICES &. TECHNIQUES THEIl1HAL IMAGING, X~RA~ ETC. AERIAL SURVEILLANCE SNEAK&: PEEK SEARCH WARRANTS CUSTODIAL MONITORING ELECTRONIC INTERCEPTS (WIRE~AP$) COMPUTERS & THE INTERNET PROTECTING YOUR TOOLS & TECHNIQUES o HEARINO o SHOTGUN & DISH MICROPHONES o SPIKE MICRoPHONES, lAGER DEVICES I!l SMELL DC'" USNIFFSI'T OF OBJECTS OKAY GENERALLY H$NIFFGI'T OF PEOPLE MAY REQUIRE PC TRACKING OF HUMANS OKAY IF TRAININO MET PHOTOGRAPHY & VIDEO o TARGET IN A PUBLIC AREA ROu/NO SlJRVEIUANCE PHOTOS & VIDEO POLE CAMERAS - CONCEALED cUJlIDES" PUBUC $EClJR/TY SlJllYEILlANCE PRIVATE SECIIRlTY SURVEIUANCE NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY BUT NO DETENTIONS FOR THE PHO TOGRAPHY PHOTOGRAPHY & VIDEO o TARGET IN A PRIVATE AREA BEWARE REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRJVACY UNDERCOVER PHOTOGRAPHY OR VIDEOG OK o OFFICER OR INFORMANT PRESENT ?E???? ?-? ?' ....-.-~~' . ;>~ PEERING THROUGH RESIDENTIAL WINDOWS CONCEALED GTILL OR VIDEO CAMERAl GET A SEARCH WARRANT _AClDIO EXCLClDED BEWARE ""TWO?WAY MIRRORS" o CA PC (1$3(nJ ",1sJ.m",.nH _ J,"/~"m.; PI" ....,.., lodt., "" ..m., III.I.! lin. bDlo., ,....ftU. W"~nf? o PENAL INSTITUTIONS EXEMPT FROM STATurE . -:,,; 't - ~.. . . > oo 2 3/26/2010 ( AUDIO RECORDING I!l AUDIO RECORDING o 63~.6 CA PENAL CODE 1f3tJ - 532.? PC FELONY WOBBLEIl o INVASION OF PRfVACY o EAVESDROPPING ON CONVERSATIONS o 531 PC FELONY WOBBLER - WIRETAPS o CONNECTION PHYSICALLJ; ELECTROCAUJ; ACOl/5TJCLY; BY INDlICTIO~ OR OTHERWISE o CELLULAR TEUPHONES o tIl 63~.tf PC 64~..7' PC FELONYWOB8LER FELONY WOB8LEIl o CORDLE$$ TELEPHONES o 532 PC FELONY WOBBlER ELECTRONICALLY AMPUFIES OR RECORDS PHYSICAL CONVERSATIONS BY TELEPHONE RADIO EXCLIIDED PUBue GATHERINO MAY BE EXCLUDED INTERCEPTS & RECORDS LANDLlNE,,: CEllULAR CORDLESS TELEPHO,!ES AUDIO RECORDING G 633 PC LAW ENFORCEMENT EXCEPrroN o ATTORNEY GENERAL J)ISTRIcT ATTORNEY o CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL o PCUC? CHIEF o GHEIllFF o PERSON ACrlNG AT LAW ENFORCEMENT DIRECT/oN tIl AUDIO RECORDING UNDERCOVER WIRES o WORN BY II/C OR INFORMANTS o GENERAL RilLE = NO SEARCH @ HIDDEN RECORDINO DEVICES .... 1U(;$" o PERM/TiED IN FEDERAL INVEST/GAT/ONg o BANNED FOR CALIFORNIA LAW ENFORCEMENT @ @ s ill DOES NOT APPLY TO WIRETAPS! 634 PC FELONY WOBIILER TRESPASSING FOR INVASION PROHIBITED o SEARCH WARRANT'1 BACK OF THE POLICE e.AII PUBLIC PLACE' TRACKING DEVICES o PUBLIC ROUTES &. AREAS til @ TRACKING DEVICES VEHICLES & !l'RCRAFT INSTALUNG ON EXTERNAl. FRAME INSTALUNG INSIDE VEHICLE HOOKINO liP TO VEHICLE BArr?f{Y WHERE 16 VEHICLE DIIRlNO INSTALLATlON7 LOANING TRACKED VEHICU LOSING TRACKING OEYICE ~ THEn & DESTRUCTION PRIVATE RESIDENCES &: AREAS o SHlJrrJNo OFF SENDING DEYlCE o SHurr/NO OFF RECEIVER o SEARCH WARRANT o EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY 3 3/26/2010 , \ TRACKING DEVICES o PACKAGES o TRACKER o BEEPER ALERT G AERIAL SURVEILLANCE o OVERFLIGHTS OKAY GENERALLY 8 8 G o STOLEN PROPERlY KIfOWN CONTRABAND' "~EGAUYNAV10ABLE AIRSPACE" PHOTOGRAPHY Ie VIDEO OKAY OBSERVATIONS WITH NAKED EYE 8 ENHANCED SENSES PROBABLY OKAY TELESCOPES, BINOCULARS, ARTIFICIAL UGHT NIGHT YlSION PRCBAI1LY OKAY NON~SENSORY ENHANCEMENT REOl/IRES WARRANT HIGH TECHNOLOGY @ SNEAK & PEEK WARRANTS m JUSTIFY REASONS - (JOOD CAUSE ONGOINO INVESTIGATION o LARGER CONSPIRACY o 6AFETY of omeERS OR INFCRMANT6 G G El THERMAL IMAGINe; {FUR} ~. SEARCHl o INADVERTENT THERMAL IMAGINM . 8 SEARCH WARRANT BASED ON PC - ., :?-~bi~ ? ..... ~~_-:i'l... o "'BUSTEIP'RADIOLOGICAL DENSITOMETER 8 " ~,-- , -- GlIIlREPTITIOt/S ENTRY No KNOCK.. NOTICE (NOBODYIS HOMEI) OFTEN AT NIGHT .... GOOD CAUSE SEIZE NOTHING o DELAYED H""CE .& EXTENSIONS G HIGH ENERGY SENSORS o NOTE_PHoTOGRAPH - COPY .. RECORD ANTICIPATORY WARRANTS 8 CONDITIONAL WARRANTS LEGAL 8 DEPEND ON A TRIGGERING EVENT G l'FAIR PROBABILlTYu EVlDENCE WILL BE FOUND AT A PARTICULAR PLACE_ AND 8 PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE TRIGGERINO EVENT WILL ACTUALLY OCCUR G DECLARE CONDITION ON WARRANT'S FACE 8 USE OF TRACKERS _ ALERTING DEVICES G PEN REGISTERS m EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY PEN REGISTERS .. #,5 DIALED OUT G TRAP" TRACE - #'5 FROM CALLERS o NOT WIRETAPS - NO CONTENT G COURT ORDERS ", SEARCH WARUN,., UGC3f!3l- 3f~7 COURTOIlDER OK o HR..I'~IIn1 hi 1111 u1fl1llN1llnvesilglTflon." o hll.,./ Co,"" MlJ$T Jssu. the o 18 0119.'' ' 0""., o CA A TTY GENERAL OPINION D3 ..4D6 8 COURT ORDER ", SEARCH WARRAH17 4 3/26/2010 , , ELECTRONIC INTERCEPTS aka WIRETAPS 8 ELECTRONIC INTERCEPTS aka WIRETAPS m QUALIFYING CRIMES PO$$JN FOR SALEJ SALE J TRANSPORTATION, MANUFACTURE OF HEROIN, COCAINE, METHAMPHETAMINE, PCp, OVER 7tJ GALLONS OR :1 POUNDS. MURDER AND $OUCITATION FOR MURDER BOMBING OF PUBUC OR PRIVATE PROPERTY GANG CRIMES T~6.2~ PC AGGRAVATED KlDNAPPING WEAPONS OF MA5S DESTRUCTION CRIMES INVOLVING CERTAIN BIOLOGICAL AGEN1'6 CONSPIRACY FOR ANY OF THE ABOVE IMPORTATIO~ FEDERAL vs STATE WIRES .. PRACTICALITY m CA PC 5~9.SD cl. seq. m INTERCEPTION OF WIRE, TELEPHONE, ELECTRONIC DIGITAL PAGER, ELECTRONIC C?iLULAR PHONE o o o o ELECTRONIC INTERCEPTS aka WIRETAPS [;) PROSABLE CAUSE CRIMES HAVE BEEN, ARE, OR ABOUT TO 8E ELECTRONIC INTERCEPTS aka WIRETAPS m OPERATORS MUST 8E SPECIALLY TRAINED o PEN REGISTER - TRAP & TRACE o IDENTIFY PHONES & CONFEDERATES COMMITTED WTRE COMMUNICATION UTILIZED TO FACILITATE CONNECT PHONES TO TARGETS m COVERT ENTRY UNLAWFUL o GET SEARCH WARRANT IF ENTRY REQlllREO m EXHAUSTioN OF NoRMAL INVESTIGATfVE TECHNIQUE.G _ NECESSITY OF WIRETAP NORMAL TECHNIQUES TRiED &: FAILED NCRMAJ. TECHHIQU?5 LIKELY TO_FAIL NORMAL TECHNIQUES roo DANGEROUS NECESsITY_ONLY WAY TO GET INCRJMINATING EVIDENCE o MUST LISTEN LIVE TO STATE WIRE o STOP USTENING If NO CRIMINAL TALK o OVERHEAR NON?QlIAlJF1ED cRiMES o MUST NOTICE 90 DAYS OF WIRE'S TERMINATION OR DENIAL o 10 DAYS TO DEFENDANT BEFORE TRIAL OR PREUM PROTECTING YOUR TOOLS G CA EVIDENCE CODE ID4D, ID47, "'~ 'D"~ P()FFfCIAL INFCRMATION" lII~tlfIS /nfo_"rtl.1I ~~"',.." In <'l3lY Rule - Evidence dertved thereof o Third Party Interr;epts o Impeachment EVIdence -- Specialized Surveillance and Techinques u Pagers o GenOlll! Rule ,~0l'66I' . """"""" Pager& --T""""" --- """" """"""'" """ << Answenng Machine o Expectation ofPrrvacy o Probable cause S1andard o Search Warrant '.J Specialized Surveillance and Techinques Vo[ceMaii Systems I-=- 1\ o Subject to Wire intercept Statutes o Third Party Retneval o Pen Reg!stersIDNR - Expeotatio nof . Privacy -Search . Court Order Warrantor " Off-the-Shelf Products Specialized Surveillance and Techiuques (J Pen Register Data -~~ ~ ..-~ ~ Secure Intemet/WWIN o Expecflrtlo nof ? Privacy ?~:~ttes II' II. . o Subscriber Infonnatio n ....L. . .=. o I Specialized Surveillance and Techinques Custodial Situations Expectation of Pnvacy ( '" ). -.... Custodial Situations o fndMduat Cef'.s o Po!tce Ijehiclet; .o Jtdl Areas -~Rul:!I - Peru!! Co:b ? --- BfoIhe:'& -."""" woo ~sl - """"""'" o Specialized Surveiliance and Techinques Creati ng an Expectation of Privacy o No.1hv. conva;sa1,:iOns g p0U?.l$1n . departmenl o!!ioo w.thOOt poI'.oo SuperiarCcwrt Pr!wte pofio2 present . o evldoooo o Ru!G --...... Cuslodial Mail Intercepts . -~~ ~~~~ 8$bilb(~ 10:'. ft>> puI'P09& 01 ~Jag 5CCUI'ity, to lrIdu::/Qo the monlb1n;J of mali must y\lt!cI b IW- FOl.U'Ih~~ ~afprM!qt. Ptto?e Ii. MaCuBUn(1965) 176 CI!IIApp,Zd 1, 7. o Expectation of Pnvacy? Specialized Surveillance and Techinques EavesdroppIng of Communications ElectroniC "13uggmg' .No_ fIt3tute rJn:fer, C4lIfomlo Law o Federal Lew pem11t$ the usc '" 'buQlt for purpooaof IIne ~I$ NOT_ Specialized Surveillance and Techinques Law Enforcement Exception o UmUooto Scopa Of EmploY"""""' '-- A!to.-ooy """""" -"""'''' """"" -"""'" -"""'" -CHP .. Other Exceptions o PubI!c!JtJlffiea ? eommun_ within a state, ' o TariffS i ). ,""--"- - racruty o ooo:iusIvo!y eo",lty, "">' and oountyor",,>, o . Specialized Surveillance and Techinques Surveillance Techmques o Fourth Amendment AnalysIs o I)oos "'" targOl o b this expe<:IalJon of . privooy - haw on IIoneo< ~" ~ reaoonabIe? Stationary/Pole Cameras o Public AJ'oa ~ Private Aroa o EI1l.."cOO Physical ---- AI1lf!:C!at - UI!ravioI?. Ugh! """'" Eq-~ Specialized Surveiliance and Techinques New Technology o FaCial Recogniti . on SoftNare o Sophisticated Surveillance o www.mapquest.com -'.'--- Specialized Surveillance and Techinques . ~... .::" Governmental Pnvilege for 'Official Information" . ",-c,',," ') . Specialized Surveillance and Techinques Tracking Devices o CootlitutiOMl Umi'".afi0llS o GPS Tracking Systems . . '. ).. ~"'-' .. . o . Specialized Surveillance and Techinques 1 Thermal Imaging o Expectatio ------ nof Pnvacy o Probable Cause . Standard I . Sneak & Peek Search Warrants o A """"" fo:"!he purpose of Inspe::tiog and rccordina 1M_of the area. _th' o Po:m~ Reeoroa'tlon ....." WlIhoUt - NiQhffim.o 50""" Leaving. - """""" """'" ....... ........ . Receipt -""""""'" '" """" """'" o ""'- .- \' . For F~~J. Sana ASSf";!@&\l'iIii>!d.& Sana (916) 447?2070 RJSana@sbcg!obal .net Specialized Surveillance and Techinques 1 San Diego District Attorney's Office December 17, 2004 Legal Update SAN DIEGO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY PROTOCOL FOR PRESERVING DIGITAL MEDIA The San Diego District Attorney's Legal Policy Committee has considered the Impact of digital media Issues and has adopted the follOWing protocol. PROTOCOL FOR PRESERVING DIGITAL MEDIA IN CONNECTION WITH CASE INVESTIGATION OR TRIAL PREPARATION A. 1 AUDIO AND VIDEO DIGITAL MEDIA . All Video records (VHS, S-VHS,DVC(mlnl digital Video cassettes), Smm, HiSmm and Digital Smm) submitted by law enforcement or the public to the District Attorney's Office must be on VHS or S-VHS Video tape or In a usable digital format (video for Windows w/Microsoft codec - 640 or 720x4S0 - .avi) that can be converted for editing and duplicating purposes to create prosecution work product and defense discovery. All audio records originating from law eriforcement agencies must be submitted to the' Distnct Attorney's Office on standard size cassette tape In "normal" speed or In .wav format on CD No micro-cassettes or other audio formats will be accepted, unless the materials constitute original eVidence seized dUring the Investigation. 2. B. PHOTOGRAPHIC DIGITAL IMAGES 1 When digital Images are saved from a camera they will be stored temporarily on a computer hard disk drive or copied directly to a nbn-rewritable compact disc ("CD"). 2. 3. No alterations of the Images whatsoever may be made while on the hard disk or In the camera. The Images saved to the hard disk will Immediately and In their entirety be copied to a non-rewritable CD by the person who saved the Images to the hard disk dnve. The person who saved or copied the Images to the CD will Immediately confirm that all files were completely and accurately copied, by comparing the file name, date and size fcir each digital Image on the CD with those previously copied to the hard disk. 4 5. The person who saved or copied the Images to a CD, or to the hard disk . dnve and copied the same images to the CD, will permanently Initial and date the original CD. That person will also log a permanent record of the name of the photographer, the date the Images were made, and the case number The original CD will be mamtamed as any other eVidence gathered by the investigator assigned. Additional CDs may thereafter be copied and Similarly marked for discovery, for the use of the trial team, and for any other necessary use. The files saved to the hard disk drive will then be deleted. The files on the camera memory card will then be deleted. No digital image files will be permanently stored on the DA LAN if they are collected for use as evidence In a.case .. All photographs will be made from the ongmal CD and a cham of custody will be malntamed for authentication purposes. 6. 7 8. 9. 10. 11 12. I ?~ .... "\.1 Index ,- L. Requir~mentsfor Ad!lli~sIbilIty A B. RelevancY ...... . . Authentication 9ElCPf,1g~ryElyi9Efn?9 . .Qhflif,1.~. q~\l\m ....... . Hearsay IS~1,!Els .p. E. II. C. Legal Issues by Techmque A Inter~pted 96mwu,ni?,ti6ns ..... . , ','. B: Specialized SurvdUance and Techmques. Robert J. Sana 01999" 2 "-"-,- l. Requirements for Admissibility i~ A. Relevancy The eVidence code provides that "relevant eVidence means eVidence, including evidence relevant to the credibility of a witness or hearsay declarant, having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action: Evidence COde ? 210. Under this most basic pnnciple of evidence, the tner of fact (the jury) may only hear evidence that is relevant to an issue In the case. In all criminal prosecutions, this will tnclude: 1. The criminal act; The criminal Intent; 2. 3. The identity oftt'le{ defendant. .. In some prosecutions, evidence of conduct of the defendant subse9P~l1n8 tt;te iffirl'l.r:ry!~si9~Of the crime tend~ng to show consclousne~~ QfgP)!t ,Ill. (>nenn:llevant and admissible. This type of evidence is C<:>!TIh,19~IYi~f:theWe of: Fli ':,' .\. '_ ;,_,._. ,:~"._ _ , .,,9,hffiorriitii~!;~ne of crime' 2.R~fu$altoproVI~e certain bodily fluids; 1 I a 3. 4. Intentional acts to suppress the collection of eVidence; Intentionally falSie statements. Additionally, eviden~ of motive is generally relevant as evidence of the reasoning pro~ss Of the defendant to explain the conduct of the defendant People V. De La Plane (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 223. Photographic eVic:lence provides circumstantial and demonstrative evidence: In a hOmicide, the particularly gruesome autopsy photographs may be relevant to prove malice (intent to kill) by t'1e killer. People v. Bowen (1982) 137 Cal.App. 3d 1020. The photographs may be used to corroborate and coroner's testimony. Peop/ev. Allen (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1222. B. Authentication Under the rules of evidence, 'writing" means handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing any form of communication or representation, Including letiers, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or - ., Speao1Jud Survei/Ja""" and Techniques, RobertJ. Sana 0 1999 3 combinations thereot Evidence Code ? 250. Graffiti constitutes a writing under the code. Evidence Code ? 1410.5 . "In orderforany "writing~. to be admissible,. it must be determined to be authenticated. This m(,lans. that there must be sufficient proof that the document is actually the item the party offering the document claims that it-? is. Evidence Code ?? 1400-1401 .. The manner of satisfying the authentiCation requirement may be accomplished in any different manner. .. The law recognizes the fqllowing: ..o.. . , 1..' .. Authenticatedbya Wit/Jess... EvidenceCode ? 1413. . ?2; .... AuthentiC?tionbyt;ldmlssion of a party to the case. . EvidElncerCqde?,1414.,;?.. .' .. '. . ..?3.o ?...ComparisonbyExpertWit/Jess.Eviqence Code ?1418. . . 4 ; " Authel'lticatioh by content when tht3, content refers to or '. . . . states. iriatt~r:s..notknownby anyoneblJtthe author. ?? .o..... ~videnceCode ?~.14?t. ....o.. ......o.. .?.5. ... \'Authenticationby,oLPybUqDocumen\by Seal. Evidence ,,:-- oo.', " .Code;? . l452, " ..o ;J'o.. , ?;.if ,',; c; ... f?); :i:-:":,,-<' ;~d~ ')'; .<.,;n i.:-.i::;. '1<:<. Aii ;;':.;;: ,.;.- n (1(.;"< ''',> ..C. ;' .~Sec6ndary,Evi~en~;.(, , . X ". -'. :":--::1,;',:: i~;,;:);':3( ~ ~G:-/.~;:' l> -:: ',_ ",1 :,.:-;':. !w:; ~.... ;,j :" {i~,,\-~,;:~i.:. .:, (a) The content of a writing may be proved by otherwise admissible secondary evid.ence. The court shall exclude secondary'exigenc:g9f~e content of a writing if the court determines either of the following: . . ..... ' .; .(11Age,nlJiIJe idisPlJ\ee2(.!lits.concemingmaterial terms' ., i .; ;-;:Clftl1e;WI'.i~ing.li!nqJlJstig;! reqlljr~ the exclUSion. o (2) : Mmi,:;sJon c;>f t!16 .secom:laryev1c!ence would be .o '0" :.lInfair:~.:;.. ??;a oo <. . .;':' ,,:, (::>)n Cl<:lQiti()I1JQttW groLJnd~ for exclusion authorized by Section 1521, in a criminal action the court shall exclude secondary evidence of the content of a writing if the court determines that the onginal is in the proponent's possession, custody, or control, and the proponent has not made the original reasonably available for inspection at or before trial. This section does not ClPply to any of the following: (1) A duplicate as defined in Section 260. (2) A writing that is not closely related to the contrOlling issues in the action. ~~;:',':'; D """"'.' Specialized Surwilltmce and Techniques, Robert 1, Sana 0 1999 4 (3) A copy of a writing In the custody of a public entity. (4) A copy of a writing that IS recorded in the public records, if the record or a certified copy of it is made evidence of the writing by statute. D. Chain of Custody "'''' The concern regarding "chain ofcustody" issues IS the likelihood that the evidence offered as evidence is the same evidence seized and has not been altered. In People v. Lucas (1995)12 Cat4th415, 444, the court? stated "the rules for establishing chain of custody of evidence are as follows: the burden on the party offering the evidenC{ljs to show to the satisfaction of thetri~ICO\Jrt that, taking aU the circumstances into account including the. ease or difficulty with which the particular evidence couidhave been altered, it is. reasonably certain that there was no alteratiortThe requirement of reasonable certainty is not met when some vital link in the chain of pas session is not accounted for, because then it is as likely as not that the evidence analyzed was not the evidence onginallyreiceived. Left to such speculation the court must exclude the evidence. Conversely, when only the barest speculatiof{supportsan inference of tampering, it is proper to admit the eVidence and let what doubt remains go to its weight." ;. .".'." . E. . Hearsay Issues ...., . ?In the case of intercepted communications, the admissibility of the Interc:epts will depend upon its inclusion within an exception of the hearsay rule. As a general rule, statements of the defendant will be admissible as a party admission. Evidence Code ? 1220. In those situations where the actual speaker IS not a defendant at the tnai, the statement may be admissible as a co-conspirator's statement. Evidence Code ? 1223. In either situation, the credible identification (authentication) of the party is critical. . Specialized Surveillance and TechnIques. Robert J. SlIfla 0 1999 5 II. Legal Issues by Technique A. Intercepted Communications 1 Wire Communications Penal Code ? 629.50 Under Califomia Law, the interception of a wire, electronic digital pager, orelectronic CeIl~lar telephone communication shall . only be made by Court Order pursuant to this statute. "ElectrC!hic digit?lpage(cOmmunication" means any tone or digital display or tone ahd voice pager communication. Penal Code . ',. -'?629.51Ja).. .' . . A ?.,,'-Ef~2tronld~II~larteleptlOrle Corhmunication" means any cellular. or' cordi~$s redid t$lephone Communication. Penal Code ? 629:Sf(b)."'? < .' . . . , t. .~ . . . o. . .Tt)~ QrderJo intl3~p~wire communication can only be .', is!l~ed fort!1'einv~Stig~QQij 9f t~e f9119""ing crimes: . ,"'.,l ) ' , . ".-:-' , h:>, I}.,t_ . k;?\., I,' t,!' ~:'_"_ .o ,,;.. 1. o .1P\P9~,~li9h;pq~!l~ssion for sale, '. .'., 'ttahsportation';-manufacture, or sale of cOntrolled substances in violation of Section .. 11:}!5J,.J1.~51.5, 11352,1.1378, 11378.5, 11379~11379.5 or 11379.6 with respect to i')Elr9il1, cocaine, PCP, methamphetamine, or anal6gs when amount exceeds 10 gallons by . . liqlJi9:,~9!~~e or 3 pounds by weight; . 2. . Murd~t,soliCitation to commit murder, the c;tlmmission of a crime involving the bombing ". 6fprivate or public property or aggravated kid~apping; 3. C. Conspiracy to commit any of the above crimes. Civil Penalties for Illegal Intercept Penal Code ? 