Police confiscating suspects' computers etc
Discussion
A general query this one for anybody in the know...
When I've seen on TV suspects being arrested, Cliff Richard etc - police always seem to be taking away people's computer gear.
With many of the historical sex cases though - the people involved wouldn't have had computers, internet didn't exist no mobiles or smart phones - so essentially there would be no electronic records.
So, why are their computers being taken?
Is it to facilitate a general trawl for any 'other' possible offending - fishing effectively - beyond the bounds of what they are originally suspected of...
And if so, could they end up being investigated for other 'offences' that might come to light while computers are examined - say, tax fraud or some such thing..
Are there legal limts to this kind of trawling?
Or can the police take anybody's computer/electronica when a person is suspected of any offence?
When I've seen on TV suspects being arrested, Cliff Richard etc - police always seem to be taking away people's computer gear.
With many of the historical sex cases though - the people involved wouldn't have had computers, internet didn't exist no mobiles or smart phones - so essentially there would be no electronic records.
So, why are their computers being taken?
Is it to facilitate a general trawl for any 'other' possible offending - fishing effectively - beyond the bounds of what they are originally suspected of...
And if so, could they end up being investigated for other 'offences' that might come to light while computers are examined - say, tax fraud or some such thing..
Are there legal limts to this kind of trawling?
Or can the police take anybody's computer/electronica when a person is suspected of any offence?
Look up Section 19 of PACE.
Just because computers didn't exist back then, doesn't mean there couldn't be evidence on them such as photographs (innocent or not so innocent), emails, other related offences (if we're talking about sexual offences).
It's not a fishing exercise but the nature of some offences means that the suspect is likely to have continued their offending. i:e; a person who was interested in child sex back in the 70's is likely to still be interested in that in the present day.
Just because computers didn't exist back then, doesn't mean there couldn't be evidence on them such as photographs (innocent or not so innocent), emails, other related offences (if we're talking about sexual offences).
It's not a fishing exercise but the nature of some offences means that the suspect is likely to have continued their offending. i:e; a person who was interested in child sex back in the 70's is likely to still be interested in that in the present day.
footnote said:
Are there legal limts to this kind of trawling?
Or can the police take anybody's computer/electronica when a person is suspected of any offence?
No there are no legal limits. The police can take your phone and computer for as long as they need or want to. Or can the police take anybody's computer/electronica when a person is suspected of any offence?
If they take it they can keep it until they decide it's no use to them.
photosnob said:
No there are no legal limits. The police can take your phone and computer for as long as they need or want to.
If they take it they can keep it until they decide it's no use to them.
...and in a relative's case, give a £2000 MacPro back, ruined after poorly storing it for almost 2 years (on police bail all that time, and finally without charge), in what appears to have been damp environment so that some of the internal components had rust on them when it came back.If they take it they can keep it until they decide it's no use to them.
Went straight in the skip.
TheBear said:
Look up Section 19 of PACE.
Just because computers didn't exist back then, doesn't mean there couldn't be evidence on them such as photographs (innocent or not so innocent), emails, other related offences (if we're talking about sexual offences).
It's not a fishing exercise but the nature of some offences means that the suspect is likely to have continued their offending. i:e; a person who was interested in child sex back in the 70's is likely to still be interested in that in the present day.
Cheers - so once a constable is 'lawfully' on any premises, he can essentially take anything because it would be impossible for a suspect to argue that the constable didn't have 'reasonable grounds to believe' whatever it is he believes - I mean 'grounds for belief' - that's a hell of a long way from, having evidence, or even on the 'balance of probablities'.Just because computers didn't exist back then, doesn't mean there couldn't be evidence on them such as photographs (innocent or not so innocent), emails, other related offences (if we're talking about sexual offences).
It's not a fishing exercise but the nature of some offences means that the suspect is likely to have continued their offending. i:e; a person who was interested in child sex back in the 70's is likely to still be interested in that in the present day.
I never knew there was so much freedom for the police to seize goods.