629.86 Any person's wire, electronic digital pager or electronic cellular telephone communication may sue anyone who intercepts, discloses, uses or procures any Spoaa/ized &rvd/lance and Techmques, Robert J. Sana 0 1999 6 other person to intercept, disclose or use the ' communication. The plaintiff can receive actual damages at a rate of $100a day for each day of the violation or $1,000 whichever IS greater. Punitive damages and reasonable attorney's fees and other litigation costs. D. Prohibition of Covert Entry Pena,l Gode ? 629.89 ,c, _. ' o. --- No order shall permit either directly or indirectly , authon,zec;overtentryinto or upon the premises of a resIdehtia,1 dwelling"hotel room, or motel room for Installation or removal of any device or for other purpose. -e. ',' ', '" PO~TCert,ification Penal COde? 629.94 .1(lYi:l,~ti~~~'1~ ~l1d Law Enforcement Officers must complete certification course to apply for intercept orders, conduct iptE!l"cep~s, af'\d to use the communications or evidence derived from the Intercept a :~ \" 'II' F Exclusionary Rule 1. General Rule Exclusionary Rule prohibits the use of any statements or evidence derived from an unauthonzed wire intercept. 2. Third Party Interception The unauthorized interception of wire communications by third parties, without law enforcement , knowledge, is subject to exclusion in any subsequent legal proceeding. People v. Otto (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1088. 3. Impeachment Exception it IS unclear whether courts wiU permit the use of -'~":"- unauthorized wire intercepts for impeachment purposes; however, the court did permit the use of unauthorized wire Speclaliud Surveillance arJ4 Techmques, Robert J. Se.'le 0 1999 7 intercepts accomplished by coconspirators on the basIs that they should nbt profit from their own illegality. Traficant v. C.I.R (6th Cir. 1989).884 F.2d 258; United States v. Nieup~ki (C.D.III. 1990) 731 F,Supp. 881; People v. Otto (1992) 2 . Cal.4th 1088, 1114-5. However, it should be assumed until clarified by the ci:iurts that illegal intercepts are inadmissible in all proceedings for all purposes. ~ :' :. '?2. .:;;" Pagers . A General Rule '." The interception of electronic pager requires the . '. authorizatidnof andeompliance with Penal Code ? 629.50 et . seq.'';' . "o.,,'..." "', ..... '. i ,',. :" i..' . . " B.. ", ..... BroadCast or':Tone~Only Pagers Broadcast pagers that'transmit neither conversations .nor' Information are subject to Wiretap statutes.. People v.. Valenzuela Medina (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 39. 3. CellularlDigital Telephones .A . General Rule requires the atJthbrization df and compliance with Penal . . Code ? 629.50 et seq:' . .1he Intercepti6n of cellular and digital telephones 4. Answering Machines A expeCtation of Privacy AS a general rule, people have an expectation of privacy in their telephone calls and answering machines. People v. Harwood (1977) 74 Cal.App.3d 460. B. Probable Cause Standard Upon a showing of probable cause, search warrants may include the authority to answer telephone calls and Speclaliud Surveillance and Techmquu, Robert J. Sana 01999 8 seIze the tapes from telephone answering machrnes. People v. Vanvalkenburgh (1983) 145 Cal..A.pp.3d 163. 5. Voice Mail Systems A Interception under Title 111 Unconsented retrieval of recorded voice mail messages constituted an interception under the federal Wiretap statutes. United States v. Smith, 155 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir.1998) B. Third Party Retneval .FE3deraIWiretap statutes precludes the use of unauthonzed intercepted communications and any eVIdence derived oierefrom. Thus, even the innocent ulird party retrieval. of voice mail messages are excluded under the statute. United States v. Smith, 155 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir 1998) 6. Pen Registers ... ~ A DeVIce The Pen RegIster records the number(s) dialed from a specific telephone and records the number for identification. The dE3vice is connected to the telephone line and records numbers dialed and When the telephone IS picked up and replaced. B. Expectation of Privacy An individual does not have an expectation of privacy in the numbers dialed from their telephone that go out into the world .. Smith v. -Maryland (1979) 442 U.S. 735. People v. Larkin (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 650 C. Rational When an indivIdual dials a telephone the number they dial IS transferred throughout the communication system until it locates the subscriber desired. The person dialing has no control over this activity thus they cannot have an SpeCialized !w'rvelUance and Techmquel. Robert J. Sane. 0 1999 9 expectation of privacy over the information transmitted: the number dialed. D. Search Warrant or Court Order Asa practical matter, most agencies obtain search warrants,or court orders, for the placement oYa pen register. Although there is no expectation of privacy in the number .' .' di~led, .the utility companies will not participate without some .'.' 'cd&i au'thoiiii:ltioh. Should you decide to use a Search . W~IT?n~th.et4ility cornP?lny may only participate for the time . ."p~ri9Ci Pf~~4ri~d,in .Pemll Code ? 1534. In People v. Larkin. (1$87r1~?pt!t.,A;pp;?(:f650, the. court did not suppress evideri6e collected' on awarra'nf 30 days old. . 7 . ,,' 'CustdcliMSifuatlons . :.'i, '.;';., -,;" " . \ . ' .., '.. ..o.. ,.,9,9U[t~ .,*,in~ecogmze an expectation of privacy in .:',';; .. ','" ':)b9,~#'a~~i!.W!.c;tr.s~~tri~, pr~pared to recognize as "', . reasonable:)' As!~ g~i)~r~1 iille;,.~the recognition of pnvacy rights for pnso~rs intheit individual cells simply cannot be . reconciled with the concept of incarceration and the needs . "(1984Y468U.S:517;S26: . . ,(:l.,;':'~, '~ric:e9t,>]!f'?tiY~~:~rp~I'lCII il)~titutiqns. Hudsonv. Palmer _ ,;-><':; ;.) '\-- :.<, ,", ; \ l . ;" B. ;''''. ' Individual Cells .. ' , . ,'.;..... . . .. ThereJ$l"loexpeCtationof privacy in the indiVidual p'risoiicelisofapenal institution. Hudson v. Palmer(1984) 468U:S.517. , ' " . . . C> SackSeatof Police Vehicle . Atrestees do not have an expectation of privacy in the back seatof a police vehicle that they could conduct a conversatiori with a suspected accomplice free from police eavesdropping: PEf6ple v. Crowson (1983) 33 Cal.3d 623. SpccJaJiud Svtvei/Jance and Techmquu, Robert J. Sana 0 1999 10 ( .. , ..,,- D. Jail Visiting Areas 1. General Rule Jail officials are permitted to intercept conversations between prisoners and visitors. Lanza v. New York (1962) 370 U.S. 139. 2. Priviieged Communication Penal Code ?636(a) states it is a felony to eavesdrop upon the privileged communication between an incustody Individual and their attom~y, religious advisor or licensed physician. 3. Not Privileged Situations A. Conversation with Uncle not privileged and protected. In re Joseph A. (1973) 30 Cal.App.3d 880, 885-6. , '" "" , B. Conversation with Brother andSister not privileged and protected. PeOple v. Martinez (1978) 82 CaI.App.3d 1, 15. C. Conversation between Codefendants In interview room not privileged. People v. Dominguez (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 481, 505. D. Conversation between husband and wife not confidential in general visiting area. People v. Hill (1974) 12 Cal.3d 731,765 (overruled on other grounds); People v Von Villas (1992) 11 Cal.AppAth 175. 4. Creating the EXpectation of Privacy In North v. Superior Court (1972) 8 Cal.3d 301, the court held that the private conversation between an Incustody husband and his wife was illegally seized as a violation of a reasonable expectation of privacy. The court noted that: Detective offered his pflvate office for the loc.ation of the conversation. The detective left the office and left the two alone. 1. 2. Spei/Jance and Techmques. Robert J. Sma 0 1999 11 3. The detective closed the door after he left. The North Court reasoned that the officers lulled the defendant and his wife into believing that their conversation would be confidential. 8 Cal.3d at 311-2. E. Mail Intercepts 1. . .General Rule . Most policy and procedure established for the purpose of preserving jail security, to include the monito:ing "of mail must yield to the FOl.Jrth'Amendment reasonable . , expectatiortof privacy: People v. McCaslin (1986)178 . CaLApp;3d1, 7. " '2. Specific Situations oo 'A, I .... ':>O.I':>U'to. D. . . Stolen Property ...o . Payl~ss priYClfeagents placed tracking devlce.s In bank deposits bags. The bags were trackedfo a motel room Where officers made a warrantless e.n.try to ...reco.ver th.? e. stolen pro pe.rty c.eur! heid thedefen. dants did .not have a .. .. .. .. . .. AI /' . . recogmzC!b!e.?expe91ation of privacy In the stolen pnvate merchandise. ......~ People v. ErWin (1997) 55 Cal.AppAth 15. . .' .. ' C .. 4. . Thermal Imaging A. Technology The Infrared thermal scan IS a non-intrusive device. Which emits no rays or beams and shows a crude visuallrnage of the heat being radiated from the outSide of a location. The device cannot show any people or acitivity within the walls of a structure and records only the heat emitted from a . structure. United States v. Ky!lo (9th elr 1999) _ F.3d_ B. Expectation of Pnvacy So long as the technology does not reveal the intimate details of the activities Inside the structure, there is no lrivasion of the reasonable expectation of pnvacy via use of the thermal Imager United States v Kyllo. Other Federal Courts In Accord: United States v Cusumano (10th Cir 1996) 83 F.3d 1247 .. SpeCialized Surveillance and Techmques, Robm 1. Sana 0 1999 ~ / 17 United States v United States v. United States v. United States v. Robmsor" (11th,Cir.1995) 62 F.3d 1325 Ishmael (5th Cir.1995) 48 F.3d 850 Myers (7th Cir 1995) 46 F.3d668 Pinson (8th Cir 1994) 24 F.3d 1056 5. Sneak and Peak Search Warrants During an Investigation, investigators may seek to enter and search a location surreptitiously for the purpose cif noting, photographing and/or recording objects without the knowledge of the targets. The court may, based upon a factually basis good cause: 'c 1 2., 3. Authori~e covertcir surreptitious erit~ ,[)elaythe giving of notice tq the occupants ofthe lciccition ' ',', ' ",' ',"".' .' ,"', '" ,"" ,','," 'Permit'the recordation bf sp~cificobjectsldentlfj'edln .,: .... "". ,_ {; ,oJ:, '",: ..,",'"",,' :,':,- '.;., .:\ ..... , ... , the warrant affidavit withou~, serz:yrr:,: L . c,-, , , ' ,>,I.~,:>'i'_ L}.;\ "_J" o Daiia V. Uniie~:Stqte~,M1lJ:S.?3$ (f!17B)?...? ,', " United StatesV.Freitas, 80()F.2d1451 (9th?Cir. 1988) Affidavit muslinclude:' , , 1 'Statemeht ofprobable cause for search and recording , 'of objects; '" ' ' ' l , 2. Needs for surreptitious entry , , c Other investigatory 8ven06sfailed l ,'.) other Investigatoiy avenues unavailable ",," ',<" '3. 'Need for nighttime servlCE:n 4. ",Justification fonneed todelayhotice and extension', c ., ., " .. - , Warrant ml,Jsilnclude:.,, 1. 2. 3. 4. ,P.e~crIPti()noipr~mlse~ " " , ,,' ',', ' Authonzation of surreptitious entry Authonze exemplion ofnotice and reqelpt Specific acts allthorized -' Search but no seizure Search for objects to Include listening to messages Photograph, videotaping, etc of items SpecIalized Surveillance and Techmques. Robert J. Sana 0 1999 18 fJ)-.?-' BILL LOCKYER Attorney Gerterai v' State of California DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ,. 1300 I STREET, SU!17- .',,-: P.O. BOX!", c..:il SACRAMENTO, CA 942 Bancroft-Whimey and West Group 1998 27 CalAth 997 (Cite as: 'J:l CaI.4th-997, *998) regarding an ITlmvldual's reasonable expectations of pnvacy in Ius or her co=unications. COUNSEL JoAnne Keller for Defendant and Appellant. Kenneth 1. Chapman, Public Defender (Ventura) and Michael C. McMahon, Chief Deputy Public Defender, for California Public Defender AssocIation *999 and the Public Defender of Ventura COUDty as Anum Curiae 011 behalf of .Defendant and Appellant. Alan L. Schlosser for American Civil Liberties Umon of Northern California as Anncus Cunae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant. John T Philipsborn for Califorma Attorneys for Crimmal Justice as Amicus Cunae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant. Bill Lockyer, Att~y General, DavId P Druliner, Cluef Assistant Attorney Gomeral, Ronald A.. Bass, A.S~.t Attorney Gen~r3i',R~e.A o. Chacon, Bt.idget Billeter,and.\lrilliam Kumielis, Deputy AttOrneys GenerliI, for Plamtiff and Respondent. ~rge Palmer; Thomas. J. Orloff, Distnct Attorney (Alameda) and A .. Mark Hutchms, Deputy District Attorney, for Califonua District Attorneys AssocIation as Anncus Cunae on behalf of Plamtiff and Respondent. Page 2 and one count of arson (? 451, suod. (c>>, and was sentenced to pnson for a term of 55 years to life. FNI Unless otherwISe indicated, all Willer staMorj references are to the Penal Code. (--4 ,<'- the Before her trial began, defendant sought a ruling on itii;ailty of the taping of defendant's personal \~sits and telephone? calls. [FN2] After the prosecution noted defendant's motion failed to request a remedy, defendant formally moved for rusm!ssa! of the charges or recusa! of the prosecutor ~ Defendant *1000 alleged the prosecutor VIolated the rule of De Lanae, supra, 31 Cal.3d 865, wlnch bars moniiormg of inmate conversations unless necessary for security purposes. FN2 Our decIsion today concerns the effect of only Califorrua law. As Justice Moreno,'. concumng opinIon observes, the,:, may be a federal basIS. the OmrubUs Cnme Control aDd Safe? Striets Act of 1968 (IS U.S.C. ? 251(1 et seq.), forSUjlpressmg the? tapes of the? telephone cOnversations. The federal law, however.. has. not been the basIS of defendant'S .motioDS or appeals, .the court or"? Appeal declSIODor Our ~?of .reVlew. We therefore e"Press DO opinion aD ilS applicability. The Pa.rties s\ill.11lated. to ."!'~ pefendant wasm Jail awaiting tnal for th~ murder ofVirgima BaUy. The prosecutor requ~ the recopiingof defendant'S conversations .,with her nonattomey visitors. 10 response to this request, the sheriff's department proVlded the prosecutor with tapes of conversations between defendant and three visitors, Knsten Albertson, Dave DeWolf and Ann Argabrite. The prosecutor also? requested and receIVed tapes of telephone conve~tioils defendant had with. her brother, Philip Loyd, and with Ann Argabrite. The recorded colllllI\llllcations occurred? between March 26, 1996, and J1J!lO 30, 1996.Tbere was no tapmg of any converSation between defendant and her attorney or anyone retamed by.her attorney The prosecutor requested thIS tapmg til gather evidence for the prosecution of Virginia Baily's murder, and to gain an mdictment and subsequently prosecute defendant for the murder of her mother, Myrtle Loyd. The tnal "ourt denied defendant's suppression motions. The Jury convicted defendant on both counts of murder and one count of arson. Defendant appealed. facti. BROWN,J. In thts case we consIder whether secretly monitoring and? recording an nmtatc's unprivileged Jail conversations with her VISitors, solely for the purpose of gathenng evidence, constitnred prosecutorial misconduct by violating De Landt! v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 865 [183 Cal.Rptr. 866, 647 P.Zd 142] (De Lande). Because we decide De Lanae had been superseded by statute at the time of the tapmg, we find the prosecutor's request for and use of the tape did not constitute misconduct under state law. I. Factual and Procedural Background Christine Loyd was conVIcted by JUIY of two counts of illst degree murder (pen. Code, ? 187) [FNl] Copr. (C) Bancroft-Whitney and West Group 1998 'J:l CalAth 997 (Cite as: 'J:l Cal.4th 997, *10(0) ( Page 3 '. \'fIIIi The Court of Appeal discussed our De Lanete decision at length. The court noted De Lanae arose out ota civil suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from what bad 'been the routine practice of reCording conversations. between mmates and VlSitors.Prior to DeLanae, we had rerogmzed a .::ogfu;.. Q[ Cl)i1fid~lltiaJity only for protected . commumcations, those between an inmate and couruel; (NoTth Y. SupmorCourt U972) 8 Cal.3d 301, 308-311 [104 Cal.Rptr. 833, 502 P.2d 1305, S7 A.L.R;3di55]'(North); see .' also ? 636 "., o ,{\, 'c';'; ,-" " .,.,- . ., ",' [f()rbiddingeavesdr'opp~g on coIrimumcations . o between lhri?e and attol-rley, religioUs adviser or ,p~}'~iC~].}rp De ~a~;~Sllpra; 31 Ciujdat page , , 8(;8~' however, we cOnclUded for:ri:ter. sections 2600 . , and2&J1'ei'iiendOd .the pioteCtionof C()rifidentiaJity . Co~umciitioris, monitormg was' ~~ for the si:cUriiy of the mstitution or' the . lihUe'.' '.". . .' .. ', p.- -<.,i/,., ':.", : like ,ti,!'i#riviiel\e& uruc;ss United States Constitution, and thus suppressIon was not an available remedy The court thus stated that defendant's o only coherent theory of error is that the prosecutor's Illlsconduct was such' an egregious. vlOlation of her nghts as to 'shock the conscience' and effect a demal of dUe process under the federal c.~ustitl)!ion.?? The opmion cited Proposition 8 (Cal o Const., art. 1, ? 28, subd. (d>>, ?which prolnlJits the suppreSsJOn of evidence e)tceptwhereit is compelled by federal .aUthority. "[FN3] Finding no federal constitutioIla! VIolation;' and thus no basIS for remedy, whether suppr6Ss1~n, dismissal or recusal, tlie CoUrt of Aj>peaI poied that the unresOlved De IAnae JSsues"maydeserve the 'attehtion'of the SUpreme CoUrt, 'eipecliilly ih light of recent . statutory amendmenis [to 'section 2601J." FN3 The cOurt refused to find that the fOderaJ .omnibUs Cnme Control aDd Safe' StreetS' Act of 1968 com]?elledsuppresslOn; _i. appl:0ng DeIlanaei"The 'decislonm De lAncie nla'ywellha:ve''ritised''more'''queStioriS' t1iltn it answered, mcluding the i 'of the right protected, the extent to winch it depends on the .SUbjectivt;'exi?eC/atio1ls6r'pfuoiiers and'VWtors, the o _..... . extent :'w"wlncli ilis SubjciC('io '''modification or . .......... abolition by. legislative' action, *1001 and-of '???'f6reDiOSi'iliiporiitice here-th?'riatili:e of the remedy ' , ./ , ifiiliy; t6'oo'gl:lfutbd Wit tnal eoUrtpresidilig over a .. ~. CHmiiial'priiSeCUtion" ni' whlcli;lli~ proseCUtor has 'recorded tile defendatrt?s cOnversations 111 Violation . 1'Jl~:Co,ilit'of AppciIIlOtedth6diffiChlty Dlvolved in Iiaturgarul' ongm . Justice PoChe' dissented, disagreemg' with? the majority's conclUSion that there'was hoavailable . remedy. The dissent construed the tapmg,.;w.3,;, de!lllll ofdefendaJit's?'?nght'?!o 'due'" process." of'law, ? warranliIig?reversai '3ndretrial; ?Justice"PoChe 'also ? foilhd. that the- telephoile,:tapmg; 'Violatedi',:federal wiretap law ,.", '.1'" ;'" ,i{ We" granted reVIew" on ?,the . ?limited,'qUeStion of ? whether the,?trial court.erred,ln ?not. disimssmg the mforniation or recuSmg" the? prosecutor{ for . the asserted De Lanae'Vlolation,' " ' . ' " 'Of Dti'Lani:!e/ :"', . ". '''The CoUrt of Appeal OPlll10n also noted the cciliCeiliS' of 'the ,De Lanete'd.iSseliiers. "[T]he '.. practice' of tIlOniwritig fumate' seonversations is (1.) fciaSi:mabry ~safy toil:uniitam jail security, -'l!rid(2)th3tapersonmcafCi:r3ted majail ofprlson -~ jUstifiable expectati> .... ' (Sen.Rep. No. 1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968), reprinted at 1968 U.S. Code C{)ng. & Admm. News, p. 2178.) em Page 4 311), we affirmed the general rule that "[a]bsent such unusual crrcumstances, [inmates and therr visitors] can have no reasonable expectation that their Jailhouse conversations will? be pnvate.? ( People v. Hill (1974) 12 Cal. 3d 731, 765 [117 Cal.Rptr. 393, 528 P.2d 1], ovenllied on other . grounds :m .Peoyle v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 CaI.3d 889,896, fn. 5 [135 CaI.Rptr. 786, 558 P.2d 872].) Accordingly, prior to De Lanae, the Courts of Appeal uniformly rejected defense c1auns of privacy for cust<;ldial conversations" regardless of whether the claun was based ou the federal Constitution (the Fourth Amendment) (see, e,g., People. v. Finchum (1973) 33 CaI.App.3d 787 [109 CaI.Rptr.319]; In re Joseph A. (1973) 30Cal.App.3d 880' ?[106 CaI.Rptr. 729]), the state Constitution (Cal. Const.,. art. I, ??-1, 13; see, e.g., People v. PCimi:ng-deZ (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 481, 505[175 Cal.Rptr. 445]; Peoplev. Owens (1980) 112CaI.App.3d 441, 449 [1'69 CaI.Rptr. 359] (o-rYer~); People v. Estrada . (1979) 93 CaI,i\pp.3d76,98 [155 Cal.Rptr. 731] ( Estrada>>, federal. statutory. law .' (18 U.S,C. ? 2510(2>> or state Statutory jaw (pen. Code, ? (32). ( . Estrada, at pp. 98-99.) .. . J3~ The Lawfu/J!ess oj I_e Moni(oWtg and" . Recording Pnor /() De Lanae? . Pnor to our. 1982 De Lanae OPilllon, mmate monitOring and recording as Occurred. below was lawful m Califorma and the rest of the country. In addition to rejecting the claJIllS that monitormg violated an mmate's justifiable expectation of' pnvacy, CalifornIa courts .also rejected former section 2600 as a basl8 for msulating custodial conversations from oversight. We described the llDpOrt of that statute: "In this state we have long smce abandoned the medieval concept of stnet 'CIvil death' and have replaced it with statutory provisions seeking to msure that the CIvil rights of those convicted of crime be limited only m accordance with legitimate penal obJectives. The 1968 amendments ... winch resulted m the enactment of section 2600 in? its present form, represent the most recent legislative effort in thlS direction.' (In re Harrell (1970) 2 CaI.3d 675, 702 [87 Cal.Rptr. 504, 470 P.2d 640] (Harrell), italics added.)' We embraced the principle that a suspect's custodial conversations did not enJoy a Justifiable expectation of privacy. Although we protected a defendant's nght to privacy regarding his comm:wiications with counsel (In re Jordon (1972) 7 Cal.3d 930, 937-938, fil. 3 [103 CaI.Rptr. 849, 500 P.2d *1003 873]; People v. Lopez (1963) 60 CaI.2d 223, 248 [32 CaI.Rptr. 424, 384 P.2d 16]) or where The Harrell standard allowed the secret recording jaIJ officers acted so that the suspect 'and Ins wife of custodial conversations. In Estrada, supra, 93 were lulled mto believing that therr conversation CaI.App.3d 76, the defendant's SISler, and, on ." _____:"..:'111d be t:OJJfidential" (North, supra, 8 CaI.3d at p. ___ .. __~o~e:occaslOn, his brother-in-law, VIsited Inm in ..~ Copr. (C) BaIk-"Toft-Whitney and West C-roup 1998 27 Cal.4th 997 (Cite as: z:J Cal.4th 997. "'1003) jail. Jail OffiCIalS monitored and, taped the conversations. (ld. at PP; 86, 98.) The' Court of Appeal". found' this ..' surveillancecoIllplied .. with HarrelL (Estrada; 'afpp: 99ClOO.) *1004 "While the deprivation of aprisoner'snghtS'or pnVileges requks'penologlcal objectives; the legit:inlacy of .. jailhd1liC;. ,monilpnngof iImiarecOnvmiulclns is b3? o:hl?l:eciselythese objectives, and u{ in riO way resinCted to the mainteziililCe' of' institutional se?l!rity>EveJJ.assilrnulgtliai mthi~ case theS6curity "ofthe:illstitutioJJ.-k~nOt themteiesiofthe officIals 'minOnitormg ili.6? iiiStarit corlverSilionS/a ~cie range of concerns remain to jUSrlfy"'tlie'fulpbsit1On of certam restrictions upon the nghts of prisoners. " ( 'IbuI;) .<"y,',; .":.,,,,,,, ", ::;;';',: .'r'? _,. :;:\,~;~~:,':' PageS placed two codefendants m a room "in the hope that the two would discuss the crune and make some mcrimmating adnussions. "(Williams Y. Nelson (9th Crr. 1972)4?7F.2d376,m (Ne1sim).) [FN4] Had the tapmi izJ tim Case 0CC1Irr~ pnor tilDe Londe, there wouldhl\ve ~n no valid basis. for objection . *1005 .. . '-~ ..o ........:. '. . .. ,-\ ~ '- . . . f2jC~~;;:3d'441i:P6liC!e ,: :~~!;~~'~i??~ ~}j~~'ffi~i!i?~:'~ments. .M6sN'; siteto':ilie'itistiuitcasetS~~ns s ra afteslbl 6w~nsupand 'ThI'Y.:w~!!t.pla,c;?,!.;!9get!>'eL%!lll ~!Y'ew room wh~they: !llafle;l,!lC\llpato!y :$(em!i'1ts ,that were secretly recorded .. (ld. .at p.o dH.);jThe.. Court of . Appeal affinned the. validity not only ~f the tapmg .,but:',!!1sQc{&fi'W~~';i'IYe'iJater,,~~~ as the X:2,rpliblic,.Ultl:restin.:detectitlg"a;susp<'.Ct'sJ@rication. " '{J)oruJlilso;(v.: Supen01'!Coun(1983)<3$'.Cal.3d 24, " ' ........... :':~ 331' i ,i6'>(196'>Ci!l;Rptr,)704';' 672: Md. 110] ( " ~""'j)oiiaJilldh)'i @lury'opli."of';BrOilsSatd;'''J.).) "The monitormg system ... was used" to" a disCusSIOn between two. reCently arrested felony ,.suspects who Ifud"jtlst"nlllde factually divergent statements m separate interviews. Thus, m addition 't6'!he".:oilipetlinginkr&tin 1Iliiintairiirigjail se6trity .... wFriiiiStCorisldei't1i';;'publlciliiereslin actmg"on a . ':. w;;112fdtindedsuspiCi6h;\1"'fth'f~. wOilld take .j' the'oppbrlumijifu'get theli:S1Ones strtughtahdthat .' thelfOOii\'>emtionWOuldtOuch oiil:rinillialactivity " .... :.'< '; .(blVens;Tafpr449~>>'~\"\',:, ~,{S ~.:(:-'X ;(): ;<"'~';~) . ,- ;v: mt 'overhear :.,:1.:"<1> b.:?\.'}~~'J ,~,!,.; ,>!>.~ . 1 ;"L;,,':\,- . (:~<':'.:" ,'._" ::,.::-; . ,."._". Theref6re,' prior to De'LanClei the prevai!iDg law "reeogrilZed as legitimate the. "futerest in ferreting out . alid:'solvini crirlies.:? (PeopUi Y. Seaton (1983),146 Cal:AW:3d67. 81,fnill1194CaLRptr. 33]; citing .'Owens, suPra; 112 Cal.App.:3d pp. 449450.) We o thus observed that "Cp]nor toD~,.Lanci~;.the. fact thata'particular Conversation was monitored not for secitritYpurposes . bill to gather evidence. did not argtieagruriSt admillsibility" (DonaIdson, supra, 35 Cal.3d at p.33,fn. omitted.) .This princJple conformed to federal law , winch also found tins motive legally msignificant. The Ninth CircUit Court of Appeals approved taping m a case where police at -;.',:. "",>' i:-_,,;-'' .;, ~?c:>i:'i.[FN$]".;, w.l1Ich:;'sJiow tbiata' regulation ~\lthorizmg . '. 'mai\,',censorslnp",,[uithers;; one;:::orvmore.",of::,: the ?.irubstantialgoveriunental mterests'of,smmty;:Qrder, and rehabilitation. Second, the. :linnUllion, of;Fmt Amendment freedoms must be; no greater than is ? necessary", OLe essential., to the?: protection;. of the particular . governmental , mterest? mvolve9o"' ( ? Procumet, at p;A13 [94 S;.Ct. at p,1811];) Thus, . prison re~ations mvolving. mail:, hild .to be "general!y:,necessary" to protect secunty, order or rehabilitation, (ld. at p. 414 [94.S.Ct. at pp. 181H812].) [FN6]Notably, the decISIon rested not on the free speech rights of the inmate (the court declined. to decIde the. extent to. which .these rights SllIVlVed. mcarceration) but on the rights of those relatives and fuends outsIde the pnson who wished to 'correspond with the nunate. (ProCUlUer, at pp . The Harr~11 Copr. 0 Bancroft-Whimey and West GTOnp 1998 27 Cal.4th 997 (Cite as: 1:1 Cai.4th 9'J7, $1005) 408-409 [94 S.Ct. at pp. 1808-1809].) FN5 A$ we indicate m part n.E. (post, at .p. 1008), the United States Supreme Court narrowed Procuma m Turner v. Stifdy (1987) 482 U:S. 78 [107 S.C!. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64] (Thmer) and furmally overruled it III Thornburgh v. Abbott ?\f989)'I9011.S.401 [109 S.C!. 1m, 1CJl!L.M.2lr 459). FN6 Significantly, the high court barred censorshIp of ,mmate co~~,. no! monitonng: '[F]reedom fr0ID<:eJllIDIship .is not equIValent to Page 6 two respects: (1) the statute oIDltted rehabilitation from the list of penmtted goals; [FN7J and (2) the statute provided for the same stnct scrutiny regardless of whether the nght was protected by the United States Constitution. Additionally, the LegISlature added section 2601, whtch, in former subdivtslQll (d)., granted pnsoners the nght to have personal visits, . subject to reasonable security restnctions. [FN8] (Stats. 1975, ch. 1175, ? 3, pp. 2897-2898.) These statutory amendments fonned the basIS for,De Lanae's mvalidation .of the formerly 'A \_,. :'--,.- lawful practiCe" of monitoring and'" recording freedom from inspection or perusal.' (woW v. (1974) 41& V.S. 539, ?76 [94 S.C!. 2963, 2984, 41 L.Ed.2d 935].) Monitonng of mmate correspondencelS now e"Pressly authorized under 28 Code of Federal Regalalions part s40.i4(c}(2) (2002). (See Altizir v.Deeds (4th Cir. 1999}191 F.3d 540, 549, fil. 15.) McDo~U custodial conversations. . The Pr()CUlUa-court also addressed the state rule that limited defense? investigatOrs' access to the ; prisoner~ents whom they. served; Thts restnction inlnoitedpnsoners' access to' the courts. The rule did;not'fhitly iIifI:lrige' ona,'fedei'aJ.' ConstitUtIonal right (likCthe maihule), however; and the standard evalualinif. the' :,; nile 'was more deferential. ~!Pltiso:Oi adiriiliistrailiO! 'are riOt required to adopt , , every' proposal' that 'mityoo'thOught to facilitate priSoner access to thecomts.;cThe extent to which that nght IS burdened by a particular regulation or practice must be weIghed agaDlSt the legithnate mterests of penal administration ; .. ;" (PrOcrmla-, supra, 416 U.S. at *1006 p. 420 [94 S.Ct. at pp. 1814-'1815].) Procume:r, thus requrred a strict scrutiny stitndard for the mfrmgement of rights protected by the United States Constitution, but affirmed the? Harrell standard to protect other prisoner interests. FN7 Additionally, whereas Procumer recogmzed the propnety of curtailingspeecb to protect "order" (Procrquer, supra,416,U.S. at p. ~p [94S.Ct.. at p.J81l), oV!'fI1IIed on oth.ergrolinds by Thprj:l!ilr&h v.Apbott,' supra, 19(j 'U.S,. 4(jl), the Statute focused .'the reasonable Protection of the public' (former ? 2600, as amended by Stats . 'l975,cK 1175, ? 3; p?ZS97). These two mterests may be snnilar. on ",., ", from' ~-monitorlng,., for'" FN8The former stature did "ot n:isuJatetheSe vISits til' ,-rontr'aSt/-?to?('_secOo'n '.-26(X), 'SubdiVi,u;n (b), whlch;'sm?, 1975; has protected , I:be right '[t]o .corr<:spQnd, Confi~!'Jllially, with any ,'!'eDJber of the State, Bar hol~er,,,()f.. public office:... .0", D.DeLanae? De Lanae, was the result of a~t for declaratory andmjunctive relief from the practice of monitc>ring and recording mmate~' [FN9] conversations for the . purpose, of gathenng eVldence for,?, use m prosecutions. (De Lanae, supra, 31 Cal.3d at p. 867.) [FNIO] The De Lanae court" rec:alled the HarreU standard, under whtch mmate nghts could o 'be limited only m accordance with *1007 legitimate peria1 objectives,' " (De Lande; at p. 871, quoting HarreU, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 7(2) but fOlDld that standard Wlis superseded by the 1975 amendment to section 2600. We quoted I:be amended provision, italicizmg the words o 'necessary m oroer'to proVlde for the reasonable security of the tnstitution' " to emphasIze the shift m the law away" from the fonner standard. (De Lande, at p. 870.) [FNll] The De Lanae majority observed the recordings violated this standard if, liS the compiamt alleged, they "are intended not to enhance or preserve pnson security, but rather to obtam eVldence for use by investigatory After Procwuer, the stare LegtSlature amended section 2600 to proVlde that" A person sentenced to unprisonment ... may, during any such period of confinement, be 'depnved of such nghts, and only such rights, as is necessary m order' to prOVlde for the reasonable security of the mstitution m whtch he IS confined and for the reasonable protection of the pUblic." (Stats. 1975, ch. 1175, ? 3, p. 2897.) The Legislature answered the question expressly reserved by Procuma-, namely to what extent the nghts of mmates could be mfrmged. The amendment generally followed the Procunier standard except m <,' oo Copr. (:) Bancroft-Whitoey and West Group 1998 .... " 27 Cal.4th 997 (Cite as: 27 Cal.4th 997, *1007) Page 7 andproseCutiiig agencIes in search' of conVIctions.' ( Jd.'atp, 873.)\ . FN~ The De Lanae sUltcoDeerned pretrial county .; Jaildeia.mees rathel'.thancooVlcted prisoners in , ".' State;:-"IDStitD;t.lons:".:.We ~oned, howeve,r,_ that .,' pretrlal,oo.p~ .~~~~n@\S}11 least e,.,] -'".,'J " " FN\LThe.eourt'thus .. reJ~ed'.dic;i:um m North, '.;;.upta; ;8CaJ,3d aCpage 312; approv'nig comparable' rOCprditig;,. beCause'North. pr(lll.ate(tthe:1975 section 2600 amendmentdDe.lgncif,.~!11;31 CaJ.3d at p.874.) . retOgnmon Of bOthth" statutoiy ifud !., ''-' ,_,.; ___ , lOonStitutional <", ," _ . baSes of [De'LGijaej"D;'Donii!dSon'/iipi'a, 35 . 'CaL3d ai"p/37.(pliii:.opii;fbfBtotiSSardi{J.y ['De "LanCle:was'clea'rly not;. slIIlple.appli""tlonof the .oo stafi!l9ry langtiage~]; uf., .o t'p.'.41;dn,;;1. (,~. .,. '," ,,~r" ""'\ "_ .'0 \' "'~ ',,':- ??????????'~I~~1f~.!;!~f=!3~(r~t71;8 ..'. '. ~li;~ .~~'. ~XPJ;OSSIY JIipare' Peopu,.: CIulmpwn . (1995)9 CaJAtb'.879, 912 [39 Cal.Rptr.2d 547, 891 P.2d 93] [De Lande 'held that sections 2600 ifud 2iiOL prohibit police from monitormg'); People v. Gallego (1990) 52 Cal.3d liS, 169 [276 CaJ.Rptr. 679, 802 P.2d 169] ['[r)elymg on statutory grounds, we held ... the police may not monitor']; People v. Carrera (1989) 49 Cal.3d ;. ~ :fX~~Ilk!l~~J~~if~M,\'.r;:~: Lr:-!,:,~::;';:;:?_;.~;: J<';-~~{ <~~~;;; '~:::?.'.);s,,:! /~'[;:;\:r~s:~ r'::!-:~{': Cal.Rptr. 651], the ConrfofiAppeahfound;there was no pnvacy VIolation where police, suspecting ... ,;~~~vfut!.~IY.;iJ1.,,,,.a' ~dip~~~ .. Joom, enti;I:(lll, with tl)ebuilding IJ13Illlger'spennissJOn. .. the''VaCantroomadjiice.it "riiie'''' 'iOnme ;iDd do nOt the Calif6rllla!;'Hright'topnvacy ... grve[sjto' crinunaJs any greater iight to privacy than that enjoyed by :ordinary C1tizens?who.daiJy 3SSUIIle. the!1St tb;I1th.err IleI@horsmay1jsten to theIr conversations through a common waiL' (Id. at p~ 288.) . . ~ite b'iJi"""." o~~ilieaTIf. mcriuiin;jtfufe~we f."___._.__ E. Restoring Harrell ~~~: 326, [26i CaJ.Rptr. 348, m P.2d ,121]._. _ _ __as, J_ust th~.~ esta_b_lishmeru of Procumer's stnct _ __ Copr. {} Bancroft-Whitoey and West Group 1998 27 CaI.4th {Cite as: 27 CaI.4th 997, *1008} f m Page 8 standard led to the abolition. of the Harrell standard, the abandonment of. Procumer led to Harrell's restoration. In Tumer, supra, 482 U.S. 78, the United States Supreme Court formally deterniined the question reserved m PrOCUlUer by concluding that case protected the First Amendment rights of .. pniy_/@ gy@ms with. whom the ~~e.s were corresponding. The rights of pnsoners eD)oyed less stringent protection; "when a prison regulation nnpinges on inmates' constitutional nghts, the regulation IS valid if it IS reasonably related to legl.iUnatepeilologi~l!1 mterests.' (TWner, at p. 89 [107 S.q.at .p. 2261].) The ,state LegISlature aq~. !Ins' standard iri its 1994. amendment to SecrlOll'Z600, ..whlch now reads,'A person sentenced to' imprisonmeilt io a state pnson. may... be deprived.of suell rights, and only such rights, as is reasOnably related 'to legitimate penological mterests oo restonng the legitimate, penolOgical objectives/interests standard of Harrell, Intended to ill Leg:1s1atu.J.-e, restore the fonner law regarding fumates' rights. (2) (See fn. 14.) Any restrictions on mmates' nghts that were lawful. pnor to De Lanae, a fortion, will be lawful UIlder the current test. [FN14J Because the ..current _~.tandlrrd. was operative durin& .. the .. surveillance challenged below, and such surveillance was lawful pnor to De Lanae, we find it was lawful m tins case, and? therefore not I!llSconduct. [FN'15] FN140urdeclSlon today.Dows police officers to monitor cOnverSations mJiUI as thO)' may monitor ronfOrsatiorism police caii, maccordance with Peopk V,. CrOwson (1983) 33 all.3d 623 [190 Cal.:Rptr. 165, 660 P.~389]. There Is no longer a distinction between th~two locanons regarding an individual'. reasonable expecUtions of privacy m her conimumcations. {See.Peop/i. v. Califano (1970)5 Cal:App.;ld 476, 481482 [85 Cal.Rptr. The' ariieixlment reflected the Legislature's desire to . r~the6xpansive proteCtiiimaffcirded Califorrua fumateS 'anClrepllice with more llinited pr.o!,?iioilSa~lelillderfederal Jaw '~'. deSCribed )h'ni?; supr~, U.S. 78: hlTlWmpsim v. Pqiizit'iiiW4 eorfeclioiir (2001) 2? CiiI:4ih 117, " i3(5' [105 Cal.Ri>tr:2ii46;'iii? P.3<;1 1198j; we .??o..obs1,iVci( tiiel994'am.eDcimenta'brogf.iep the ??stmd'aiif'w6hadfulloweanilnfe Anns(1986) 42 292]; People v. 0handl0 (1968)262 CaI.App.2d 350.356 [68 CaI.Rptr;645].) FN15In 1996, the Legislature further distanced stJirutciiy.law frbin?lJ;,~: by'. repciiling the " ,.~on?260l;?S1lbdivislOn(d),.right to visits. (Stats. . 19~i 9!' 132,.?J..)Th~~~!a~ ~ thns . : completely??:del,ete [dlthe. JaJiguag~. quote<;!',.m lJe them the 482 . ~~.o (".Wj~&' ~;:C31;~~r)9iri~j Law . (3d;cl,. 2(00)DJegally 9bf8iiies {i037.} . . . . '., .... Ey,deriCe, ? 352, ., JiD6rt;es thatihiglltJuive been rnvalidpnor to 1994 coUld rt6w be valid. (Th01npson', at pp. 129-130 [reStriCtiOIl on practice of religIon that mIght have been mvalid .under pre-1994 standard was v;ilid ~ !lew Iawf) We hold the monitoring of iniTIateS' cOIlversaiions ~th vlsitors to be another .sUch regulation that has become .valid after the 1994 amendment. *1009 . Construmg the 'legithnate penal objectives' iri .flarreU, supra, 2 CaI.3d at page 702, and "legitimate penological Illterests' m the current section 2600 and finding them comparable phrases, we conclude the current standard is less restrictive ?than the HarreU test. Our fonner standard penilltted restrictions on mmates' activities 'only m accordance' (Harrell, at p. 7fJ2) with the proper goals, whereas the ClllTent standard pencits such restnctions whenever they are "reasonabiy related" to the goals (Turner, supra, 482 U.S. at p. 89 [107 S.C!. at p. 2261]). We therefore conclude the till.3d667'[i30'Cai:RPti:? 505; 725 p.2d664] .. .T1UJmPson recogniZed pJ;iSOIl restncti<>IlS all mmate o ,:,',;",' ,'" "', 1o. , ". ".,,,-, -::'''', ~',' ' oo v,,:," " ". (lb)'PJthou!;h vie baseou\: deciSion on our own precedent,6urconClusl()IldraWS Support 'frQIllother junsdieuoJis: We ooteother jUrisdictions perinit the InOtntorlng.and recording of custodial conversations, withont expressly requiring ationmvesnga!ive pUrpose. (see; e.g., Angel v. WiliiGms (8th Gir. 1993) 12 F.3d 786, 790; U.S. v.Wllloughliy (2d 1988) 860F.2d i5, 22; Umted Simes v. Harrelsim (5th eli. 198.5) 754 .F.W 1153, 1168-1171; Allen v. State (Fla. 1994)636 So.2d 494, 496-497; State v. Wilkins (1994) 125 Idaho 215 [868 P.2d 1231, 1237-1238]; State v. Strohl (1999) 255 Neb. 918 [587 N. W.2d 675, 6821; Belmer v. Commomvealth (2001) 36 Va.App. 448 [553 S.E.2d 123, 129].) The resnJt IS the same even where the express purpose IS to gather eVIdence to support the prosecutioll. (Nelson, supra, 457 F.2d at p. 377; State v. Ryan (1976) 145 N.J.Super. 330 [367 A.2d 920, 922.) [FN16] *1010 cll'. FN16 Defendant cites the mapposite case of Unitw States v. Cohen (2d Cir. 1986) 7% F.2d 20], Copr. 0 Bancroft-Whitney and West Group 1998 27 CalAth 997 (Cite as: 27 Cal.4th 997, *1010) Page 9 \~~ .~ .. - .. - . ..-8IiOOl4.':~. ",'aluated ::~. ligIlt?.ofiWlltutional-. secQrity"~ (COM!!. at?p;:22.)~1S far frOl!l=tJUn . where the Second. CirCuit, Comt of? Appeals suppressed documents discovered during a search of the defendant's cell conducted 10 . gather eVIdence. Because Cohm was decided before ~,iipfa,482U.S.78.'the secorid Circuit followe'l"fue'rUIe tfuitvvhen a'prisbn rCsincuon ulfrmges?tipon a .pecific i:l!fl'2"''"~?' the .', .' "1"v~?alCd,, , .', "Seiitiig ?,?,,":~=!,;i"!~;o:i~~~~~e:ce::: '~'{':umn~I,~s~!idn<#ls:~"wlnch,,'wOuld ~~pr2~Q!!'t-:'<1'4,;.~ p,,'E ;.,?;,!,JUStifY,;;}.~g'(I;.:with;;,.I!taditioD;!li; ,.Eomth p:.ti01Jlli'unDero 'lliJaIyze'fih-"iMdiince of . unlawful. The FergIi$on" court b)W?jlaI.,.,~'s.".,~<;hnlg tnd 31 Cal.3d 865 [183 Cal.Rptr. 866. 647 P.2d 142}, held. that s=ptitionsrecory'sycutil.);, concerns, , yjoJ"tt:illk.iwnate'ILl:i~ .of:.l/ti.v1l&Y' 12~.@cie_ wl!& blls.ed. O!