Is there no restriction on the type or category of offence that allows seizure of goods?
Could a police officer call at a home to investigate say: travelling without paying a train fare, and seize a computer, phone etc in the reasonable belief' that they may contain evidence of other evasion offences?
footnote said:
Cheers - so once a constable is 'lawfully' on any premises, he can essentially take anything because it would be impossible for a suspect to argue that the constable didn't have 'reasonable grounds to believe' whatever it is he believes - I mean 'grounds for belief' - that's a hell of a long way from, having evidence, or even on the 'balance of probablities'.
I never knew there was so much freedom for the police to seize goods.
Is there no restriction on the type or category of offence that allows seizure of goods?
Could a police officer call at a home to investigate say: travelling without paying a train fare, and seize a computer, phone etc in the reasonable belief' that they may contain evidence of other evasion offences?
They can take what they want. And routinely do for anything relatively serious. It's such a problem that they can't handle the amount of tech they seize. I never knew there was so much freedom for the police to seize goods.
Is there no restriction on the type or category of offence that allows seizure of goods?
Could a police officer call at a home to investigate say: travelling without paying a train fare, and seize a computer, phone etc in the reasonable belief' that they may contain evidence of other evasion offences?
If you are worried about this just encrypt your computer. Or use a macbook/iphone as they are automatically encrypted. Theoretically, the police can demand the passwords - but there are loads of ways around this so it's not a drama.
Tbh I think fishing through peoples phones is lazy policing unless it's evidence led. But it doesn't matter what i think.
footnote said:
TheBear said:
Look up Section 19 of PACE.
Just because computers didn't exist back then, doesn't mean there couldn't be evidence on them such as photographs (innocent or not so innocent), emails, other related offences (if we're talking about sexual offences).
It's not a fishing exercise but the nature of some offences means that the suspect is likely to have continued their offending. i:e; a person who was interested in child sex back in the 70's is likely to still be interested in that in the present day.
Cheers - so once a constable is 'lawfully' on any premises, he can essentially take anything because it would be impossible for a suspect to argue that the constable didn't have 'reasonable grounds to believe' whatever it is he believes - I mean 'grounds for belief' - that's a hell of a long way from, having evidence, or even on the 'balance of probablities'.Just because computers didn't exist back then, doesn't mean there couldn't be evidence on them such as photographs (innocent or not so innocent), emails, other related offences (if we're talking about sexual offences).
It's not a fishing exercise but the nature of some offences means that the suspect is likely to have continued their offending. i:e; a person who was interested in child sex back in the 70's is likely to still be interested in that in the present day.
I never knew there was so much freedom for the police to seize goods.
Is there no restriction on the type or category of offence that allows seizure of goods?
Could a police officer call at a home to investigate say: travelling without paying a train fare, and seize a computer, phone etc in the reasonable belief' that they may contain evidence of other evasion offences?
Entry and seizure of computers for the scenario you describe in your OP would almost certainly be under a warrant, most likely section 8 PACE warrant which only relates to indictable offences and the seizing power comes under that warrant. Only items that an officer has reasonable grounds to believe would likely be of substantial value to the investigation could be seized.
In your case for the train fare, a Warrant would obviously never be granted which would leave the officer asking your permission to come in when they knock on your door for their enquiries. If then on your premises lawfully and if they could justify it, and it was in plain sight then they could seize your items under section 19 but they would have to have some serious justification to do so for such a minor offence and couldn't search your house to find them. I can't think of a scenario where it would be justifiable, or where it would even happen and a fishing trip for other things just wouldn't hold water.
If you refused to talk at the door or let them in then you could be arrested if the necessity grounds were met, but even then if that happened, there would be no power to enter your premises for any search or seizure after the arrest. Even if you were arrested inside your house then no search could take place.
williamp said:
wasnt there a really, really bad peado a short while back (young bloke with a ponytail) whose computer encryption was so bad..er...good that they gave up trying to break it..