\P~. Code sectioll,:l600, wl:!ic4 ;from . 1975 untiL19Q5proy#led:. 'Ap;,rsOll~~ to lIDprnonmeI?.I oo ,I!l,aY"durlAg,@y. ~h:P!'l1Qd of t:P?]nem((nk. bedeprlye4.. of SllSh IlgiJts(.aJId o.only .... suchrlg!Its;;~ JS~ary . w.,prd~tq?Pf9Y!!!e,. for ?\l!er:~naPle security of .th~ iI!?1:U11,OI!.,w..;wl:!i~jl he ,IS.. !"lnf.ine4 aJId;for.; $(>. ~Pi!PI~,pr()t~Qll" pf:the . PIl!Jljd. (~\!I!!l",J975,(:ll. }t7-?.?~. Pi.~!I7,,).)Je ..umq~,I1.eJ4iMt.. Pf\'lI:?: de~~ ~JOYe4\l1, .least the Same,lJ.gh!sl!&;t::OJl~Jnm~~. ~,9~tved' .' that recording conversations between mmates and Visitors would v!0l*,~on 2.@giit;,tp<;rf:?()Jffings were "nndenaken for .the. pmpose of gathetm.g .. to,~!lt\ll \l!.~,.~ of.tpe,J@.'c(D~~!,. at '. . . p<811~J\'.~~;h e'2d~JQ]; ~~p~Pt~, ~r than ,..... >'._~'/. '::1'> .~,,;?.'i::> ,t,I'" 'J, '.(;:-,i \~:;;"C;fD'".I~ "1",."", 1'-'> ,I :"" _< H{ J.', ~'.", , ,_~( ;<:: ..':)-<: i~, ," , ii' The.zlm,kgi!:la$I'~, ,!1<>v;eYM. ,(jm~q.~:~on ,.,:;.:l@ ,,!Q <,plm'lge:.c!lS At d~:"I99JlY",,?:";t,.., ,~1:SOIl j ~ 'f ;>;:~.;3 f;f,r0'~) ,_.s~\\9 1mP~I:1lDll!ltm l!;,~:1'R"0,!1,11ax, "?:~~:'~,!~~~~r~;.:!ff~\~i:':W:~! peno10glcalmterests." In Tlwmpson v. Department Cal.Rptr.2d 46, 18 P.3d 1198].~~,P?l!9looe4 that this amendment adopte4 the view of the United S~ ~Cow:t !l;lTIf'f!!O Y,?,~tf}y (1,!?87),482 U,~'J!h(lOf,1!tg? 22?4;:!!6.. b?.Il4?~.Ml oo. Jl1)!Ier wkt.t:!!!I1e..!I;I9x;i~g.of inma~ c?#vetsati\'lJ'!, ~ ,., ""i?.I,? QUO;ri& (l984Y467 U;S;'-649 [104,S.Ct;'2626. 81 ';iL.E:. :i ',;: i\;>.:;;U) ,~., c:lI!,~g ,8.65,. f'q.,oJ?,l~er; qJ!l"':tly,~~.c;a!ifcirni'!, law '. reg;u.-djIlg ,.:innlll~ .rights:: l'()ll()wmg ,the .1994 VV~ ,th~~efo~ ~!il#' tI;1at,p~kCieo .s!'Pra, "_ , o o o , 'N'- , , ' " ' , .. ' Conclnsion . ...' 31 ... amendment to?section CaJifurnia . law . now ..pt;npits .JaW,t;!1f'?fc!,!I;Ient, pffi'?'.r~. tq !Iionitor. and o ,. .,~ \. ", "','. 2600,. ' .,.~~!lS:a~~~i~:~o:~:;.i~~a: hoiciiIigln D~ f=e . .' . 1m~ent.eff~eJy abrQga~.this ' , . '. '.,' ,"" o ': ' , . peno1\,~. g()al,.. ~JJlIel1>re~,1,11~~~'11.,the re?(lrd,nrq>r:iyilc:geilatitutional iO~l>lti()!JS ag;nriSiiUllf~I;'Sel!I-ches (U.S. Corist:,4th Amend.; cat. canSt., art. I, ? 13). But all. these sources . require as. a predicate to estabJislung an mvasion of privacy or umeasonable search that the person had an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy m the invaded place, conversation or data source; (See Shulman v. Group W Prodlictions, lile. (1998) 18CaJ.4th 200, 232 [74 CaI.Rptr.2d 843, 955 P~2d 469]; Hill v. National CollegUJte Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 CaJ.4th 1, 36-37 . [26 CaI.Rptr.2d 834, 865 P.2d 633J; Donaldson v. Superior Court (1983)35 CaI.3d 24, 28-30 [1% CaI.Rptr. 704, 672 P.2d 110J.) coUrts have generaily fOllDd rio reasonable e:q>6ctation of pnvacy in Jailhouse Conversations for JlUIl>Oses of searth and seIZUre law (see DoTiaJdson v. Supenor Court, at pp. 30-34; U.S. v. Peoples (8th Cir. 2001) 250 F.3d 630, 636-637), and this court itself had, pnor to De Lanae, recognized the general rule that o an inmate of a Jail or pnson h'as no reasonable expectation' of pnvacy" in conversations while incarcerated (North v. Supenor Court *1013 (1972) 8 Cal.3d 301, 311 [104 CaLRptr~ 833, 502_ r.2d 1305~ 57 A.L.R.3d 155]). WERDEGAR,J., Concumng. ? I agree with the" majority that the monitonng and recOrding of defenrumt's personal' VISits did not VIolate Califorrna law, despite our declSlon in De Lanae v. Superior Court (1982) 31 CaI.3d 865 [183 ?CaI,Rptr.866, 647 P;2d142] '(D~Lanbe). In my view,how6ver;this 18? trueriotbeciiise the holding of])e lancie' h'as been abrogated by mtervemng amendinents toPeDaI Code section 2600, [FNIJ but bediuse De LimcziI1Sol!ers' ,subJective. ~ltJX'<;iations aslge,l!o. pbject!y;ly.reason,abl". eXpeqt.#op of ,conve:~i\ttony pIi'(~CY. ~!!l!b,e ma!,}ll!Jl!.e?in;p!ison ,pr'Jail.QeCil,ll!:e.qLthe , P<:1Y~ly" aI)~ cq~t I llIPeop~ Page 11 v. Otto, (1992) ,2 C.alAth 1088 [9 Cal.Rptr,2d5%, 831 thatt~~,i\c:t 1'.2<1 1178], we recognized goveJ:ns W1l"~!appmg. Y'oIati()!!S in .,,;~:::t~Z;;h,]~~c~:~~~,~:&~; :: dissenters, closed itS ejie;no tha:t~en(al 1n so dOing, it erred.' '.' ;""'" ;U,'._'" ci!lif0nna ..jVestated:,", "I)1e PJilllOse,()f me [Act] -~~ to PIllhibit .".aJl.ir!te!'?!~:Po~!'9!;~~()ll >""_'" ',LI_.; ,,'.~, .... -', . (16.U .~,J:' ? 2510(1).} A~~mmQIl?'!!Re~ 8,llC,rate ,' . .,',', "'" 1.." '_ . . . ,," _',__ ,.'" . MO~O,J.,J:;gnC1lIDllg. .lmJfif;Y,,?'fP91fitq>/J!1??. n982X~1~ C,a1.34,~~[183 . ;,,),~,J~PJ1'? .:?(>9J,;,64?" P,,?d )1~LCDeLap?!~r}:i"'as . ',' ~R'e?n4,l;>y th~)9\I1,?~~~~\to';~~l!l,Itgsxle , ;,~op.~f>90,,~!llt.t!l~\,~?UbJ~tg:I',e!lJ!l,C9!!.~ ~ction , o 63~"AF,~1b::C.apt',?,~,,:3,97, ._'''"'''~' ,l','~":~..'''''''j'''' ,~';_(~ J~""~"')"_~'" r~:7~~~~a~~~;;~; . 401-402 [102 Cal.Rptr.678).) :~;~a;i~~."~~?~;:i~~1J~~r.: pl!lYe . (1,?V.~.C.?? ~18.).Th~e ru;e .twR~';(:I'Ptions o 1<\ .. ease, Jail. o :.~~~!~~~~il~~~~~~i:~ii~?;o ::~~~' '. hitli~~?iMda'Se'of .rfnli'eli''siateS V:;P~(6th cit; 19soYM.4 F:2iiil'5; 61' kL:'R::Fed:iif6 (pauz ), the~oVe,i.1i,~hl iliSk,ih~b?6ad!Vi~* that tIliAct did not apply to the s~et recording of onthound telephone c;a1l8 onginating from pnson. (ld. at p. 116.) The PaI#courtrejected thIS argument and held: ihatthe Act'ilidalblit fOu'Ddtliilt the"; n ppy, . , . ...... " pnso Code seCti6n2510(S)(a)(ii); the Act's "ordinary of 'doties" exception,' beCauSe (1) the monitoring was done p1li'swii!t to a .PolicY statement issued by the Federal Bureau of Prisons; and (2) poSted tel~hone niles gave the mmates "reasonable notice" that such monimring Ill1ght occur. (Paul, ??ITiU:'s:c. ?' i5i'i(2)'Ci:):)Wiier.Fa;;;'iCt is'Virikw .';, ,:.') ,,~?;.~:t~?llit~~&aij9~t~:. doties" (18 U.S.C. ?25iO(5)(~)(ii)5; 0;:'(2) ~het~ "a ,llCrson acting under color{)f.law~ WIretaps,' and one . I\,i emorcemeD.t? offiCei;iii~tli~'br'dih;iTY:: cBt!iSIi'''fhis -~~:""inof'HO~' rptc;r~Jioll., :i8,. "bY ,,,,/lIl.,.,iny~t:ig{ltiv:e,.,:.or. law "th#J;;:'ifeffi#" .,r,~~Iii?p~~:."~}):~~*h,(jl"l':::'the ,JDakes 'It, a felQn.y to., eavesdrop, on; or ~etIy FNI ,P~ <::ode seetJon. 6~6, subdiviSIOn (a), 'f~rd? i'd~'~ orp~~'s coiN~~ii',With 'hIS"'or ber -attorney. religlt;us"advtSer~' or liCenSed I'hy~,cian? ' . ' . , .. " ." wiretap waS 'PennisSibleunder 18 uniied slates FN2 Where authorities have. the nghl 10 monitor, they ,also have the nght 10 record. (See, e.g., People v. Murplry (1972) 8 Cal.3d 349, 360 [lOS Cal.Rptr. 138,503 P.2d 594).) cOUrse ~---.'"-... Copr. C Bancroft-Whitoey and West Group 199& 7:7 CalAth 997 (Cite as: 27 Cal.4th 997, "1014) Page 12 supra, at p. 117 ) In U.S. v. Sababu (7th Cir. 1989) 891 F.2d 1308, 1328-1329, the court found the ordinary course of duties exception applied, where (1) the monrtonng. was conducted pursuant to an established pnson policy; (2) morutonng notices WeTe posted over each SParusIi; (3) . outlXiiiillI ieTepnone' fu'EiigITsh dunng onentation, ,the mmates were told that their outbound telephone conversanons were subject to monitonng. aDa ana The federal courts have also found, under sunilar? facts, that JailhoUSe wiretappmg falls' withm l1illg United StateS ,Code sectiori: 2511(2)(c) under 'l!ll'Crv "implied consent" theory",For example, m U.S. ,y,ov' Amen(2d Cir. 1987) 831 F~2d 373, 378-379, the coUrt fOund "implied consent' where, (1) the priSOner attended a: lecture that outlined the prison's ill.orillol~~i pOlicy; (2) he recer-ved a copy' of. a haD.dbook that Stated that outbollnd telephoilecalls ?1015 woiild be monitored;, and (3) monitonng notiCes, ill' E.Uglisliiild Spamsh,were plaCed on eaCh outbound telephone. ~, ',' .. ,,: .. , .... ,'':'0 these requests without the benefit of a warrant. There were no warning signs m the outbound telephone area indicating that cails might be recorded. While the outbound phone system was configured to play a taped warnmg, the system was malfunctiomng m March. and April of 1996 and became operative somethne in June of 1996. It was 'establiSh,iriii ilie mal court iliat, upon arrlvaI, each mmate was given a copy of Jail rules and regulations, but it was unknown whether Loyd , actUally . received' a pamphlet that contamed a wamiTIg' aboUt the' monitorwg policy .. However, the pamphlet typicallY ciJntatitedsueh" a warning. Ffually, Jail officials 'operated tlie' telephone morutonng system according to anestabllshed mPnitonng pOJlcy The Act was given short shrift at the tnaI court level. As Stated by the Court of Appeal, "defendant plaped no cmpl1as"lS on it .and naVer ~yecifically infPrined the tnal court" that, it might supply authorization to exclude the tapes. ',A reYlew of the briefS before this cWitsupJ?orts'the 'Court of ApPciil's siatement. The trW' coUrtiippareritly made .. no" facnlaI 'findings 'as to spidfic &teS that 'd~f6ri&mt's otitOOrind caiIS'were secretlY recorded. N6rdidthe inal CoUrt detethririeif ally particular recordfug vias aproduCf'bf an '!iichouse jail cbnveiSation . or an outbOund telephone calL I therefore agree With thel' Coiiit of Appeal that the Act was 'not properly TalSed.? *1016 III In u.s. v. Van Pqyck (9th Cir.1997) 77 F.3d285, 29l-292,tIie coUrt f01md "implied consent' where (1) the defendaiitsigIl6d ,afomithat warDed hun of theprisoo's monitonng and tapmg policy; (2) he waS gwen a prlsoh'irianUa! explaming possible recording; and (3)' monitoring notices were posted by the outbound telephcines. It thus appears that the 'warrantless monitonng of an rumate's outbound telephOne calis IS prohibited by the Act, unless the mmate' IS grven meaningful notice, such as by a slgIled acknowledgement fonn, a 'monitonng notice posted by the outbound telephone, or a recorded warrung that ,IS heard by the inmate through the telephone receIVer, pnor to hIS or her makmgthe outbound telephone cail. II 'r \~ In the case at bar, from March 26, 1996 through June 30, 1996, the Alameda County prosecutor requested that jail offictals at the Santa Rita Jail secretly record all of defendant's outbound phone cails to her friend, Ann Argabrite, and her brother, Philip Loyd. The prosecutor also requested that all of defendant's in-house nonattomey Jail conversations be recorded. The prosecutor made In People v. Riel (2000) 22 Cal.4th, 1153 [96 CaI.Rptr.2d I, 998 P.2d 969), we refused to exclude a ,secretly recorded m-house jail conversation,' obtained in violation of De Liinae, Under the truthm-evidence prOVIsion (Cal. Const., art. I, ? 28, subd. (d>>, because o 'federal law [did] not bar its adimssion.' " (Riel, supra, at p. 1184, quotiilg Peopk v. Hines (1997) 15 CalAth 997, 1043 [64 CaI.Rptr.2d 594, 938 P.2d 388).) A question left open in Riel, and resolved here, IS whether a prosecutor's warrantless request for ill-house jail monitoring constinrtes prosecutonal misconduct. As noted, where thIS request IS limited to the secret monitormg of mternal Jail phones, the request IS appropnate. Where a prosecutor requests the monitormg of outbound telephone calIs, however, any monitoring must comply With the proVlSlons of the Act. Prosecutors who request such morntonng Copr. '" Bancroft-Whitney and West C-roup 1998 27 CaL4th 997 (Cite as: 27 CaI.4th 997, *1016) i ..~ Page 13 "" have, at a nnrumum, an etluca1 obligation to ensure that such monitonng IS in compliance with the Act. The demise of De Lanae does not signal a death knell for the protections afforded under te,cteral law. Kennard, J., concurred. *1017 Cal. 2002. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, CHRISTINE LOYD, Defendant and Appellant. v. END OF DOCUMENT ;" .. J,: ..'WI' . ..... ~--Copr. (;) Bancroft-Whitney and West Group 1998 --------------------------------~\ Client Identifier: SARIA Date of Request: 01/09/2003 '8 Current Database IS CA-CS .. ... ~ .. ---, ----._,--_._--- - ' - - - ' - - , - .. __ .. _.-- -.-- 127 CaI.Rptr.2d 203 2 Cal. Daily Cp. Servo 11,239, 2002 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,031 (Cite as: 103 Cal.App.4th 853, 127Cal.Rptr.2d 203) H Court of Appeal, FITSt District, DivisIOn 5, California. The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, ? 2510 et seq. Page 14 [3] Telecommunications <$=495 372k495 v. TSfiomtie rmLOW,'Dereiiffiillt ana Appenant. No. A093862. Oct. 18; 2002. Certified for Partial Publication.[FN*] FN* Pursuant to caIiforma Rules of Court, rule 976(b)(J) and (3)me'rourtorders publication of the IDtroduclory parilgraph, Background, part of the ~i<>n,. and",o. J:)jsposition of. its .oplDlon m m PeojJ!~ v. X;eUey, A,Q93862. ReheimUg Denied, . Nov ." , -., '\-'- is; .2002. . . 'v' .'" ~ '" , '/ "",", ;.". .1 .......... . No.q39184, V~on.Nap,hara, ",. . . ';\; :\'\':.'.L?~}:? ;',"/i" J., of mttrder: Qefenclan~ ..app<!to/\e C9nve!saliPl)S ~'!S not .,,'" aJid AppellahC';""J; ,.. (; ,,?c??' .l C,", o. unl,~'W'9I., . .,. . ',; ., ,c, . '. ' . .. ;; ,. . . . .il. ~ >.. ';i ?,:i-?~';;.~:-?,? "<.'""" -,_ .~~~fas;~~?:~};~e~~~~Gourt, A1~epa C~unty,' \.""" .'-- ~,' ...,_.' , . o o " <, ,. 'Wiretap of Uetenffiilit'S .. telephone" conversations while defehdant' was m pIlSOn was not unlawful; defendant hadlneiuungful' notice that tel~hOOe calls over the pnsort ph6nes 'were 's'ub]ect' to niomtonng, lus decision to eng~ge'in;oortvei'satioi1s those phones" constituted' fujplied . C6nsentto that mottitonng and made any wiretap I.awful, and no rndiCial .approva1"was .re(jllir~, .. defdildant o cOnsented'to' thereeordirig'of lliscn mtroduced tesiimony from numerous witnesses that Tndente and Stewart had had an affarr in 1999, and that Kelley threatened to harm or kill Stewart as a result. Stewart and Kelley were one-time frIends; at some pomt ?after the affair. they parually reconcl1ed. In the sprmg of 2000, Kelley bought a car from Stewart. When it .broke down **205 shortly thereafter, Kelley held off on paying Stewart. In 'Iate April, according to prosecution witnesses, Kelley went to . Stewart's o house, argued with Stewart. fired a gun m the 31I. and left. Kellev returDed that day ahned" ~ gnu at Stewart; according to some witnesses, the gun Jammed, while accordIDgto lfuother;itwas no'f loadeaiilld Kelley ~asMf'trymg to ""-}" Stewart. ,. scare, Ke~ey made ,':'" .', .. ,:, further threats on Stewart's life. . Police lUTived within two mmutes. A few mmutes later,.an officer saw Kelley ,sweating, through the screen door of Kelley's house. When the officer asked Kelley to talk to him, Kelley began to shake and announced, "I didn't shoot anybody " Forenstcs tests found blood inside Kelley's gate. The blood was 9Qosistent with Stewart.'s.A bullet hi:lleJILthegate indic.atedtjIatashot had been? fired from Kelley's doorway or porch. Kelley's nght . hand tested positive for gunshot residue, though m a quantity .insttfficient to establish .that he had recently fired a gun. Neither the murder. weapon nor ariy spent shells were found. *856 The three adults at 4126 Mera were Kelley, his . girlfnerid Cqme 'j'ndente, and Tndente' s cousin, . CassaodraBugnatto, They were detained and questioned separately Bugnatto, who was away at a laundromat dunng the shooting, sald that Stewart and Kelley had had a falling out Over an affair between Tridente and Stewart. After initially denymg that she knew stewart, Tridente admitted that she had had an affair with Stewart. She SlUd that when Stewart = e by, Kelley got a gun and went out to meet him. She heard yelling and then gunshots. Kelley refused to speak with police without an attorney present. Early on the mornmg of the 2200, he was charged with murder. and '" ' -' ,,--.' .," " On May 21, the cfuy'6f'1heshootlng; Bugnatto, a .' ( frIend of both Stewart and Kelley, wliS babysitting ~. Stewart's son at Kelley's house .o Another mutnal frIend of Stewart and Kelley who waS With .Stewart that day, David Maldonado, testified' that Stewart receIved a call to eomeIl1ck up Ins son from Kelley's apartment. Stewart used Maldonado's car. Maldonado called Kelley imniemately after Stewart left. Kelley asked whether Maldonado was wifu Stewart; Maldonado SlUd no, unpIymg that Siewart was commg alone. Tndente was unwilling to testify and did so only after the court granted her unmunity and ordered her to testify She repudiated her May 21 statements. *857 Kelley testified in' Ins own defense. He demed that he shot Stewart. Though he knew about the affarr, he denied any lasting problems with Stewart. On the evenmg of the shoothtg, he and Tridente were at home When they heard shots. Kelley saw what looked like a white male go past Ins window He went outside, recognized ..I In September 2000, shortly before tnal, the prosecution asked for Kelley's outbound calls from prison to be taped. Based on these tapes, the prosecution obtained a search warrant for Kelley's prison cell and Tndente's resIdence, wInch at the time of trW was her grandmother's home. lne search YIelded numerous letters between Kelley, Tridente, and others that fonned a central part of the Maldonado's car, and thought that someone must have tned to rob Maldonado. He Sald to his neighbor, not "Dude tned to rob me,' but o Copr. (C) West 2003 No CJ31ffi to Ong. U.S. Gov!. Works 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 203 (Cite as: 103 Cal.App.4th-8S3, *857, 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 203, **205) Someone tried to rob him. "Only later, when he saw1he body beIng taken away, did he realize that it . was Stewart who had been shot. A jury convicted Kelley of first degree murder (pen.Code, ?'. 187) imdpersillla! use of a firearm resiuting inireatbodilyJiljuryor death (Pell~Code, . ? 12022.53; subds.(c) and (d>>, based on the Stewart shiiotfug,' as well as willfully diScbargmg Ii firemn ?ina'.grossly negligent manner (pen.Code, P%.3), basect on fuelifte April 'inCIdent where Kelley fired a gWi"1O 1herurat'Stewart's h?use. . Thecomt sentenced Kelley to' 52 yeats to life. KelleyltaS tintely:app.:alM;I'" '~', Page 16 we need not address the law enforcement exception. [2] Under Title III, 'it shall not be unlawful ... for a person acting under color of law to mtercept a wire;"oral, or electrtimc, commumcatlon; where ... one of the parties to 1he' communicatlon hasgtven . pnorQ!t~ntto sllchiriterceptioil.',' (18 U;S.C. ?_ 2511; 'subd.(2)(c).) 'The legIslative history of o[fitle IlI]shows that Congress mtended 1he consent . requiiement;tofCbe tonstiued broadly. ' (Amen, sujira" 831'F;2init p.,378;'?'.see?S.Rep.' No. 1097, 9OthColig., ' 2d" Sesi.i .'. teprmted:in. :1%8 U,S;G.t,A.Ni.2112, 2182;) ConsistenfWi1h 1his mtent, every federal circuit'CO)nt to: addreSS 1he question has concluded that a prisoner who;' while tin' notice that' !tiS itelephone'conversation IS sUbject tofapmg,'proce'edsWith the Coriversation; hasgtven; nnplied' t:onsenCto' thattapmg(' (U.S, .y,. Footman (lShCiri2000);' 215 F13d145,155; U;S; v. Woibnan (2d".Cir:1996)'.80F.3d?688,693-{j94; U.S[<:;?v."'HoTT':'(Sth?? Cir:l!;192)U%3,??.F.2d .1124, 'l125 cll26:"Van Poycki i supra,77 F.3daf.p; ?292; but'see:,U;S. v>Daniels,(7th Cir.1990),;902',F.2d ,1238, i'12~1245'[Criticizmg'io1het'.?.cOurts?.!.;?hroad vIews of: cOnsent: WI! deciding case" on ano1her "grOUl'id];)" " . "i'--' . ,." ' ' c . ' " ,.' ;~ , o. j . . ":; .1A1. [FN**]" . .o DISCUSSION' ,', o. , ..' . "";'".< ", .; ::'m" Sec; foOtnote " !l1ife. .. .'m.':r1ui pfb~eciltiim 's Wi'fetapojKelley's Jailhouse CiJiiVmiIti6nsWasLegill:," ':.i " i~-- TliEUR.i"ptosellutkin recOrded,,' Kelley'S" Jiillhouse . ":fekphonec6hversations 'attd' intrcic'ltited portions of _ ... . the'~pU~aS:'wlill;'asevi.del!Ceseired based on "thtiSlN:oilversati6rlsj;'; Kelle)"challehgiis tbewetap >"''uiider,'.Titlc,m' tif:1h,,'6nn:u1iuiiCtiinc' C6Dlrol' and . ('Sit'i:?'Stiecls'AC('oLl%8f'18 UnftedStates Code' 'SeCfidn'2510et'seq"'(~Tit1e;m?JattdState'law';'?We , Our'Supreme Couit'?'?receiJ,tdecisloD"in People v. , Luyd(2002)27 Ca1:4th997, iWCal,Rptri2d 360, 45'P.3d',z% demoiiStrates,thiitatleasttwo members ,:.ijfc'that.conrtwould,,?agree!with:?theiVlews.of 1hese "'federlll ,While: 'the. maJority.'found it unn=sary;to ,reach'thelSSUe; JUstiCe Moreno, 'lamed by JustiCe':Kennard, spelled. oUt bisagreement ""With"l',theii;: ,conSenSUs' /. mterpretation,;'. of-,? tbe ,,' 'crrcumstailces snffiClenLto .find uoplied:.consent by, prisoners. (Id. at pp. J01~1015"H9 Cal.Rptr.2d 360, 45 P.3d 296 [cone. op. of Moreno, J.].) We . agree ?'as' well?. ',So? long. as'.'a priSoner 18 gtven: :.meaningfulnotice::that hts.telephone,:calls,?over' pnson phones.aresUbject to.monitoring.his decision to< engage m,?conversatioos' over. those phones coustitutes IDlplied consento.to. that monitonng, and takes any. Wiretap oUlSide the prohibitions of Title' III. . ",tevlI,wi'tfu;se,'iss\ieside'.ooVo:'(U.S,v.' Van;Pqyck (9th Cir.1996) 77 F.3d 285, 291.) We find no violation of either federal or state law. [11;'With certaln o. Iilnited. exceptions;? Titie III pr6In'biflifue 'unauthonZed'n:nerCeption 'of "any we, cOw,: oral, or electronic communication. ' (18 U.S.C. ? 2511, subd. (lXa);).,;Thus, ':"[iltpi:otects an individnal from all. formS of wiretapping except when the statute'specifically provides otherwise." ( Abraham v. CoImJy ,of GreenvilJe,. S.C;' (4th Cir.20(1) 237 F.3d 386, 389.) Those protections apply iopriSOners and prisilIi.monitonng.? (See, e.g., U.S. v. Amen*858 (2d Cir.1987) 831 F.2d 373, . 378.} Therefore, the :reCordings of Kelley were **206 obtained legaI1y. only if one of 1he Kelley relies" on two passages from earlier Califorma Supreme Conrt. decISIons to .argue 1hat statutory exceptions to 1he prohibition applies. The People argue that two of the specified exceptions, that court would take a different view of Title III the consent. and law enforcement exceptions, render than the federal courts. (People v. Otto (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1088, 1098-1099, fu. 7, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 596, its use of the recordings proper in 1his case. :,,~ __ B~~e we agree that the consent exception applies, _____83':_~~ 1178; Halpin v. Supenor Court (1972) 6 Copr. 0 West 200:? No elano.to Orig. U.S. Gov!. Works' 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 203 (Cite as: 103 Cal.App.4th 853, *858, 127 Ca!.Rptr.2d 203, **206) Cal.3d 885, 900, fn. 21, 101 Cal.Rptr. 375, 495 P.2d 1295.) Otto and Halpin each suggest in footnotes that the protections of Title ill apply even if a telephone caller has no reasonable expectation of privacy. While this may be so, it has *859 little bearing on our mqwry. The issue is not whether ____KeJlejr:S J;a}l? were withm the ambit of Title ill as an initial matter; both sides agree that they were. Instead, the Issue IS whether any of the limited exceptions spelled Out in Title ill remove those calls from Title ill's protections. On that point, Otto and HaJpm are not mstructive. We reiy instead on Loyd and the developed federal consensus on the scope of the consent exception. Page 17 recently held that a prosecutor does not commit llllSCOilduct when he seeks' the s-urreptitious recording of conversations between an Imprisoned defendant and tlnrd parties, as the deputydistnct attorney did here. (Loyd, supra, 27 Cal.4th 997, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 360, 45 P.3d 296.) Twenty years . earlier, th~ same court helg that such actions (DeLanae v. Supenor constituted mISconduct. Court (1982) 31 Cal. 3d 865, 183 Cal.Rptr. 866, 647 P.2d 142.) However, Loyd concluded that mtervening statutory amendments have abrogated DeLanCle. (Loyd, supra, 27 Cai,4th at p. WID, ii9 Cal.Rptr.2d 360, 45 P.3d 296.) Kelley concedes that Loyd dispos~ of hIS state law challenge to the wrretappmg based on DeLancie. However, he rarses. a second state law challenge based on Penal Code section 629.50. We find no violation of that *860 statute either. Section 629.50 [3] That consent exception applies here. - Kelley's housing unit had a. warnmg sign, above its telepnones, which stated, "Telephone calls may be monitored and recorded.' In addition, thepnson plione sy;,tem contained a warning at me begnming of each call stath!g that all calls were . subJect to mOnitoring or recording. Meanmgful .. notice includes "a monitormg notice posted by the outbound telephone, .or a' *"Z(f1recorded WljIlllllg that IS heard by? the . mmate tl!rough the telephone receiver, pnor to hIS or her making .theouthound telephone call.' (Loyd, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 1015; 119 Cal.Rptr,2d 360, 45 P.3d 296 [cone. op. of. Moreno, J.].) Such notice;i.s precisely the. sort of notice preVIously found suffiCIent to hold? that a pn.soner has? unpliedly consented to. mODitonng. (See Amen. supra, 831 F.2d at p. 379; Workman, supra, 80 F.3d at p. 693; Van Puyck, supra, 77 F.3d atp. 292; Horr, supra, 963 F.2d at p. 1126.) Because Kelley had notice that InscaJls. were subject to -monitoring, he consented when he used the prison's phone system. It IS true that thIS rule presents pnsoners with ."a choice between unattractive options,' limith!g their contact with the outside world or submitting to government eavesdroppmg. (Langton v. Hogan (1st Cir.l995) 71 F.3d 930, 936.) However, there is no reason to believe Congress intended to draw the statute so narrowly as to exclude such pnsoner chOices from the notion of consent. (Footman, supra, 215 F.3d at p. 155.) The use of prison telephones IS a pnvilege, not a right. With respect to state law, our Supreme Court goveIitS .applications : fQI'. judiCial _, approval of WIretapping. No such approval was reqmied here. California's wrretapping statutes dike TitleID, do not apply to. the monitoring anci. recording of conversationS where one party consents. ,\i,sed on b gUidelines May 30 allowing FBI agents ti surve:lllance In places that are open\~to~:;;g~P~; .;?\ti;Ji~~6p forform . " . 19 without eVidence that those being. alleged sex a committed or are.plannmg to commit crimes. "California has drawn a line with respect to privacy, political ,md,assocJatio Il3lLpghj:s t~pt,government must not cross even withtlie besf oflritentions," the ACLU lettersald. "Yet; some of themtelUgence practiCes riciwopenlyencoUl'~ged by the new federal gUidelines cross that long~standing state line." The gUidelines rep(Oale~rule~lmposedby PreSident Gerald Ford .that allowed FBI sUr\ieillimce only during Criminal investigations and after eVidence of wrongdOing. PreSident Bush claimed that those restrictions gave terrorists and advantage and pledged that the new FBI powers would not stifle speech or dissent. l'heAC"iHtetter-asked Lockyerto advise state'-amr Judges orders attorney to st for theft, perj National, Cali sources of "greenhouse Experts see m to cut contrib global warmin At Orthodox J congregation terrorism and . .. ?4 http://www.sacbee.com/state_wire/story/3476776p-4502967c.html 7/8/2002 local police that they were still bound by California's privacy law even when working with federal agents. Although the FBI IS not bound by state laws, Lockyer should still "strongly encourage" federal agents to abide by the state's privacy laws when collecting mformation In the state. Lockyer's office promised a prompt reply and said it was complymg with state law m its post-Sept. 11 anti~terrorism projects, indudfng the estciEiITshmeriiof an mformation-sharing central database accessible to local, state and federal law enforcement. "We have no intention of trampling Californians' privacy," spokeswoman Hallye Jordan told the San FranCISco Chronicle. The database Inciudes only the names of those suspected?of terrorism-related crimes or who are bemg Investigated for such crimes based on eVidence, Jordan said. Information from: San FranCISco Chronicle school distric stlldy of Islam Contact Us/Feedback I Pnvacv Policy I T,mns of Use ~ I ~ I BUSlOess I Politics I OplOlon I EntertalDment I Lifestyle I II:9.:il:l1 Women Cars I Classifieds I Homes I Jobs I ShopPing Help I Maps I Newsletters I Site Map I SubScribe to the Pnnt Edition I Traffic I Wireless Deliverv About Us I Advertise 10 The Bee I Advertise Online I Contact Orculation Customer Service I Events [ Sacramento Bee Web sites 1 . MovleClub.com r Sacbee.com I Sacramento,com -Copynght (C) The Sacramento Bee / ver. 4 http://www_sacbee_com/state_wire/story/3476776p-4502967c_html 7/8/2002 ine :>acramento l:Iee - saCbee.COm -- ACLU askS Ca11torma to morntor .FBi Spylllg Page 3 of3 ( . .,. " ,., \ , o J ".:' "':'.1 :' " 'd~ ............ .",';! ," '~ '. ~. :.-,::(J:~q ~ .. ";.:: .'.'/" ;'i i," . , ,-.'>;:t (,' -":'..., \(';,?,~i ... :~., ,',;/ .,. " ,-' ?'.S, ". '.<. '. -~-' t? -.'.\., . , "." ,.,' http://www.sacbee.comlstate_ wirelstory/347 6776p-4502967 c.html 7/812002 (R)ff!~ of th~ ~..f?nn:tg;~ . ;,;,i .o ;fiJi .?:;JMi;??\?' ,iii ~,c,'. ' .. i' I.'?"':';:;! o H\' attomey'Otthe<$niiriiU'prnSi6nofthe DepaI$eJifbf~c~;''WJi[jfutheteis;an iSSU~liS'tq : 1 j : . : .::,'.:-( ::'::',". "K:':-,:' , ,-".:-,:;,i attOrn "condUdrw.esllie ?1.i.'.~~;?L:',:?/.':, '.\ . .:i SecCln<4"ParlV: oftheMenib~'dirin'opilii3:rf20;l 1998/'reqilit?i1IWan;'\igehcyhtl!id or his or her designee give oral:ilithom:atiohfoi'8omeDSiihlmo:iiitbRhg;'andWlied iliat"[a]iiy' designee shouIdbe a high-tanking supervjsOry official at headquarters 1~~!.::1?~ ,$fe was , qualified by Attorney General Order No. 1623-92 of August3!, 1992, wliiclililihilation to the Fe1eral J3ur~u ofInvem~tion (FBI),authcrlzed dele~tionofthis approyal functio~ to Special Agen:tSm Cliifrge: EXPmen.cehliS'sliownlliilttlliiieqwreiiienfofSpeblal'Agent iiiCbirge approvhl dilif~t'miiibss.ofm:vestl.g~mi~il'w&fuDiti~bed:iuse'()?~,overWlong~provaI process;' ilndmdiciiies'lhiit aIlowmgiiPPr0wl!:?iASSiSiiiliispeciiifAgmt8 iii'Charge'Woilld facilitate FBI mvestigative. operations. AssistantSpecial Agents m Charge are management pei:SolmeltOwhoilia variety of Sujj'&\iiSaryfuJd oversi~tie$ClriSJ.Diliti~aien?utitIelY given; generaI1yitliey are directly involVed':uid f8iniIiarWithllieCi:rii{ii:iIstmceii'i~Iatili~'fu1lie prcpriety of proposed uses of tre consensual monitollng technique. PartV);;S ~cdordi:dgIy teviSM in this Memorandum to provide that the FBI Director's designees for purposes of oral aulliorization of cOnsensual nionitBringJllilymcludeb'otliSpecialiAgei:its iliChatge-mid:'&?istiu'itSpeciaI Agents 92,whi6li'didrio(allCiw m Cliatge; This sUperSedes Attor'ney Gtillci:aiOfdiiNCiil(i23L delegation of this fim:rtion below the level of Special Agent m: Charge," ., . . Third, this Memorandum omits as obsolete Part VL of the Memorandum of January 20, 1998. Part VI. imposed a reporting requirement by agencies concerning consensual monitooog but rescinded ,that reporting requirement after one.. .. ...- , year, . . , " '. '. '. "-', ,-' --' TheFo~Aniendmenttotlie.Uniieds~~ Co~on, Title of the Omnibus Crime Control and ~are Streets Actof1968, as amended(18 u.,s.C.. ?251 0, et ~.), and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of1978 (50 U.S.C. ?1801, et ~,) penmt governmem agents, fu Memorandum fur the Heads and Inspectors General of ExecutIve Departments and Agencies Page 3 'wmfi. '401 U.S. '745 (1971); Umtea Si:ate?s v. Caceres;4'I01IS. 'i41' (1~: SiiiilliiIfy; tlie are acting wiili the consent of a party toa communication, to engage in warrantless monitoring of Wire (telephone) commm;cations and oral, ncrrwire commU!J.lcations. See United Statesv. Constitution and federal statutes permit federal agents to engage in warrantless monitoring of oral, nonwire commumcations when the communicating parties have no justifiable expectation of privacy.' Because such morutoring techniques particularly effective and reliable,the Department of Justice encourages ilierr use by f~~ agents for the purpose of gathering ewidence ofvlolations offeder31l.aw; protecting iI)f'oimants or undercover law enforcement agents, or fulfilling oilier, similarly cowpelling~. While ilieSe tecluriques are lawful and helpful, their use ininvesclgations is frequenty sensItive, so they must renlain:the subject of careful, self-regulation by the agencies ewpiaying them. . The sources of auiliority for iliis :Memormlmlm are Executive Order.No. 11396 ("Providingfoithe Coordination by the AttomeiGeneral ofFecleral LawEnforceme~t and Crime Prevention Programs"); I':r~idential MemcimD.dum(''Federal Law Enforcement Coordination, Policy and Priorities'lof Septemberil. 1979; Presidemial Memorandum. (imtitl:ed) ofJune 30, 1965, on, inter ilia, the utilization ofmechaIl!cal.or .electronic devIces to overhear nontelephone conversations; the PaperWork ReductionActof i980 and the Paperwork Reduction ReauihoIlZlltionAct ofl986, as amended; and the inherent authority of the Attorney Gen.eral.~ the chlef law e.tiforcement of5.rerof the United States. . . I. DEFINmONS As used intlnsMemorandum,.the term "agmcy': means all of the Executive Branch departments and agelX)Jes,. and specificallyincludes United States Attorneys' Offices which utilize their own investigators, and ilie Offices of ilie Inspectors General. As used ill tlns Memorandum, the terms ''ll:terception" and "monitonng" mean the aural acquisition of oral commurucations by use of an e1ectromc, mechanical, or other deVIce. C? 18 U.S,C. ? 2510(4). As used ill this Memorandum, the term ''pullic offiCIal" means an OffiCIal of any public entity of government, including special districts, as well as all federal, state, county, and municipal governmental units. 2As a general rule, nonconsensual interceptions of wire communications violate 18 U.S.C. ? 2511 regardless ofilie communicating parties' expectation ofprrvacy, unless the mterceptor complies with ilie court-authorization procedures ofTitleill of the Ommbus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act ofl968 (18 U.RC. ? 2510, et~,) or with the prOvisIOns of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. ? 1801 et ~.), Memorandum for the Heads and Inspectors General of Executive Departments and Agencies Page 4 II. NEED FOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION x: rnveStigationS When; 'Written DejXlrtment of]uStlce ApPr0viil isRequrrecr A request for authonzation t() JJ?onitor,aJl 9,ral C(lJ;DWAA1cation "Without the consent of all parties to the commuriica'tionmiiSt De lippiOvea in writing by the Director or Associllte DirecW,r pf the Office of~1ifo~el1-t()Pemtions, Cnminal DrvislOn, , U.S. Dep!u1nientQfJuStice"wJ:i~itifl?llqYvn::that, " , !"-" , (1) federal 'dge,amemberofllieExedUtive Branch at EXecutive Level IV or 3hovd; ~ apci:sgn;'wligh~~~@' ill'~cl{c;q;~ty withm the previous . two years; f!1e, mon,itonnpela~t() an i,nx~~tiop, of ll;:r;nemb~ of Congress, a ., ,; , .' "', , .,'., ,,--,' ',.," - " , (2) 'the :mollito~g.r6ia~ ~?h}v~~1i(lp:ofjii,~' GOv~or, Lieutenant Governor, oiAttomey' Ge:D.eraI of anY' stare or Territory, or a JUdge or Justi()e !>'fl!i!lYSB"!~,()x:T~tory'llAd the offe= inveStigated is 'iine'Uiv8MD:g lirlSery:'6ooflidof interest, or extortion ofr.ge,lng4estffimt relatWptHPt,q1ffi10~~ 1~2,grg~,ffi,?f,.~1fJ,~~~ duti~,;, (3) (4) ::r~o~w.~~)"m~~~~~!~~~~pe):sr,~~?~q1ff~~CorpSOf a any party to the commmicatlon Isjdfiiiillbi~'~'irigfuiJ'br of tIle Witness ,,!:~ l!~~, ~4~~t~~:,i~,lp1qTI?0 ~~:ll~T9[iIIvolved or Its , (5) the consentin,g ornonconsenting person IS, in ilie custo?!y of ilie Bureau of 'lfuoJis~~6Hjii~~~W'~iitsp}1,~~~~c~f~' " :. i (6) 1ll.b disftictwhereanfuVesugition is bemg'cCliidUcted has requested the investigating agen()Y to obtain pnor written consent before conducting consensurumo@o!:ingfua.speeifiCitrveStiglttion.. '". ~:n1;(~4s~i~~~~~~~'~~bdi;~tt=:ey in In all oilier cases, approval of consensual mOOitoring will be m accordance wiili the procedures set fOlili in part V, below. ,-4 --...---- .-- ---- . 5-1951 La fail: fzmif -ugfeEFI: 'xJ5:.i . 7 -2 - .9 mg; 9131-'f7: 'fl' 12:1 gig; I . 1 iv Ur 41; :ir ii?n;-is-E - 1. lffi- :1 .. - .. -, gy,-1 .-3 -.E rl- _,ff qupie: Q, 1 =fGapta|n ?@eIwe1 33151 EMI . .2-5 5 4-4:24. - 'iPQUCQ 1- 27:3 -L 5; i, . - 5193, - f# Ur; U72- .. .f ei -EHT115 - .- 2 .- 'fx' r, 'Ai .gun gr 7 _fig-4 5, . - mi; ..2i QT if 'Hs --gags-Lnfu, -.-- . - I . 9 IQ RGBLaw'Tfl 31 H75-T ff" . Sf! Tfi- 1 M. I 33:-af . -.5 . - 1,75 <1-wp .fn F25-1 5323 .--. ixffp; ~f1-Q 'lx i 3 - f. Lffl;-12; A QA . _fr -y 'bwffiVliqsfl - - afig -Ti! - ru 1_2 24,- `fC?iTl?I'\ 1 :ju 4: 1 ,qu 9.$62.73. rr A.: 7 u_sl_Qn Pl' 'r 4 141-``1'f ;aa~wrytif .-., wwf'Ds' \--."utr "xg-'mfg r~ an :ef vgafe, fm.; .. nf 3 f=F ff|ceslsr: - 3 1_-1 Hr- ., u-1 ~.ar 1; mr :sr 2-15 -Z .au 1? 4 'Eiai ,w . 7_ 51153 rf; A. 1 ig? pf.- -JM, -. :wx 1 fi,-3 - wr.. iq 132' Q-,ggi :.1- age- 5 5" sa. .avi.12 "f,--2. .., ,fa-Q1-.'Urn rf. wa" xawrafx- _,Ji :fa ff.-vnu '-15 Ike? 11. QF: ~4i11-is .1 ff; <11 -V pw. fair; 21315 r;-3 *-Eijflfi? :qi-15 141,iiE?Q ,lf xi 2? 12 2, lf.: kia: .Z .fi il if 'Ziff 1 z: gr jstatewl 9) - 4 - 1, Fgfy 2= 5: uf: Iirfiil 3: _jj .4 :faq - if 5- 1' _,rf it I ?3 1: :ff qv; lq1'_l' .9 1 . - -$11 a If-1 QE . fi. - 'ki gf?" gg; ge a: I gray AZgi:fg?_gn ,Ein ga eg egton 13223 r; - -, T-gf .1 .-. . P- .111 . - .A . .V lar; jx* Ltr; QW, ,nag fs, 4 ., Q) I '3 1:1 57-UH, ,gig Enlaazemeaxi -1 fri 1>>3 1. 1 ng, ewan rr Reglon sion .-.1 .mn Ofkice --G fl" 1-NhPublic 'z an ww. Ion 1 Center A Wx . -, Dinners ?Mun|c|pa|, .Federa_LLaw 1 Enfurcemenld I -. 1, mfwg, mrIDPH . 1- U. ',lf Prwale Business . -I 5: 1 :rv gn- ,Mn ,uhh 'fig ce-I iq" H- f- wr'Vid' P41 v. 1 41, amz- - P: ,eq 1 - .4;ay- QI 53? f, 31 Qi lg, Qin" 2 ,233 *Li Ez: -5 #Lil 1954: 2594; ga; .e 1 -rwC-F 113, a; 4' ig, ff'-1 tvi. 5625"-It 3? iw- . YF- -1 =:fY fi .11; 15- . :nl-c!--$4.411 9 3 $11 7 ., 2 -I:-nf F-nv:-7: . '-,ffrw 2- 4: 1-3 gffijgf $2 fi 1 V, .Y ai fav' X-iff! - qw ri S-if-t <1 - -J T- #Sl .1-ff fe, T=ii?aiai - .Lg: .ISVT74 ,139 vi; _.in - .- 1- Hgh. ff xr; 1 aff_gr _.ie-ua-f -249- A .wk -51. 1: Lf. - 411 .Trl -L.-. - mai -- -. ra Nw. . ?12 ., agua 1: 1.9 Region 31-ll: .Z If 'Qi 1- Lug.; . fu. ,un .5--1, fi! '-151315 1.111:2 lgff, irlif' 313% F- -11 f~uf>>n. .5 Plnlecledi -9.5 f,.lQfQ 1221: 0 CJ 5 a 2* 5-:fr 4- 21: if - at-"r :i fgigfx -.gk. #217 Ln _nr -V 1* we:-29; H-1: nge;Ef:State TTY - - <3 I - - a, f' lnlell-xx;-f Fedua5Pa|1ners Q--E Af-2 5 5-,fit 'li' 1 1 -35ms'- - _af Hgri- el_"$10. . - -Y .- 1 fI'11Tf' Fi? r: uf f.'r .. 1. -pri my asm-,.-..--r5S? 5. -- iw? 512-If if 2.515 .'rQ2f: - Lx? ==f-gf itz-ag g?gilii? . . jfs; cd-.3 r- f- 1 'fE"'1.uf. EiEi??" _-ri -- -.14 5 '21fi? up - 'a'C1_uf ?73 .Jai #swf 7,31 53355 . . vz_:Qui .Ii H-kill nf* -.vt - - f' _,Q-lr . 'iw-i 5 fy .fiff 212' 1615StQI!?iIfi ff. 7.25ngfi w*~lf- lg-'Preservatlwn Letters Con -1 4 as.. . Some phone compames may nat be abie to recover text content chart, 1 VK I) A. _faffhere w||l lege a recovery of tex 'a fr J. 1 messages (gage .1 handout) ff 4' cost assocuated fy. tmessa es' 1 1 wr etters are not a substut ra: for proper legai process 1 fix. 1 1* pf! 4 I lkh.11 ,rfrf-Qf~-qi 2:25 2_5 :Sv 13 :fm ffxi- 'ae xr, >,rgf il .ff . -ii? _ft rf: as;~2W-kilt.-wtf: ai Lfif _'gf 5, pig; gi -1 P4 r-:Q hz-:1-i :nf :fsw 52-= .- i. _1 1 f. iff. wrt- 2: I J, ?i?;eau- 34355: if ,1 iftg,-J: mf#-1-rr-41; ry ;1g.-ff. 1 di-I IJ--_uf .-1 -V 3 F- T235 -3 sf 2- Ar af: fi' S535 .Ing 15. 1 .ggi 53'Dux . P555 P-: u- -_gg . -- . H315 'Lift-11. Us 2' LQ: :Ars ff. - 91:.1.5-.Iv -_.iff :fx :fan a- - U. is-'f if12291 .1 - L. Li, I -lg! 1" -61% :n _,ar ,rg-<3 ff' 9 yy; arf; . I 555, :iw .st 55 4 r. uzz. -1-,wr; 1f"f,- -4 4 I -wfy;-T I, _.*lnvie- If' - _-ref vz.-1 11' 1.5. 11 3 eg, Hr: If V-4. 1 . .Q 5116: 311:31 - ., :aff Ii ad ~mc_ 245 4 1- _w ffm- 1 . I-331 2. 11% 3? F. ?5 C1-J if--,Wil a Lnf; -2.1-'f-*zere zaauffgilisazf nfs'-_ an- -1.1 fr- Q.. fic' 14. -L 1-;j;9T_ :sie I fik? . :ing dxf, . 1. LFE- .. umfr-'I!