He would be using pgp (pretty good privacy) - it will stop the police but I wouldn't be confident of it stopping GCHQ. You don't need anything fancy. Any macbook will stump a police computer forensics team. The FBI/NSA finally managed to get into a phone with old security tech after causing a storm over trying to force apple to help them. That was with the help of an Israeli company and would not be possible with the latest generation of iphones (anything newer than the 5s).
The police can use ripa - and try and force you to hand over the password. I know one person who had this threatened (was related to drugs and not child abuse). In the end they didn't follow through. It's quite tough to prove the person knows the password in the first place. Unless someone is retarded and has their name and photo as the username it's not easy if they can't get into the device. There are also issues related to people genuinely forgetting. The bloke in question was asked 9 months after the original interview for it... The police still have the computer in question and are wasting more money sending it off for higher levels of hacking. My suspicion is it will be sent to the NCA/GCHQ - who will quickly say no chance.
I think there is a genuine civil liberties issue here. People have been able to harm the prosecution cases for a long time. By choosing not to incriminate themselves. That right seems to have eroded to the point where it doesn't exist. I do some work currently in this area.
Starfighter said:
Did this not create a new offence of refusing to hand over the unlock codes?
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/53It's poor legislation which is used rarely for a reason.
If you find a safe which you cannot get into - how do you prove ownership of the safe unless you can open it and find what's inside. Just because you find it in someone's house doesn't mean one person in the house knows the code to open it.
TheBear said:
footnote said:
TheBear said:
Look up Section 19 of PACE.
Just because computers didn't exist back then, doesn't mean there couldn't be evidence on them such as photographs (innocent or not so innocent), emails, other related offences (if we're talking about sexual offences).
It's not a fishing exercise but the nature of some offences means that the suspect is likely to have continued their offending. i:e; a person who was interested in child sex back in the 70's is likely to still be interested in that in the present day.
Cheers - so once a constable is 'lawfully' on any premises, he can essentially take anything because it would be impossible for a suspect to argue that the constable didn't have 'reasonable grounds to believe' whatever it is he believes - I mean 'grounds for belief' - that's a hell of a long way from, having evidence, or even on the 'balance of probablities'.Just because computers didn't exist back then, doesn't mean there couldn't be evidence on them such as photographs (innocent or not so innocent), emails, other related offences (if we're talking about sexual offences).
It's not a fishing exercise but the nature of some offences means that the suspect is likely to have continued their offending. i:e; a person who was interested in child sex back in the 70's is likely to still be interested in that in the present day.
I never knew there was so much freedom for the police to seize goods.
Is there no restriction on the type or category of offence that allows seizure of goods?
Could a police officer call at a home to investigate say: travelling without paying a train fare, and seize a computer, phone etc in the reasonable belief' that they may contain evidence of other evasion offences?
Entry and seizure of computers for the scenario you describe in your OP would almost certainly be under a warrant, most likely section 8 PACE warrant which only relates to indictable offences and the seizing power comes under that warrant. Only items that an officer has reasonable grounds to believe would likely be of substantial value to the investigation could be seized.
In your case for the train fare, a Warrant would obviously never be granted which would leave the officer asking your permission to come in when they knock on your door for their enquiries. If then on your premises lawfully and if they could justify it, and it was in plain sight then they could seize your items under section 19 but they would have to have some serious justification to do so for such a minor offence and couldn't search your house to find them. I can't think of a scenario where it would be justifiable, or where it would even happen and a fishing trip for other things just wouldn't hold water.
If you refused to talk at the door or let them in then you could be arrested if the necessity grounds were met, but even then if that happened, there would be no power to enter your premises for any search or seizure after the arrest. Even if you were arrested inside your house then no search could take place.
photosnob said:
They can take what they want. And routinely do for anything relatively serious. It's such a problem that they can't handle the amount of tech they seize.
If you are worried about this just encrypt your computer. Or use a macbook/iphone as they are automatically encrypted. Theoretically, the police can demand the passwords - but there are loads of ways around this so it's not a drama.