-itil? I :vm T4 A . -Ir: -- - . :fr :Iii ri. is* If _'fa -L 9.31 >r Elf1rufur--Lfn- gy-= f?r. E: -M rn affrf -250- 1 -1-if -.5211 11 1711-13-? fi, ?z?a #Ig-1 131,142 In Qi-1; 1-jfftigi 5-1 1? iw,-111.-: :-'21 .11 -1 3 -1 fur- ?111 5:3 - 511- 1 1:11 -.: fs: I 1212 ~-1111--11--1: F122--1 -1- 111_,fn - If 1 553 1552 ?L`.ai xj EU Iii; 351: 32.52 ri? Ziff 1 f_ ?3 5- fr? 5:21 F-vii; '1~rF -. 1 1 -1111. r-1' 1 1 .1-7:11 I 1 'aw sq, 1 I1r_; 4; 1.51: 1:5 c-I ?523 511,111 11-414 :aff ff; .-.. 1 - . . - 1:15 -1 5151: - gJf=.' 7 '1 -1 5 "zu- -1 A 2 I --.. 11.114 1- _-all yautm ~-attorne ==orfars1-as 1 nt- .1 f~ 112' 153-1 -51; _,Cu . A.: . gi; IQ., -, 1' . 121- 25", 'wb 11~1;1 .2 1- 11- - 1-3. . - . I. :'Tr1-511 1_ 5 If f-$235 ?335 - -5 :Qs I I. ,It .-1 7_3 _,nga 31:1 1; - -.- - NI .--. -.1--V111 -.IE uf:- -I _ey v<"Ik; - -~21's 12 'ifh-'3.11, e_5_C|f| SGC IQEL, GXIS . --1 -C . 1 - 11412 -- vs_-1 '12 (4 t13"- .1 3 1-J 1~ --.-, 11.-515; 1.5 1-11-I 2171; 1 1 ig; 5 5.-f-1; .I,xl-5-?115-ai-1 'arm 1-ff - is if I 1111; -1.1 us 5-gig; Eg: _fy 1,51mv'-'-'If Eff! 11:1 EC 123539 fm 1551* av( rm: 51771375 - 514- ma.: ;13J1~f1 1 -12. -:12%-2211 ff-~ I fIfisgiaaE14735 J., wr: -- .2 1.-- - '-1.1-.1 171 -1- --I 2. . 5-WF: 7-iff: fl-41;-fs .1 1531-q- -4 -. .-.1 _f 51111,1 IliZa'-ai .11 - 1' ,-552 515; 3211f,'113.22 Luv-_ .1 *rf* II I 1:1 1 -1 etermmes 1. 1 1 1111? I -. _wg 1 ENIERGENCYINSTALLATIO I1 111 1.1? 1 AND USE SUBSEQUENT 'f 1, 1 '11 -. APPLICATION AND EIR "fm1-1.4 he osecutmg attorney or an 11- .1 1 attorney genera! who r?asonably -I determmes that an cgmeqgency fytuagnpn descnbed IU subsectnon 2 .41 I 11 Inq,11 I,_f 1 -v 1 .- H1 _Qtr I 11 Ji -I- _.Ib uf 1 N1 a I 11-. 4 --I 1-:-rx -fp 1-1 qw 4 .. :wa -rw' _zz lsi, 1 te' r. 1.15. ;-.154 I '~T'~fs1 If: --111:21-fr Tm -1-xr1--far #11: .-. 31. -1- -.au '-If |551 L: ,ez 1' 'wav 1-, -gg. fc. -1,1 1 13. 3; I .1--bfi Q'n'faa'-1--111 .WI 551-;1_ L, 1:51, -1311151325; gg-= 1 .- Sri?-if if 15: =1-7 - :ff 11. 2 s_ if-2: =a21i#*5L1-.111- --11I1111'--,Us 'itil'- 1 _nn 1.1 -1. 7 F.-351.1 1 . -- - -1 L1--B -4- T-.f-1 -.ww .. 3; *np 11 -gh. -- I. 1 Ip if-5 'gun 551-2 9 - 11-v -1.1- 11 _.Iv Q., I-.15:1 1 1 -251- 1~F21 1-1--.-- 1 1 - I I. mg1~-to-Su IQ-Sectlom--~2-I--33% 3375 -2 Q- 5? 14: 1* '1 ?251 itil - 2312-; ?fe-1111 1; 1 -1afar "5 4 I 2~ 1 552' .: 1 -'-532 hoursf 1 -1 1 . AU.: fi I 1,_1 I7 F1T33??li S|tU?at|?i Lf; 15 ?1-ng - I . 1 . 1..- . 29X -.-1. 11 .. .1 I., 1.-, -g-11 . 1 1 -1 P11-f-. .-, 75:1 1-.F- -,Wm gg;-F5 -qf .fa 11'ff 1'1LII111-If I PQ, . .1. .- 11,5 1 Fl1'JJ'l1.-ishIL1111II1vI11'1II Ixfm" I1 I1 aff Iii; 1121: i - *ie?i . 7' 4 _f oar*-F ,An . . _gy ;g5_ . :fi 4"-f M.. I - ,Elff .Sf-gfT-"s2' 5 *ju -., . fi:--:1,-,fgg _gf gf.; 3:51, V. - . $17. _Ln 5 .5371-Inv.Tri f?r xi-f JU I . . 4 _,E224 -- - Ez' - Jn" 'pair Q-lf? i= ?f 63 Pfdii.y-fr21' J:f= al; 7-fi-Ein? -'wr., gr. ..'ini ,111 5 fs. 01;-gy ua :fx 3; _*#21: ff' I 1 11,1 . . Q- Non of methodskused to !ocate.r (DomenjrSu|9m1ss|omFor A .r 1 . xr) 1 f,-Request|rag>Agency will submlt Equipment" 'xx Submission Form which w|I| cover thew LEIN . ".qi rea w|I| be . s' done a Russ Safe Contact DPS Intel to 'uv De Consux. ., - in #2531 ,fl_1J 5 Q-Q Tj fi M. 5.gg- ,Lyn L..--1, Vq>> gm- nf' -A 1 E155 1? 1155 E2 ,Te 365 Cyl? ii* 7-IQ "Er 155.1-., atm vjia . . . . - - - 3% 1 .. _c fx, :lv ;fiL4.: . ei -.;m2r::a? uf; fu. _'mu :gr--.th -59 f--mt; -if A61-2 -1 Ar. A- R- _raw _J1.-. 'ff wiv.-M.. - 1 M--. -sm-ff da- fr- ;m~ra=.., 14.3, 111; fl Lf 55: ftjiyi $5.5 12: i 2.1.2 ,ine fri Fi? \-155 F33 sf' fi; '57'f':E ~f -: -- - - ,nz :wrt :Sri ., . .-. 2?-35.151 .firly'5".4-1-5-1:5 111125 . 1 .. v- 5 73--JK11142 af'- 1551011 _#_"fr -fr f- 1-:-.L-3-1--'Zffi-JAf?5~f~H. rrlgifid) 516) ui' 1: SirI-.mi . . 3 . :ff .31- .Q 3-'gi . . :lf Fu. if #If lffi -M fir?-1 fl .gl Qs' .':13f 1 . FWORQEFEQBLINQEEB . ., _'ff ., - - fy. ,ff _'g?gql-.1 'fe ff-> 2-ir-11Jig? ?53 ai $241. - -1 -xi :Him '1Tif I-1 . Q: ima- ,714 "er 'fa _:ax L-fs,gf 'sl f'arra nt=xf" wf-252- --5 1 -: -1 . Tis: 'i .5 -1 ff Q. 1--. - -. Ji . ..r1 gil, 1 1 wif_*-..Q .- i_ _npr -f 3 4 . a~ i-1 3,1151 1-1-J'ff 2755 -1.?,11-411ems vfmvo . 11. ,_11.t 91 1 1 I Lf-._1113 1,115 7121. 1 -an' .1 -1 -f i 1r; -pg -_Fug 111: If 4 -r-f $145 -.- -.--. .1 gf -f 111: 1.1; 1 - 1 F12 T-Z-fiff? ?_fT"f . 42, .. gf.. 1 '11 .1-: 1 .--1. - .1 wilf11111 :ai . ._-gnasgf -351. -1- 7.4; -1- f; a .1 125121: -. 1. fn.; 141.1411 1.141.111---fri11:27. .QHEQ _Inf Warrant Contlnule 41, 1 I 1 1 1 1..1 5 A_feIon31 fugntav? wart?mdsvi?iuai wha 31.2 A 1. 1, M. 1 believed to be Icacated w|th|n the 1.1 1 1 state 1-f Is. xl VV 'mi 111 1,111%- 4 .2 -5.1 1 -1 1.1 1 14,1 1 1-3 1 1 .113;--5 fZg.12 .: .1 1 1 131:5 --1 $5191 Li- .3 A - 2.1 rifeYJ. LJ..- -.1if: $2711 r1,1, ., 1 `-3.2.15 15 Ll fini- Iv _-2111.2 Ea* T-2733 [12:55 i? '14 -Ez? 1112; H11 !-5235 Mg? Haig11- F-A-.1 1, 1-.fig 1.1- 11521525FWEG 1* 1 M5 1.4 I., '111-15% Tt'7'3_2 1-.1 _1 1 _1 _:gf 1 gg* 1-eg wg; - aff, fm' -1-111, -gb H51-.f-_ -I-lf-.73-W. if ir ?2L1.. :Ez--1.731 if-5-1 1.1? - 4.-1 1-~11_ . -1 1' 1 1* 5,12 3- -1 21? 'Faris i'?2 'wr-1 '11 "1 _.ia -L. 1- .r-xii*-1 1 =1~-_ici :1 1.11 1_5 Q. U: '1111 'err 1 1-ru -253,11'nb1.-- fs'fun-sr 1 1 5.11 1; 1-33.-ri - 1 .1 +1 5511-13.1.1_ 1 i -_rg --.-.-. f_1--rimoffense11f2_~ 5 K3 _tl,ULlE3_ 1-11FJ, -.345 ,ry 'mai--Efti 5 7' 1 . 15,-1,-f-<1-fe.-f. aria '13 1 f;-bs: -wk .11131rig,1_1 '=a11L=-yr 1:1 yi if 11- 1.11, Eg, 5 1:61; ?15`*3ii 5 - 1 5-'rs ff' -1 If 1' 2375 =s-112. '1 17- P- iaiff 11113. -51-, -gf; 1.1 1- gli: -- az?-2. 71 . rvfi lik - .. -gf 1 1.1-1; 111-F 'i 7' .. f* 1 1ff'1=' fx' -11.1" 3 15: ~1 1. 1- 51, _,fr . 4 .1 11,1 1 1 11,19 --.1 ,131 13Eff# iz"-I' 1 1* 2 fi if ae-f 1. 1 1 v1 . Jr.. -. A 1- 1.5.3, 1 .. -wg .1-L 5.1111 -11; 1 'gjr ii-1' Qi* -2 179? f.-uf-r. 1 -154732: . .- 1 1 tw. 'iff 1.1:4-g - '1 11 I -1 ki' 'am-1' 1-. ,p .1-L. 1 guru ,95353 5111 11411 . 1.111 ~1_1 1 ,111 1 1 .- 5- A . 7' Bl15:5 Gnifbl DCGH . . - ~.54 t1>4Si% fm" _,fr "fx-f. 15 ,gsm-f'f fy Q. 4 Want? 5 .1115 1 FCArr., .V 1. 1 mia-, 1 MA H. rw; ah H-ff7-x"Lf'Trl Trl: rl - -inn -fry. 1 Zu# U.. -7- 1' .134 aff .- 85151 . -Jax'Qui ,Tm Q) ri., tw - .-an 21.51.1 - .LY 3-2.4, 12:91 'xi Fi* may,-: .: arranL-,mal i1' ;-521, 15 1-4,4 :Lai 'ggi pf.; 1_1 . 1; I Attachment>>=B. fi* . 1. Q, 'wif rvI||1 yurqilfarg Hlsto Sf! v: -1 Af: PHE) USE .r - vu' 'fum \/Varnant Cen nued Ceif Pnovlcier - I 'r A rw ff et Telephone Number cal Dates; -, 1 .HL gsster/flfrap Efrace U., i _g fn. '-ul zu rw" THE 9 RRECT FAX WELL NE MAKE NUMBER -1A-.M LL 1i'l'2f1f? Tiff if ri *Ulf 4-'Fiff flia f?%s lar i' ff-,vis 'f I 1; YQ. if 1' :er wx; rms.-.- - - . bfi a=vf: :mi 221?-= fz?gzfa frfa -'fefiffs A11-?i' ids: Il' 'f 3-2 - ir.-T I-T I ?1.31 - -irirgif f-f. . 7, 1 .. - nj.-.u -. . -.fl . Q.. - .gi . rf51--fn - xr; 1; 2. Q-::fyuq -14-fx 22+ 2155; PF Sic 'if-'r . im CQ, Iii- - 4" E*-f-vines ?-mae- K-:fs-Q:-mu iw ie 1 'inn-& -f #1 .3 .F aw., 2-. 51sr-.a-5+ 1114--, - rn: 543 11:-nr af, 41' i= affIJ"fl--*fr . A7 . - 5:-vw -rrf -lvrfii Q1 'ffjl "fi-mf, -f -- .. -mai_,gg .2 1: . l\/lust: U3 ?a;$Fi ., l?lel . _fur -f "ii :Di -ifEAW, - 61 i?tes_,nf ie-,-H..-.- wr. 7 _:Ei 13.211 7: - - - A Q7-, 4: . Jw, -1$45. -1-:$.11 a .- @n ' . -fu, - ry; 21? 'fi 1"1_ 1' 2 5475.--,ct 1..- -A 1 .. 1 1 21,21 frfruz 1 411' 'xx:tc 2.1? 55 Sw-1 31'-35121; vw - - we v'.xii* - 'f'12r.-*f-Ha; if-= 53; 5 - I 1 .-a_f` .ff Tal Warren ., sqlf. .rr 1. - 2? 1: -'ia ~7i-_-mfr - qs,-1 - .A 1 rf- 1 ai-2.'ai 1-1. 1:1 -E>>b1'f2- f-:life 'fel _'if pf- -: _gy .-15, fr- is-=s ivii- I- wif. -1 Y- "1 I rv. .fig 1 -r 'L-'rg if fr-? 5 rr .: 1 13623 5 _zu vw T-1: pn? a 1' . -. fb". -wi 1:55 -wa: .Ta- f- if 29: <2 1:2 -fn af-; 'ian an :fy #ua-1 -V ww- fr - mf our' $911212 uf-'27 . Y: A '51, rfb' .P 1- . 1 1, 5-_r ,f V. _:ppm 'Lu -, .1 ,131 iffyLil? %31i #7.1? mer.-. .., _,vi 1~ 1:5-:iw :Ag nf q. _aiu in 'eff Qi?zfig 1- -if; ix sig: 51; ri Lf.; Effie' H54 A if;-22 A-E: a rr-< 1 . !dn"i I s-1-1: n;-iff-zz ?4.12 -. .1 - .1 9; -.--. -v 5; - . .yf ., :ff-5 H1 hi# . Li; Ji: -ffm: -s-my -1-.. .-255- I9 51% Ph? Q52 -:fm ri; 'fc 923-_xr -if .xv-'1 .sv 1-- Zi. if i [Qu 5-if *rf 237| P5 ut- cl' (D -t r-l-ZZ" .I . Fi BJ nj] :sf-.1-1emi; ff ini; 4| 2 '5 if? EFQSF. .FEI - ff 1.45f-.L-ii? fi - 'If ?15-q "ul f- 'f i'fJ"'ffF fi' cf--O -3 -1 -xc" 1:-fr 'fl |311 -1. pf gs fri-3, gf, 11-}51 5 Rf iff 1-f If -NH --.11; WU.: ,111 vw; ;4 . Q- 2 iw- 1.1 'rp-$23 4 D12 HN ,f .1 .A-EE.: gn.; .1 ff . 1;-1 -;-E-ggi $1 _a $313 _rg rn; K;-g -1 Xie .-E 11,1 g, 4. auf ffih 1113 J. if 'g . 'Qf:na 'Er --ff :5 UT ,mvog _f 'mr mg ,wtf-_ .1 1 mn. 5:4 -, mul" ,cy pi .gnu 1-,nr rc.: ff wh ng:-ir 25153-'Ijemzf ,uf .3-_mp-0 1; -1- I, 1| Ed. 1/li 2192 .tj, ii; 'Lf :guru -ng. "po LSR.. '1 mfVg? Zh; I., ISL. 15.15, 5-|-Hg fn -sv? ~5 4; '-an ww '1 1* f~ i-iif: - gr*-5 -vs" 'r [Ji - 1r15"".\ -<5-raymf. _:Ju _.il ..- .5 1 - ffr5.7: if .Q QU 1.5 ~_1v ff'f-:_Tj lil# Extra '22-3-if H5501 ia!-0 BH, $251 :fFE'h .z 4: . - 3. r--ee in. ni-J. r; ii.. -Lui' IU . MQW '52 T1-f~' .155 L. 1 _'_*fra r' 1399 3 21352 F0 :q _ff?fD_ C3129 ii?-2 131272 .5110 "2 39? A ?564 5-: Ly vi .ip IEZFD REQ ff .M 'Nb 'Ef1'ting? f,-25. $5 :?iA ii-` .zi?h I 52 5G $5151 4?=rD EMD 4 if?- 2 33 CD L50 35-'77 W-f -jg? wIf2-j -via H1 3-f' 5' 13.5-pm- wr,211-1 T: -V - - .., -..- . .- .JLX A. AFTER CA fl 'gf-2 M, f_-fi. . - _f .. I .AJS . .wr Jfu' 7 Qg . 75-5 13341 3' . .-,Tum a-r .r -. . ca i?9?==31i| bl HQ ,521 1327gg., ef _nie "tit" I 3 . . ?5153 fr- 1 'f gf: 2.3 3-Xe- -iff; 3 .5515-_g 12251; 1 1 . _,Jr -qnyf 521; efie- 'g-gsff. 4: F, ws H. . 'fiff s;-Env Mi. W1 2_1 .211 .'r*b A .a'14iE"'fT fi 113-:uwif nr v* .., vs I1 - 1-iw fl 13:-gm. Ef -Fil s??r_;a 1. 1; "gzri . 11 - -., .-. 11141 11 .1, . 3' M.-. 1555; 1-121; - 1'1" za-#f .- -ff 4 .V115.1451 . 5. qia-'71 .-A: ., 3 I gin xi1_3 1,Half.tri .- .Y cuieth ReturnvEli! QEQII Qf -1 -- 5 - -.fu 1 - i. 5_1 1 .111 . ;~11 ..-- Ll, . ;fi;ff'f2 L45 ?fs FS_.qs 1-g_-K nag: '1 1-,;?11z1_- ig: fm: 71:11 1,51 gl _Lg -51; _:rg -f - - .- 1 11,2 yi-QT rr- -1 ff'-1 1-~1 "1 1114x-4_1 1y.g:17-"ei iff1-3313 frfil: . 1 "3 if -155 11_affan uf1\'f-.1 -. - - 11,1 1. 1 2 .J 11. -,rg ., 1; ms.. 5, A-,wa 1 3 . VP 1-1, 1 Lv- - 11. 1. Hoily \/Vrtt 1 1% 563 599 5416 1 st?a.-U., -11-Wg. _:nf . - un; :ru 1 1'-al 'fat-_ 2 1 . -. - 11193,2111 .21 5; -5,15 1; ?13 51. -11 -4 -5:1 - 12 :Lb 1'-af 1.-: ug. Q- :iff if- . zz; ugq--.7-5 ya- _1-31. Af..-sf I-cf2-151 :gg-',gy -1-.nj rr- -gf -1. 3 M311 .1 .: 47 -rr-2_-1-111 - rf. if-ri 5:15 ~1 -:qu 7.5, .aj 'frfri -I ~a 1; aes; #1 *film - - 11: "5 xl- ,ge Ln; 1: sry, 5; ;1i?if 1 _"fra-1; 1: - 11: 1; 25131 2: 2 5 41:5 .- 1:23 1-1, -, 1. AQ oct' -11-1. 1.1121 1 1 51- ws: 31; I mf, -ffl$551117 I 7* 'y .1 1:1113 1415? ?1~1i if .Zi 27 E-LHS 2 Juv: 112% --va 3: -. wifi .- ?3 lim# .I 11.* 1. *ite 1.-5 1 af.; v- -11:1 . 1-1- .- 1; sf ua; 1- -1.Lai uyr *iw ua: :Lim 1 mai, Ar- 'i ae-. 2: ., I f; .."Nga 1 111 1.rf.; EUR. . Jn.. -256- 1= ,_V_y1 -f'.=f;j 7-F if - 1: L-at -z 11:1 61 'rj-'11-2 ,zs ft~ 214; 1, 1; Jggirdif iz# inf.; 'gag *11rf, up; 1.11X.: 11' 11.11. -.1 ef, -vi2-1 iv; .ji-l',11,1-. "Aga 1- - aff"-E - 1 ,1-'Ir pursuant.to1 1 1-.-1- vi.1THE CITY OF RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA POST OFFICE BOX 590 o RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27602 o 919?996?3385 HARRY P. DOLAN CHIEF OF POLICE September 21, 2011 Katherine Lewis Parker Legal Director American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Foundation Post Office Box 28004 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-8004 Re: Request regarding cell phone location records Dear Ms, Parker: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated August 3, 2011 identified as a "Request Regarding Cell Phone Location Records," Item #1: Policies, procedures and practices you follow ta obtain cell phone locotion records Any such items in the possession of our office in writing, if any, are enclosed with this letter. If no such items are enclosed, this office does not have any such items in writing, Item #2: Data retention poliCies, detailing how long cell phone location records are kept, databases in which they are placed, and agencies (federal, state and locol) with which they are shared Retention of records is governed by the Records Retention and Disposition Schedule for Municipal Governments issued by the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Historical Resources, Archives and Records Section, Government Records Branch, The most recent copy is dated May 19, 2009 and is located at: http ://www,records , ncdcr.gov Iloca 11m un ici pa I 2009.pdf Item #3: The use of cell phone locotion records to identify "communities of interest (detailing those persons who have been called, or called by a target)" in investigations POLICE DEPARMENT 6716 SIX FORKS ROAD RALEIGH . NORTH CAROLINA 27615 ' 919?996?3335 Faimess- lntegl';ty- Compassion-CoJ1/mitmen f- !lccolllltability- Presel'valiOIl oj Life-IIIIJovative Calibel' Service This is a request for information and does not describe a "public record" as defined in N.C. Gen. Stat. ? 132-1. If it is intended to be a request for a public record, it is insufficiently specific to identify what record is being requested. Records relating to this issue that are a "record of criminal investigation" or a "record of criminal intelligence information" are not subject to public access under N.C. Gen. Stat. ? 132-1.4 and do not have to be disclosed. If the request is revised to describe the specific records requested, we will review any records that correspond to the revised req uest to determine whether or not they may be released. Item #4: The use of cell phone location records to identify all of the cell phones at a particular location This is a request for information and does not describe a "public record" as defined in N.C. Gen. Stat. ? 132-1. If it is intended to be a request for a public record, it is insufficiently specific to identify what record is being requested. Records relating to this issue that are a "record of criminal investigation" or a "record of criminal intelligence information" are not subject to public access under N.C. Gen. Stat. ? 132-1.4 and do not have to be disclosed. If the request is revised to describe the specific records requested, we will review any records that correspond to the revised request to determine whether or not they may be released. Item #S: Your use of "digital fences" (systems whereby you are notified whenever a cell phone comes within a specific geographic area) This is a request for information and does not describe a "public record" as defined in N.C. Gen. Stat. ? 132-1. If it is intended to be a request for a public record, it is insufficiently specific to identify what record is being requested. Records relating to this issue that are a "record of criminal investigation" or a "record of criminal intelligence information" are not subject to public access under N.C. Gen. Stat. ? 132-1.4 and do not have to be disclosed. If the request is revised to describe the specific records requested, we will review any records that correspond to the revised request to determine whether or not they may be released. Item #6: The legal standard (e.g. probable cause, relevance) you proffer to obtain cell phone location records This is a request for information and does not describe a "public record" as defined in N.C. Gen. Stat. ? 132-1. If it is intended to be a request for a public record, it is insufficiently specific to identify what record is being requested. Records relating to this issue that are a "record of criminal investigation" or a "record of criminal intelligence information" are not subject to public access under N.C. Gen. Stat. ? 132-1.4 and do not have to be disclosed. If the request is revised to describe the specific records requested, we will review any records that correspond to the revised request to determine whether or not they may be released. Item #7: Judicial decisions and orders ruling on your applications to obtain cell phone location records If any such documents are in the possession of our office, they are enclosed, except for any such documents that: (1) have been sealed by court order, (2) are protected by Article 16 of Chapter 1SA of the North Carolina General Statutes, Electronic Surveillance Act, or (3) are search warrants that have not yet been served and returned to the Clerk of Court. Item #8: Statistics regarding your use of cell phone location records, including the number of emergency requests for which no court order was obtained This is not a request for a "public record" as defined in N.C. Gen. Stat. ? 132-1. If our office has previously compiled a list of such "statistics," the previously compiled statistics are enclosed. If none have been previously compiled, none are enclosed. Item #9: The form in which cell phone locotion records are provided (hard copy, through specific online databases) This is a request for information and does not describe a "public record" as defined in N.C. Gen. Stat. ? 132-1. Item #10a: Communications with cell phone companies and providers of locotion-based services regarding cell phone location records, including company manuals, pricing, and data access policies Any such items in the possession of our office are enclosed. If no such documents are enclosed, our office has no such items in our possession. Item #10b: Communications with cell phone companies and providers of location-based services regarding cell phone location records, including invoices reflecting payments for obtaining cell phone location records If any such "communications" or invoices are in our possession and not prohibited from disclosure by Article 16 of Chapter lSA of the General Statutes, Electronic Surveillance Act, they are enclosed but may have been redacted to remove any information pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. ? 132.1.4 that is a "record of criminal investigation" or a "record of criminal intelligence information." If no such documents are enclosed, our office has no such items in our possession. Item #10c: Communications with cell phone companies and providers of location-based services regarding cell phone location records, including instances in which cell phone companies have refused to comply with a request or order If any such "communications" are in our possession and not prohibited from disclosure by Article 16 of Chapter lSA of the General Statutes, Electronic Surveillance Act, they are enclosed but may have been redacted to remove any information pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. ? 132.1.4 that is a "record of criminal investigation" or a "record of criminal intelligence information." If no such documents are enclosed, our office has no such items in our possession. Sincerely, Harry P. Dolan enclosure I \ Invoice i\ August 01,2011 70787 \ _ ... Phone: Fax: Invoice Number: Bill To: at&t National Compliance Center - 1-800-635-6840 1-888-938-4715 RALEIGH PD 27616 4 501-120 ATLANTIC AVE RALEIGH NC 27616 EFT (Electronic Fund Transfer) Tax ID Number - 91-1379052 D&B Number - ].30598238 SUPO Bank Name - Bank Of Ah1crica Bank Routing Number - 111000012 Bank Account Number - 3751632054 Cage Code Cage Code - 3L6E3 D&B Number - 130598238 SUPO Invoice LEA TRACKING NUMBER(S) File Code 962306.002 Component Target Number 81:'01 Court Issued Number: LEA Tracking Number: Description/Duration 7/22/11 - 7/26/11 Unitsmays 1.0 Price $325.00 Amount $J25.00 Surveillance Activation Fee Daily Surveillance Fee for Data Order JOt 8581 7/22!11 - 7/26/11 4.0 $5.00 $20.00 Subtotal Payments Received Total Due $345.()O - $().()() $345.00 LME deltacomr VIA: Email Attachment/U.S. Postal Mail Deltacom Inc. Offire of GoooJ.. Attn: Doris Robinson Legal Department 7037 Old Madison Pike, SUITe 400 Huntsville. AL 35606 Phone: 256-362-3811 Bill To: DATE: October 20, 2008 INVOICE # 112008 Attn: Madeline Fowler Raleigh Police Deportment Re: Case No. P08-119084 Detective Division 110 South McDowell Street Raleigh, NC 27606 DESCRIPTION SERVICE: - ! i $55 Incoming/outgoing call detoils (LOC/LD) - above account (#s ; listed) - October 16, 2008 from 2030 hI's to 2130 hI's : Requested by: ()etectiw o o o o o I l--------I all checks to Deltacom Payments are accepted by Credit Cards. THANKYOUI Inc. - - - - - -..., ...... "-"" .. - - - - I _---.L._ _ _ .j TOTAL $ 55.00 , "-,,--' ... phone 256 382 3843 fax 256 382 3936 wwwdcUacomcom 1 800 239 3000 iNVOiCE ver'ZQ.rlilNireless REMIT PAYMENT TO: P.O. BOX 64498 BALTIMORE, MD 21264-4498 BILL TO: Raleigh Police Dept ? c Det 110 S. McDowell St Raleigh, NC 27602 CONTACT INFO: 919-369-2534 CUSTOMER # Pursuant to c/o0908 INVOICE # (CO) 8/14/08-187607 INVOICE DATE: 9/30/2008 INVOICE TOTAL $ 62.00 ITEM I DESCRIPTION on the following 4/08 QTY 31 $ 31 $ UNIT 1.00 1.00 NET PRICE $ $ 31.00 $ 31.00 Ilnfnr ....'''ti''n sent 8/19/08 IRE!fer'enc:e 18 U.S.C. 2518 for wire tap IRF,fAroAnC:A 18 U.S.C. 3124 for pen register IDE!sclript'ion of service provided pursuant to court order Comments: ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL: LAUREL O'ROURKE (908) 306-7538 (fax 908-306-7492) INVOICE TOTAL $ 62.00 CUSTOMER # Pursuant to c/o0908 Send This Stub Along With Payment INVOICE # REMIT PAYMENT TO: (CO) 8/14/08-187607 Verizon Wireless P.O. BOX 64498 SAL TIMORE, MD 21264-4498 AMOUNT $ 62.00 INVOICE REMIT PAYMENT TO: P,O. BOX 64498 SALTIMORE, MD 21264-4498 BILL TO: Del 110 Raleigh, NC 27602 , CONTACT INFO: 919-8@O-3938 fax 3004 CUSTOMER # Pursuant to c/o0908 INVOICE # (CO) 8/21/08-188586 INVOICE DATE: 9/30/2008 INVOICE TOTAL $ QTY UNIT 45 $ 1.00 45.00 ITEM / DESCRIPTION Cell site information on. from 6/20-8/3/08 RPD case report.' NET PRICE 45.00 $ Information sent 8/25/08 Reference 18 U.S.C, 2518 for wire tap Reference 18 U.S.C, 3124 for pen register Description of service provided pursuant to court order : , INVOICE TOTAL '-"<<," ," Comments: ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL: LAUREL O'ROURKE (908) 306-7538 (fax 908-306-7492) $ 45.00 CUSTOMER # Pursuant to c/o090S Send This Stub Along With ,Payment INVOICE # PAYMENT TO: (CO) 8/21/08-188586 . Verizon Wireless P,O, BOX 64498 BALTIMORE, MD 21264-4498 AMOUNT $ 45,00 \1clroPCS, Inc. 2250 Lakeside Blvd. :\ 1TN: Accounts Receivable II ichardson, TX 75082 Invoice Total: Invoice Number: Invoice Date: Customer ID: 29466 50.00 08-DEC-OS 5766 \ttn: Accounts Payable Zalcigh Police Department i501 Atlantic Ave. Zalcigh, NC 27604 Case Number: Tenns: III Request!D: 101245 Page: of Description I Detail Records ITarget Number Start Date I End Date Quantity I Unit Price 50.00 Total 50.00 07/1012008 08/2212008 ---------------------------------------------------uke Checks Payable To 1 Remit To: .;lroPCS Wireless, Inc. (Please note the new Remit Address) r,;-:---LustomerJD nvoice Number nvoicc Datc 29466 08-DEC-08 J. Box 842067 ,lias, TX 75284-2067 -oices arc generated only after requested infonnation has been scnt to the agent by the preferred means of delivery. If you 'C nvoice Total - 500S not received the infonnation for which you have been invoiced or have billing questions please contact ryl Browning at 214-570-4819. Please reference the Case/LERlYfS number for better assistance. , Remitting a Payment, Please Reference the CaseILERMS Number Above. MetroPCS, Inc. 2250 Lakeside Blvd ATTN: Account<; Receivable R.ichardson, TX 75082 Invoice Number: 25606 Invoice Date: 05-SEP-08 Customer ID: 5766 Invoice Total: 50.00 Attn: Accounts Payable RaleigIt Police Department 601-104 Hutton Sl Raleigh, NC 27606 Terms: DUE ON RECEIPT Case N u m b e r : _ Request ID: of lil Detail Records Make Checks Payable To I Remit To: \-letroPCS Wireless, Inc. (please note the new Remit Address) P.O. Box 842067 Jallas, TX 75284-2067 Customer 1D nvoicc Number lnvoice Date Invoice Total 576 2560( 05?SEP?08 50.0C Dvoices are generated only aiter requested information has been sent to the agent by the preferred means of delivery. If you lavc not received ?infonnatioll for which you have been or havc billing questions pleasc contact )aryl Browning at 214-570-4819. Please reference the Case/LERMS number for better assistance. Nhcn Remitting a Payment, Please Reference the CaseILERMS Number Above. .. Jice Date: llvoice Number: Bill To: July 17,2009 40898 National Compliance Center Phone: 1-800-635-6840 1-888-938-4715 RALEIGH PD TARU 27602 110 S MCDOWELL ST PO BOX 590 RALEIGH NC 27602 Fax: PO BOX 24679 WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33416-4679 Cage Code Cage Code - 3L6E3 D&B Number - 130598238 SUPO EFT (Electronic Fund Transfer) Tax ID Number - 91-1379052 D&B Number - 130598238 suro Bank Name - Bank Of America Bank Routing Number - 111000012 Bank Account Number - 3751632054 Invoice File Code 607043.001 Target Number 6690 6690 Court Issued Number: LEA Tracking Number: Component Location Activation Fee Location Daily Fee Description/Duration 7116109 7116109 Units/Days Price $100.00 $25.00 Amount LO 1.0 $100.00 $25.00 Subtotal Payments Received Total Due $125.00 - $0.00 $125.00 IMS --. Invoice Date: Invoice Number: Bill To: June 23, 2009 40087 National Compliance Center Phone: 1-800-635-6840 1-888-938-4715 .ARU 27601 Fax: 110 S MCDOWELL ST RALEIGH NC 27601 POBOX 24679 WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33416-4679 EFT (Electronic Fund Tr-ansfer) Cage Code Cage Code - 3L6E3 D&B Number - 130598238 SUPO Tax ID Number - 91-1379052 D&B Number - 130598238 SUPO Bank Name - Bank Of America Bank Routing Number - 111000012 Bank Account Number - 3751632054 Invoice File Code 585739 Court Issued Number: LEA Tracking Number: Component Surveillance Activation Fee Daily Surveillance Fee for Data Order Target Number 0561 DescriptionlDuration Units/Days 1.0 Price $325.00 Amount $325.00 5126/09 - 6/15/09 0561 5/26/09 - 6/15/09 20.0 $5.00 $JOO.OO Subtotal $425.00 - $0.00 Payments Received Total Due $425.00 YAE ,.;, Invoice Date: .lune 09, 2009 ."\9740 IIlvoicc Number: Bill To: at&t National Compliance Center Phone: RALEIGH I'D 27602 Fax: RALEIGH NC 27602 PO BOX 24679 WEST PALM BEACH. FL 33416-4679 EFT (Eledl'onic Fund Transfer) Cage Code Cage Code - ."\L6E:1 D&B Number - 130598238 SlJPO '1'", ID Number?-.91-1379052 D&B Number - 130598238 SUPO BanI-; Name - BanI-; Of America BanI-; Rouling NUlllber - 111000012 I)anl-; Accounl Number - 3751632054 Invoice File Code 582784 Court Issued Numher: LEA TracKing Component J. at&t I .'\'1',\:'1' Numher: 8ST00057014 I ']ITEM r t)i' Bitt Number: GSB0905385 n..'L'ords Dale' "I' Bill 2()Ol)-5-22 This is Itl hill you for n:sL'arch, retrieval. anJrl'prl1dlH.:lil1rl t(l thl' "lbove L'it BST number we cannot process your payment " ., o.ooo. _........ , o.... Cricket Communications INVOICE Invoice Number: Invoice Date: 10307 Pacific Center Court San Diego. CA 92121-4340 (858)-882-9301 140157 Tuesday, July 28, 2009 RE: BILL TO: Raleigh Police Dept. Attn: 590 Ral , NC 27602 REMIT TO: Cricket Communications. Inc. PO. Box 202650 Dallas. TX 75230-2650 Information/Service Requested Subscriber Information Only Quantity Requested Unit Price S5 per phone number or name look up S50 pcr phone number for up to 2 months of records Over two months billed at 2X S2200 per phone number per Court order or Court order renewal Amount 5.00 Call History 50.00 \Ajire Tap 0 S2200 per pllone ntlmber Pen Register 0 per Couri order or Court order renewal If you have any questions regarding ihis IIlV( Janet Schwabe at (858) 882-6258 or jschwabe@cri, PUT INVOICE NUMBER ON PAYMENT TO ENS Cricket Communications 10307 Pac"ic Center Court San Diego, CA 92121-4340 (858)-882-9301 INVOICE 136496 Invoice Date: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 Invoice Number: 110 Raleigh, NC 27602 P: 919-890-3939 F: 91 tHl8U-j( REMIT TO: Subpoena Compliance Manager Cricket Communications, Inc. 10307 Pacific Center Court San Diego, CA 92121 IPen Register .. : o ---.. i f per Court order or Court order renewal AL AM-OU NTDUE 1--$55:-00'- I , If you have any questions regarding this invoice, please contact Janet Schwabe at (858) 882-6258 or jschwabe@cricketcommunications.com. PUT INVOICE NUMBER ON PAYMENT TO ENSURE PROPER CREDIT. cricket AI/other Lellp /III/f)/lat;OIl'? Cricket Communications 10307 Pacific Center Court San Diego, CA 92121-4340 INVOICE Invoice Number: Invoice Date: (858)-882-9301 136471 Wednesday, June 17, 2009 Attn: 110 S McDowell Street Raleigh, NC 27602 P: 919-890-3939 F: 91 ;;>-o;;>v-, REMIT TO: Subpoena Compliance Manager Cricket Communications, Inc. 10307 Pacific Center Court San Diego, CA 92121 I Information/Service Requested Subscriber Information Only I Quantity Requested I I 3 Unit Price IAmount 1 $ 5 per phone number or name look up $50 per phone number for up to 2 months of records. Over two months billed at 2X $2200 per phone number per Court order or Court order renewal $2200 per phone number per Court order or Court order renewal f-- 15.00 ? Fall History I I :1 3. IWire Tap , . 1Pen Register I Expedite Fee 0 0 1100 .00 . I' TOTAL AMOUNT DUE-I $265.00 - If you have any questions regarding this invoice, please contact Janet Schwabe at (858) 882-6258 or Ischwabe@cricketcommunications.com. PUT INVOICE NUMBER ON PAYMENT TO ENSURE PROPER CREDIT. crick:et Cricket Communications 10307 Pacific Center Court San Diego, CA 92121-4340 (858)-882-9301 INVOICE Invoice Number: 135469 Invoice Date: Tuesday, June 09,2009 RE:.-.... BILL TO: Ralei REMIT TO: 110 S McDowell Street Raleigh, NC 27602 P: 919-890-3939 F: 919-890-3004 Subpoena Compliance Manager Cricket Communications, Inc. 10307 Pacific Center Court San Diego, CA 92121 Information/Service Requested Quantity Requested Unit Price . Amount 5.00 Subscriber Information Only $5 per phone number or name look up $50 per phone number for up to 2 months of records. Over two months billed at 2X . Call History 50.00 Wire Tap o o $2200 per phone number per Court order or Court order renewal $2200 per phone number per Court order or Court order renewal Pen Register TOTAL AMOUNT DUE: $55.00 If you have any questions regarding this invoice, please contact Janet Schwabe at (858) 882-6258 or jschwabe@cricketcommunications.com. PUT INVOICE NUMBER ON PAYMENT TO ENSURE PROPER CREDIT. Cricket Comrnunications '\ Pacific Centsr Court San Diego. CA 92'121-4340 INVOICE Invoice Number: '135294 Invoice Date: Monday, June 08, (858)-882-9301 2009 110 S McDowell Street Raleigh, I\IC 27602 REMIT TO: Subpoena Compliance Manager Cricket Communications, Inc. 10307 Pacific Center Court San Diego, CA 92'121 Information/Service Requested. Subscriber Information Only Quantity Requested 1 Unit Price $5 per phone number or nelTle look up i\mount 5.00 $50 per phone number Call History 1 for up to 2 lTlonths of records. Over two months billed at 2X 50.00 $2200 per phone Wire Tap o number per COLirt order or Court order renewal $2200 per phone Pen Register o number per Court order or Court order renewal TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $55.00 If you have any questions regarding this invoice, please contact Janet Schwabe at (S58) 882-6258 or jschwabe@cricketcommunications.com. PUT INVOICE NUMBER ON PAYMENT TO ENSURE PROPER CREDIT. cricket AI/Olliff LflIp 1I1II011I1t;01/" RE. F: Cricket Communications 10307 Pacific Center Court San Diego, CA 92121-4340 (858)-882-9301 INVOICE Invoice Number: Invoice Date: 135276 Monday, June 08, 2009 BILL TO: REMIT TO: Subpoena Compliance Manager Cricket Communications, Inc. 10307 Pacific Center Court San Diego, CA 92121 110 S McDowell Street Raleigh, NC 27602 P: 919-890-3939 I Information/Service Requested I Quantity Requested I Information Only 1 I Unit Price $5 per phone number or name look up $50 per phone number for up to 2 months of records. Over two months billed at 2X $2200 per phone number per Court order or Court order renewal $2200 per phone number per Court order or Court order renewal TOTAL AMOUNT DUE IAmount ICall History IWire Tap IPen Register I I I I 1 0 0 F [iI $55.00 If you have any questions regarding this invoice, please contact Janet Schwabe at (858) 882-6258 or jschwabe@cricketcommunications.com. PUT INVOICE NUMBER ON PAYMENT TO ENSURE PROPER CREDIT. cricket /IIiOI/;er [."(/1' /IIIIOf.'llfio,," RE:._._ (858)-882-9301 Cricket Communications 10307 Pacific Center Court San Diego, CA 92121-4340 INVOICE Invoice Number: Invoice Date: 135046 Friday, June 05, 2009 PO Box 590 Raleigh, NC 27602 P: 919-890-3972 F: 919-890-3004 --i Quantity Requested .r .. ------ .------ . REMIT TO: Subpoena Compliance Manager Cricket Communications, Inc. 10307 Pacific Center Court San Diego, CA 92121 Information/Service Requested , Subscriber Information Only ..---- .. _-.--- -,- -.-- -.. $5 per phone number or name look up Unit Price ... ,: - ,: Amount i l , -I' . for up to 2 months of records, Over two months billed at 2X ! I ' 5.00 . Call History 100,00 Wire Tap o $2200 per phone number per Court order or Court order renewal , Pen Register o $2200 per phone number per Court order or Court order renewal If you have any questions regarding this invoice, please contact Janet Schwabe at (858) 882-6258 or jschwabe@cricketcommunications.com. PUT INVOICE NUMBER ON PAYMENT TO ENSURE PROPER CREDIT. cricket Cricket Communications 10307 Pacific Center Court San CA 92121-4340 (858)-882-9301 RE _ _ __ INVOICE Invoice Number: Invoice Date: 135045 Friday, June 05, 2009 BILL TO: Raleigh Police Dept PO Box 590 Raleigh, NC 27602 P: 919-890-3972 F: 919-890-3004 REMIT TO: Subpoena Compliance Manager Cricket Communications, Inc. 10307 Pacific Center Court San Diego, CA 92121 Information/Service -f Only i . . _-.---.-.-$50 per phone number for up to 2 months of records. Over two months billed at 2X 1 Amount - i o -.. ? Call History 1 50.00 ? Wire Tap o o i . $2200 per phone number per Court order or Court order renewal : Pen Register ____: i... i $2200 per phone number per Court order or Court order renewal , I i I Ii If you have any questions regarding this invoice, please contact Janet Schwabe at (858) 882-6258 or jschwabe@cricketcommunications.com. PUT INVOICE NUMBER ON PAYMENT TO ENSURE PROPER CREDIT. Anorha Leap Cricket Communications 10307 Pacific Center Court San Diego, CA 92121-4340 (858)-882-9301 INVOICE Invoice Number: 133828 Invoice Date: Wednesday, May 27,2009 10 Raleigh, NC 27602 P: 919-890-3939 F: 919-890-3004 REMIT TO: Subpoena Compliance Manager Cricket Communications, Inc. 10307 Pacific Center Court San Diego, CA?92121 I Information/Service Requested I Quantity Requested I ISubscriber Information Only Unit Price $5 per phone number or name look up $50 per phone number for up to 2 months of records. Over two months billed at 2X $2200 per phone number per Court order or Court order renewal $2200 per phone number per Court order or Court order renewal I Amount 1100.00 I 2 ICall History IWire Tap I I 2 0 I Pen Register IExpedite Fee I I 0 1I 100.00 I TOTAL AMOUNT DUE [$210.00 . If you have any questions regarding this invoice, please contact Janet Schwabe at (858) 882-6258 or Ischwabe@cricketcommunications.com. PUT INVOICE NUMBER ON PAYMENT TO ENSURE PROPER CREDIT. cricket Allorha Leap Cricket Communications 10307 Pacific Center Court San Diego, CA 92121-4340 (858)-882-9301 INVOICE Invoice Number: Invoice Date: 132557 Tuesday, May RE:.__ BILL TO: 12,2009 110 South McDowell Street Raleigh, NC 27602 P: 919-890-3939 F' REMIT TO: Subpoena Compliance Manager Cricket Communications, Inc. 10307 Pacific Center Court San Diego, CA 92121 I Information/Service Requested ISubscriber Infomnation Only I Quantity Requested I Unit Price ! Amount ICall History IWire Tap IPen Register I I I I I 1 $5 per phone number or name look up $50 per phone number for up to 2 months of records. Over two months billed at 2X $2200 per phone number per Court order or Court order renewal $2200 per phone number per Court order or Court order renewal 1 0 0 I i-$55.00 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE [ If you have any questions regarding this invoice, please contact Janet Schwabe at (858) 882-6258 or jschwabe@cricketcommunications.com. PUT INVOICE NUMBER-ON PAYMENT TO ENSURE PROPER CREDIT. cricket Cricket Communications 10307 Pacific Center Court San Diego, CA 92121-4340 (858)-882-9301 RE: BILL TO: Raleigh Police Dept.' 4501 Atlantic Avenue Raleigh, NC 27604 AI/omer Leap 11111011111;011'" INVOICE Invoice Number: 130279 Invoice Date: Friday, April 17,2009 REMIT TO: Subpoena Compliance Manager Cricket Communications, Inc. 10307 Pacific Center Court San Diego, CA 92121 --I - -- -- 1 -J -----:: Price Ic Call History 1 $50 per phone number I for up to 2 months of records.' 50.00 I Over two months billed I I Tap 1 _ __ _ Court order renewal T[ ----, Pen Register r--------------- -- 0 "_I -- - .1 per Court order or - Court order renewal TOTAL AMOUNT DUE . - - -------------r---?------- I i $55.00 If you have any questions regarding this invoice, please contact Janet Schwabe at (858) 882-6258 or jschwabe@cricketcommunications.com. PUT INVOICE NUMBER ON PAYMENT TO ENSURE PROPER CREDIT. cricket Allorher Lcap Cricket Communications 10307 Pacific Center Court San Diego, CA 92121-4340 (858)-882-9301 REJ: BILL TO: INVOICE Invoice Number: Invoice Date: 130188 Thursday, April 16, 2009 South McDowell Street Raleigh, NC 27602 P: 919-890-3939 F' 9-890-3004 . REMIT TO: Subpoena Compliance Manager Cricket Communications, Inc. 10307 Pacific Center Court San Diego, CA 92121 $55.00 ! If you have any questions regarding this invoice, please contact Janet Schwabe at (858) 882-6258 or jschwabe@cricketcommunications.com. PUT INVOICE NUMBER ON PAYMENT TO ENSURE PROPER CREDIT. cricket Another L((If Cricket Communications 10307 Pacific Center Court San Diego, CA 92121-4340 (858)-882-9301 RE: _ _ _ INVOICE Invoice Number: Invoice Date: 129624 Monday, April 13, 2009 590 Raleigh, NC 27602 P 919-996-1065 F 919-996-7219 REMIT TO: Subpoena Compliance Manager CrIcket Communications, Inc. 10307 Pacific Center Court San Diego, CA 92121 I I Information/Service Requested I Quantity Requested 1 I Unit Price $5 per phone number or name look up $50 per phone number for up to 2 months of records, Over two months billed at 2X $2200 per phone number Subscriber Information Only I j jCall History jWireTa p 1 I 0 per Court order or Court order renewal $2200 per phone number IPen Register I I 0 per Court order or Court order renewal TOTAL AMOUNT DUE I I I r-::$55,00 If you have any questions regarding this invoice, please contact Janet Schwabe at (858) 882-6258 or jschwabe@cricketcommunications.com, PUT INVOICE NUMBER ON PAYMENT TO ENSURE PROPER CREDIT. CflC ::ricket Corn!T\Unic8tions ! G307 Pacific Center Court San Diego, CA 92121-4340 :3520)-882-9301 et INVOICE !nvoice Number: Invoice Date 126614 Tuesday, fV1erch 17, 2009 RE: _ _ _ SILL TO: i::;a!eigh Police Dept. REMIT TO: .! () Souih McDowell Sireet Raleigh, NC 27602 P 919-890-3939 F 91 9-890??3004 i Subpoen? Compliance lv1aneg,er Cricket Communications. Inc 10307 Pacific Center Court San Diego, C!4., 92121 Information/Service Requested Quantity Requested $5 Unit Price phone numbe.r or n:?rne look up 5,00 $50 per ptlOne nLimbH for up to 2 months of records Over two months billed 2t 2X 100.00 '?i\lire Tap o c $2200 per phone number per Caliri order or COLu1 order renev/2! Pen Re9ister $2200 per phone number per COllrt order or Court order renewal TOTAL AP"lOUNT DUE S105.00 If you have any questions regardinQ this invoice, please cont(lct Janei Schwabe ai (8S8) 882-6258 or jschvLabe@cricketcommunications.com. PUT INVOICE NUMBER ON PAYMENT TO ENSURE PROPER CREDIT. cricket Cricket Communications 10307 Pacific Center Court San Diego, CA 92121-4340 (858)-882-9301 11110rher Lmp /imO/!afioll- INVOICE 123916 Wednesday, February 18, 2009 Invoice Number: Invoice Date: REMIT TO: Subpoena Compliance Manager Cricket Communications, Inc. 10307 Pacific Center Court San Diego, CA 92121 Robert. powell@ci.raleigh.nc.us i Ii ----1------------------- i-------------------- i ; $50 per phone number 1 Call History 2 i ! for up to 2 months of records. . OVer two months billed at 2X ,........--_.. _-------_._------.-' $2200 per phone number 30.00 : .---_._-------------------- iWire Tap ,I a 1-??---?_--_?_----_?_- ---------------.---- -.------.-----_.-._---------. I I 1 $2200 per phone number . i Pen Register per Court order or Court order renewal per Court order Of i i 0 . Court order renewal TOTAL AMOUNT DUE; $30.00 If you have any questions regarding this invoice, please contact Janet Schwabe at (858) 882-6258 or jschwabe@cricketcommunications.com. PUT INVOICE NUMBER ON PAYMENT TO ENSURE PROPER CREDIT. cricket Cricket Communications 10307 Pacific Center Court San Diego, CA 92121-4340 (858)-882-9301 INVOICE Invoice Number: Invoice Date: 123524 Friday, February 13, RE:._ BILL TO: 2009 110 uth McDowell Street' Raleigh, NC 27602 P: 919-890-3939 F: 919-890-3004 ---.. ".. . '. . ",. REMIT TO: Subpoena Compliance Manager Cricket Communications, Inc. 10307 Pacific Center Court San Oiego, CA 92121 -.. --------.-...-.--.. Information/Service Requested ...... _______. __________ .___ ! ..'_____ .__ J - . - ,.. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .-".- Quantity Requested . Subscriber Information Only I ,_ ?---?r-----?-----' , Amount I ..c-------,--------------.,-.,c---- ---.,-?--" . ( Unit Price $5 per phone number __ T ,J ,'" .. _... _ Call History - - - - -- - --.---.--+--- - - - - . - - - - i I 5.00 i I i [-----------'i ! ,II _._-! , - _... , i i 1 -----------'['-------$2200 ,/ $50 per phone number ! for up to 2 months of records, I Over two months billed at 2 X ! per Court order or Court order renewal 50,00 II' .. ! . Wire Tap o! __.._--- --_._- _._._..- ------- , __ ._-._-_... -----_._-_.--_.. _- ,I Pen Register o $2200 per phone number per Court order or Court order renewal I i AL If you have any questions regarding this invoice, please contact Janet Schwabe at (858) 882-6258 or jschwabe@cricketcommunications.com, PUT INVOICE NUMBER ON PAYMENT TO ENSURE PROPER CREDIT, cricket Cricket Communications INVOICE Invoice Number: 10307 Pacific Center Court San Diego, CA 92121-4340 (858)-882-9301 123483 Invoice Date.: Friday, February 13, 2009 SPECIAL CDR RATE SINCE ONLY 2 DAYS BILL TO: Raleigh Police Department District 23 501 Atlantic Avenue Suite 124 Raleigh, NC 27604 . REMIT TO: Subpoena Compliance Manager Cricket Communications, Inc. 10307 Pacific Center Court San Diego, CA 92121 Information/Service Requested : Subscriber Information Only Quantity Requested Unit Price : Amount 5.00 I , $5 per phone number or name look up $10 per phone number for up to 2 months of records. Over two months billed at 2X ... _- .... -_ .. _-- !' ----_._-$2200 per phone nur:nber per Court order or Court order renewal Call History 10.00 : Wire Tap o If you have any questions regarding this invoice, please contact Janet Schwabe at (858) 882-6258 or jschwabe@cricketcommunications.com. PUT INVOICE NUMBER ON PAYMENT TO ENSURE PROPER CREDIT. 1i'" 'POl? - Jt-lD'5 II? cricket Cricket Communications 10307 Pacific Center Court San Diego, CA 92121-4340 INVOICE (858)-882-9301 122605 Invoice Date: Thursday, February 05, 2009 Invoice Number: 10 South McDowell Street Raleigh, NC 27602 P: 919-890-3939 F: 919-890-3004 REMIT TO: Subpoena Compliance Manager Cricket Communications, Inc. 10307 Pacific Center Court San Diego, CA 92121 - .-. Information/Service Requested : Quantity Requested ,--------_._----------------------! . . I i i Call History ,---------------------- ----------- ,--i i 1 i Subscnber Information Only ! : I 1 ! Unit Price ! Amount I --------------- ,-- ______ ' I $5 per phone number I i i l k I 5.00 i I -----------,-----.,---,--, r-----: or name 00 up : i ! , I i : r------o-0 $50 per phone number I for up to 2 months of records_ laver two months billed at 2X ------ ,-------i I I i i r----I I. i ; 15.00: : i !Pen Register I ------------------------------ I------------- ----- I------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------ ----II i Court order renewal per Court order or Court order renewal TO:AL I ! I ! $2200 per phone number I 'I I i i i i - C If you have any questions regarding this invoice, please contact Janet Schwabe at (858) 882-6258 or jschwabe@cricketcommunications.com. PUT INVOICE NUMBER ON PAYMENT TO ENSURE PROPER CREDIT. cric!fet Ilnor/;a [((IP fJlJIOI!/Uion'" Cricket Communications 10307 Pacific Center Court San Diego, CA 92121-4340 INVOICE Invoice Number: Invoice Date: (858)-882-9301 119896 Wednesday, January 07, 2009 RE: BILL TO: Ra h Police Attn: 110 South McDowell Street Raleigh, NC 27602 P: 919-890-3939 F: 919-890-3004 REMIT TO: Subpoena Compliance Manager Cricket Communications, Inc. 10307 Pacific Center Court San Diego, CA 92121 Information/Service Requested Quantity Requested Unit Price Amount Subscriber Information Only $5 per phone number or name look up 5.00 Call History $50 per phone number for up 10 2 months of records. Over two months billed at 2X 50.00 Wire Tap o o $2200 per phone number per Court order or Court order renewal $2200 per phone number per Court order or Court order renewal Pen Register TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $55.00 If you have any questions regarding this invoice, please contact Janet Schwabe at (858) 882-6258 or jschwabe@cricketcommunications.com. PUT INVOICE NUMBER ON PAYMENT TO ENSURE PROPER CREDIT. owler, Madeline From: Sent: To: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 1:43 PM Fowler, Madeline Subject: Cricket invoice for Case # 2 ooooooo cricki?t 1111orlm' [<"If fJ/JIowriol/" Cricket Communications 10307 Pacific Center Court INVOICE Invoice Number: Invoice Date: San Diego, CA 92121-4340 (858)-882-9301 117270 Tuesday, December 09,2008 BILL TO: REMIT TO: 8016 Glenwood Ave Raleigh, NC 27612 P 919-420-2310 F 919-420-2405 Subpoena Compliance Manager Cricket Communications, Inc. 10307 Pacific Center Court San Diego, CA 92121 I I Information/Service Requested I Quantity Requested 1 II Unit Price $5 per phone number II Amount Subscriber Information Only I I or name look up $50 per phone number ICan History lWire Tap " I I I 1 for up to 2 months of records. Over two months billed at 2X $2200 per phone number per Court order or 0 I I I I Court ?order renewal $2200 per phone number per Court order or Court order renewal Pen Register 0 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE I G D D G I $55.00 I If you have any questions regarding this inVOiCe, please contact Janet Schwabe at (858) 882-6258 or jschwabe@cricketcommunications.com. PUT INVOICE NUMBER ON PAYMENT TO ENSURE PROPER CREDIT. 12/9/2008 cricket Cricket Communications 10307 Pacific Center Court San Diego, CA 92121-4340 (858)-882-9301 INVOICE Invoice Number: Invoice Date: ---------_.. _-_._._._--_._--------_....- ... -RE: _ _ _ . BILL TO: 117055 Friday, December 05, 2008 Raleigh Police Dept. REMIT TO: Subpoena Compliance Manager Cricket Communications, Inc, 10307 Pacific Center Court San Diego, CA 92121 Raleigh, NC 27602 P: 919-890-3972 F: 919-890-3004 r Information/Service Requested .Subscriber Information Only ! I Call History '1'1, I Quantity Requested T.?? ..' Unit Price .o. I .. . I 0 0 1 $5 per phoneor name look up $50 per phone number r-' I 50.00 ; .' .'.. ...._ I ,--- L-I 1 $2200 per phone L----I ! 1 i IPen Register . ___ r- ---------------------------:;:OTALAMOUNT _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .. __________ ._, ________________________________ . ______ . _____ ,_____ $2200 per phone number! per Court order or Courtorder renewal I DUE [--SS5.()O--[ I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ________ ._. __ .J If you have any questions regarding this invoice, please contact Janet Schwabe at (858) 882-6258 or jschwabe@cricketcommunications.com. PUT INVOICE NUMBER ON PAYMENT TO ENSURE PROPER CREDIT. criclfet Cricket Communications 10307 Pacific Center Court INVOICE San Diego, CA 92121-4340 (858)-882-9301 116900 Thursday, December 04, 2008 Invoice Number: Invoice Date: RE: BILL TO: , Raleigh Police Dept. 110 S McDowell Street Raleigh, NC 27602 P: 919-890-3939 F: 919-890-3004 REMIT TO: Subpoena Compliance Manager Cricl Invoice # LCI?033718 Bill Date: 6/10/2009 Reference # P09?043821 Amount Remitted SPRINT PO BOX 871197 KANSAS CITY MO 64187-1197 Raleigh Police Deparlment Attn: Jerry Faulk 110 S. McDowell Street Raleigh NC 27602 LCI0337188 0000000000030005 \..omp"ance Sprint) RALEIGH POLICE DEPARTMENT 110 S, MCDOWELL STREET RALEIGH NC 27602 Invoice # Bill Date: Payment Due Date: CSO: Reference # Sprint Case # LCI?032460 0512912009 0812712009 CORP 2009?089480 PLEASE MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO: SPRINT PO BOX 871197 KANSAS CITY MO 64187-1197 Tax 10; 481165245 "recision Location' "recision (L-Site Pi'nn<\Pings) ITEM Total Amount Due: 80000010lB Invoice # Bill Dale: Reference # LCI-032460 05/29/2009 Sprint Corporate Security PO Box 29234 Shawnee Mission, KS 66201?9234 ***SNGLP**MIXEO AADC 956 Amount Remitted 000000143 01 SP 0,440 RALEIGH POLlCE DEPARTMENT 110 S MCDOWELL ST RALEIGH NC 27601-1330 1111111,11'1,11"11 111'1 .1'11"1111111'11111"111'1' '111 111 "1111 SPRINT PO BOX 871197 KANSAS CITY MO 64187-1197 LCI0324605 0000000000060009 iJUQPoena sprint) RALEIGH POLICE DEPARTMENT 110 S, MCDOWELL STREET RALEIGH NC 27602 Invoice # LCi-032462 Sill Date: 05/29/2009 Payment Due Date: CSO: Reference # Sprint Case # 08/27/2009 CORP Q 2009-076908 PLEASE MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO: SPRINT PO BOX 871197 KANSAS CITY MO 64187-1197 Tax \D: 165245 Page 1 of 1 cision Location _'-"(L.:.:-S.:.:it.:.:e-cP n""9"'s)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _$:. ;O:.: ,O. :.O_ _ _ ,.;;i _ _-.:$.:.:30:.::,O:.:O_ Total Amount Due: $30.00 8000001016 Invoice # Bill Date: Reference # LCI-032462 05/29/2009 Q Sprint Corporate Security PO Box 29234 Shawnee Mission, KS 66201-9234 """ "'SNGLP**MIXED MDe 956 Amount Remitted 000000144 01 8P 0.440 RALEIGH POLICE DEPARTMENT 110 8 MCDOWELL 8T RALEIGH NC 27601-1330 SPRINT PO BOX 871197 111'1"11"1' IIIU'I'I' 11'1/" 11 1' '1"'11'1' 111"1111i '1'1'11'1' I KANSAS CITY MO 64187-1197 LCI0324623 0000000000030000 . 5pnn t? -'" Subpoena Compliance Raleigh Police Department 110 S. McDowell Street Raleigh NC 27602 Invoice # Bill Date: Payment Due Date: CBO: Reference # Sprint Case # LCI-032346 5/28/2009 8/26/2009 CORP NONE PROVIDED 2009-100766 PLEASE MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO: SPRINT PO BOX 871197 KANSAS CITY MO 64187-1197 TaxlD# 481165245 Page 1 of 1 :cemail Access: cemail Access' 11 Message -:t Message (1 Message Retrieval: (t Message Retrieval: $60.00 $60.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 Item lIem Item Item Item Item $60.00 $60.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 Total Amount Due: $240.00 Sprint :> Invoice # LCI-032346 Bill Date: 5/28/2009 Reference # NONE PROVIDED Amount Remitted SPRINT PO BOX 871197 KANSAS CITY MO 64187-1197 Raleigh Police Department 110 S. McDowell Street Raleigh NC 27602 lCI0323462 0000000000240006 .' Sprinf" RALEIGH POLICE DEPARTMENT 110 S. MCDOWELL STREET ATTN:RAULCARDOZA RALEIGH NC 27602 Invoice # Bill Date: Payment Due Date: CBO: Reference # Sprint Case # LCI-030525 05/06/2009 08104/2009 CORP 2Ocj9:(i68iills PLEASE MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO: SPRINT PO BOX 871197 KANSAS CITY MO 64187-1197 Tax 10: 481165245 1 ITEM Total Amount Due: Invoice # 80000010lB LCI-030525 Bill Date: Reference # Sprint Corporate Security PO Box 29234 Shawnee Mission, KS 66201-9234 **"'SNGLP**MIXED MDe 956 Amount Remitted = 00000011301 SP 0.420 RALEIGH POLICE DEPARTMENT ATTN: RAUL CARDOZA 11 0 S MCDOWELL ST RALEIGH NC 27601-1330 SPRINT PO BOX 871197 1 11,1111"11111'111"1111'111111,11111111'1111'1'111,11'111 1 11 '1 1 KANSAS CITY MO 64187-1197 LCI0305255 0000000000050000 ? "\.-I, 1 :,uopoena I..Omp"ance lNh{t"tt" Sprint RALEIGH POLICE DEPARTMENT 110 S. MCDOWELL STREET RALEIGH NC 27602 Invoice # Bill Date: Payment Due Date: CBO: Reference # Sprint Case # LCI-030247 0510412009 0810212009 CORP 2009-062113 PLEASE MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO: SPRINT PO BOX 871197 KANSAS CITY MO 64187-1197 Tax 10: 481165245 Page 1 of 1 ,storie Tower Search GPS Pings) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $50.00 $30.00 $0.00 1 ITEM 1 ITEM 1 ITEM $50.00 $30.00 $0.00 Total Amount Due: $80.00 800000101B Invoice # Bill Date: Reference # LCI-030247 05/04/2009 Sprint Corporate Security PO Box 29234 Shawnee Mission, KS 66201?9234 U*SNGLpHMIXED Amount Remitted Moe 956 000000111 01 SP 0.420 RALEIGH POLlCE DEPARTMENT 110 S MCDOWELL ST RALEIGH NC 27601-1330 1 111"1111,,1'11111'111,11'11,11111'111,11""111'1111111'111111 1 SPRINT PO BOX871197 KANSAS CITY MO 64187-1197 LCID3D2474 0000000000080006 :>UlJpoena (;ompliance sprint) RALEIGH POLICE DEPARTMENT 110 S. MCDOWELL STREET RALEIGH NC 27602 Invoice # LCI-030239 Bill Date: 05/04/2009 Payment Due Date: 08/0212009 CBO: CORP Reference # Sprint Case # 2009-080733 PLEASE MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO: SPRINT PO BOX 871197 KANSAS CITY MO 64187-1197 Tax 10: 481165245 Page 1 of 1 Total Amount Due: $30.00 Invoice # Bill Date: 800000101B LCI-030239 05/04/2009 Reference # Sprint Corporate Security PO Box 29234 Shawnee Mission, KS 66201?9234 ***SNGLP**MIXEO Amount Remitted Moe 956 00000011001 8P 0.420 RALEIGH POLlCE DEPARTMENT 110 8 MCDOWELL 8T RALEIGH NC 27601-1330 11'1'1111'1"111111111'111111'11'111'1'11111'111111"11,1'1111'11 SPRINT PO BOX 871197 KANSAS CITY MO 64187?1197 LCID3D2393 0000000000030000 uUUtJUt:II<1,",UlllfJIIClIII,;\:l = ... };---' 5pnnt /'" RALEIGH POLICE DEPARTMENT 110 S. MCDOWELL STREET RALEIGH NC 27602 Invoice # Bill Date: Payment Due Date: CBO: Reference # Sprint Case # LCI-030250 05/04/2009 08/02/2009 CORP PLEASE MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO: SPRINT PO BOX 871197 KANSAS CITY MO 64187-1197 Tax ID: 481165245 Page 1 of 1 Histonc Tower Search Precision Location (L-Site GPS Pings) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $50.00 $30.00 $0.00 ITEM ITEM ITEM $50.00 $30.00 $0.00 Total Amount Due: $80.00 8000001015 Invoice # Bill Date: Reference # LCI-030250 Sprint Corporate Security PO Box 29234 Shawnee Mission, KS 66201-9234 ***SNGLP**MIXED AADC 956 0.420 000000112 01 SP RALEIGH POLICE DEPARTMENT 110 S MCDOWELL ST RALEIGH NC 27601-1330 Amount Remitted 1111111 11'11111'11 11 "111'1'1,,1111'11'11'11,,11 11"11,,11'111"1 SPRINT PO BOX 871197 KANSAS CITY MO 64187-1197 LCI0302500 0000000000080002 ..... ""' .... ,..,vv.,U VVII'fJIIQ11I..rC Sprint ? Y' Invoice # LCI-030198 Bill Date: 05/03/2009 Payment Due Date: 08/01/2009 CBO: CORP Reference # Sprint Case # 2009-070509 RALEIGH POLICE DEPARTMENT 110 S. MCDOWELL STREET RALEIGH NC 27602 PLEASE MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO: SPRINT PO BOX 871197 KANSAS CITY MO 64187-1197 Tax 10: 481165245 Page 1 of 1 Total Amount Due: $30.00 8000001015 Invoice # Bill Date: Reference # lCI-030198 0510312009 Sprint Corporate Security PO Box 29234 Shawnee Mission, KS 66201-9234 .-HSNGLP**MrXED Amount Remitted Moe 956 = 000000109 01 SP 0.420 RALEIGH POLICE DEPARTMENT 110 S MCDOWELL ST RALEIGH NC 27601-1330 SPRINT PO BOX 871197 1 1/1'11"" '1111 ",,/1'11,1111 1111 1'111 " II 1111'1'1'1 111111 ,1111' KANSAS CITY MO 64187-1197 LCI0301989 0000000000030006 Subpoena Compliance sprint> RALEIGH POLICE DEPARTMENT 11 a S. MCDOWELL STREET ATTN: CHRIS TURNAGE RALEIGH NC 27602 Invoice # Bill Date: Payment Due Date: CBO: Reference # Sprint Case II LCI?02S979 0412112009 0712012009 CORP 2009?053071 PLEASE MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO: SPRINT PO BOX 871197 KANSAS CITY MO 64187-1197 TaxlD: 481165245 Total Amount Due: $30.00 Invoice # Bill Date: a0000010GB LCI-028979 04/21/2009 Reference # Sprint Cmporale Security PO Box 29234 Shawn,e Mission, KS 66201?9234 .... SNGLP*"MIXED Amount Remitted 000000154 01 SP 0.420 RALEIGH POLICE DEPARTMENT ATTN: CHRIS TURNAGE 110 S MCDOWELL ST RALEIGH NC 27601-1330 Moe 956 10 1 I" 111111 11111, I" 111111 11 1"" I" II' 11 ' 111'11 11 " 11 1 11I' 'I' 1' SPRINT PO BOX 871197 KANSAS CITY MO 64187?1197 LCI0289795 0000000000030002 ? Sprint TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE RESPONSE UNIT 110 S. MCDOWELL STREET RALEIGH NC 27602 Invoice # LCI-028942 Bill Date: 04/20/2009 Payment Due Date: 07/19/2009 CBO: CORP Reference # . - . Sprint Case # 2009-039491 PLEASE MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO: SPRINT PO BOX 871197 KANSAS CITY MO 64187-1197 Tax 10: 481165245 8000001048 Invoice # Bill Date: Reference # LCI-028942 04/20/2009 Sprint Corporate Security PO 80x 29234 Shawnee Mission, KS 66201-9234 """SNGLp1<*',UXEO MDG 956 Amount Remitted 000000153 01 SP 0.420 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE RESPONSE UNIT 110 S I.\COOWELL ST RALEIGH NC 27601-1330 SPRINT PO BOX 871197 111"11111'1111111'11"11'11111111111','1"1'1111'111111111111111 KANSAS CITY MO 64187-1197 LCI0289425 0000000000030002 Subpoena Compliance sprint) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE RESPONSE UNIT 110 S. MCDOWELL STREET RALEIGH NC 27602 Invoice # LCI-028941 Bill Date: 04/20/2009 Payment Due Date: 07/19/2009 CBO: CORP Reference # . . . . Sprint Case # 2009-039497 PLEASE MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO: SPRINT PO BOX 871197 KANSAS CITY MO 64187-1197 TaxlD: 481165245 Total Amount Due: $30.00 Invoice # Bill Dale: 8000001048 LCI-028941 04/20/2009 Reference Sprint Corporate Security PO Box 29234 Shawnee Mission, KS 66201-9234 Amount Remitted ***SNGLP**MIXEO AADC 956 000000152 01 SP 0.420 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE RESPONSE UNIT 110 S MCDOWELL ST RALEIGH NC 27601-1330 1111111'1111'11'1111'11'1'111'1111,111'11'11,111"'111"'1'1'11'1 SPRINT PO BOX 871197 KANSAS CITY MO 64187?1197 LCI0289416 0000000000030003 Subpoena Compliance Sprint ) . TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE RESPONSE UNIT 110 S. MCDOWELL STREET RALEIGH NC 27602 Invoice # LCI-028940 Bill Date: 04/2012009 Payment Due Date: 07/19/2009 CBO: CORP Reference # o o1IIIIIa Sprint Case # 2009-039511 PLEASE MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO: SPRINT PO BOX 871197 KANSAS CITY MO 64187-1197 Tax ID: 481165245 Page 1 of 1 Total Amount Due: $30.00 aOOOODIO'iB Invoice # Bill Date: Reference # LCI-028940 04/20/2009 Ii Amount Remitted Sprint Corporate Security PO Box 29234 Shawnee Mission, KS 66201?9234 ***SNGLP**MIXED MDe 956 000000151 01 SP 0.420 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE RESPONSE UNIT 110 S MCDOWELL ST RALEIGH NC 27501?1330 SPRINT PO BOX 871197 1"',11"""1"""1""'111 '1"1,1,,"1,1,,'1'1"'"'1 "" ,,'11 KANSAS CITY MO 64187-1197 LCI0289407 0000000000030004 ;,uopoena I."omp"ance Invoice # Bill Date: Payment Due Date: CSO: Reference # Sprint Case # LCI-028926 0412012009 0711912009 CORP _ 2009-049644 RALEIGH POLICE DEPARTMENT 110 S. MCDOWELL STREET RALEIGH NC 27602 PLEASE MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO: SPRINT PO BOX 871197 KANSAS CITY MO 64187-1197 Tax ID: 481165245 Page 1 of 1 'recision Location (L-Site pings) ITEM Total Amount Due: 8000001048 Invoice # Bill Date: Reference # K LCI-028926 009 Sprint Corporate Security PO Box 29234 Shawnee Mission, KS 66201-9234 ***SNGLP*"'UIXED Moe 956 Amount Remitted 000000150 01 SP 0.420 RALEIGH POLlCE DEPMTMENT 110 S MCDOWELL ST RALEIGH NC 27601?1330 1111'11111111111'1111",111",,111""'11111'1111,11'11"11111111 SPRINT PO BOX 871197 KANSAS CITY MO 64187-1197 LCI0289263 0000000000030000