Tbh I think fishing through peoples phones is lazy policing unless it's evidence led. But it doesn't matter what i think.
Cheers - when you say encrypt your computer - is that just a complex password or something much more involved/techie?If you are worried about this just encrypt your computer. Or use a macbook/iphone as they are automatically encrypted. Theoretically, the police can demand the passwords - but there are loads of ways around this so it's not a drama.
Tbh I think fishing through peoples phones is lazy policing unless it's evidence led. But it doesn't matter what i think.
More than that. Generally a computer that's password protected doesnt stop you from examining the information on it (typically by examining the disk/storage).
Encryption is a process that transforms the data into a form that's unintelligible without the knowledge of a key (to decrypt it).
If that process hasn't been broken (a method found to speed up the determination of that key), then the only way to get the information back is to test every possible key. If the key is long enough, that could take a very long time.
Encryption is a process that transforms the data into a form that's unintelligible without the knowledge of a key (to decrypt it).
If that process hasn't been broken (a method found to speed up the determination of that key), then the only way to get the information back is to test every possible key. If the key is long enough, that could take a very long time.
footnote said:
Cheers - when you say encrypt your computer - is that just a complex password or something much more involved/techie?
It depends on your computer. Encryption is a lot more complex than just a password. But as I've said if you are running an apple computer it's likely your data is encrypted without you realizing. Whatsapp now encrypts their messages. You need a relatively strong password as has been said - however tech has moved on and now the device will usually slow down after a certain amount of wrong attempts (in some cases it's possible to get around this). This is what makes it next to impossible to break into certain technology now*.Governments have tried lots of things to get access to data. They used to get a court order and go to companies. So companies stopped hosting the data in a way which was possible for even them to see. The latest tactic used by the NCA here in the UK is basically mugging someone when their device is open and unlocked. Again technology has developed and now there is software which automatically deletes messages after a certain time set by the sender.
The commercially available software will encrypt files and data for you. It's not overly complicated to do. However, I wouldn't suggest trying to encrypt your whole hard drive if it's running the OS unless you know what you're doing. It will almost certainly slow it down and if you have a problem you will lose everything. It's more common to just encrypt certain files or usb sticks.
- I have my own suspicions that the NSA/GCHQ probably can get into a MacBook if they really want to. However, the chances of them using that power for a low level criminal are next to zero.
Loyly said:
Why are you so concerned about this? Have you been downloading child pornography?
I'm guessing this is a joke. But if not it could be that he has the membership list for his club and doesn't want to risk annoying the ICO. Encryption is not something used by criminals for the most part. It's used to keep data secure. Loyly said:
footnote said:
Cheers - when you say encrypt your computer - is that just a complex password or something much more involved/techie?
Why are you so concerned about this? Have you been downloading child pornography? Interesting discussion.
Going off on a tangent a bit here but thought this was an intriguing story.....
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/17/ca...
Now I've no time for groups like cage and it's a good thing that the authorities are keeping a close eye on them but it's remarkable how much powers the state has at airports, ports and international train stations etc.
https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-righ...
Going off on a tangent a bit here but thought this was an intriguing story.....
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/17/ca...
Now I've no time for groups like cage and it's a good thing that the authorities are keeping a close eye on them but it's remarkable how much powers the state has at airports, ports and international train stations etc.
https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-righ...
BlackLabel said:
Interesting discussion.
Going off on a tangent a bit here but thought this was an intriguing story.....
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/17/ca...
Now I've no time for groups like cage and it's a good thing that the authorities are keeping a close eye on them but it's remarkable how much powers the state has at airports, ports and international train stations etc.
https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-righ...
Wow! And no right to a publically funded lawyer either - which might cause you a few problems at the airport!Going off on a tangent a bit here but thought this was an intriguing story.....
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/17/ca...
Now I've no time for groups like cage and it's a good thing that the authorities are keeping a close eye on them but it's remarkable how much powers the state has at airports, ports and international train stations etc.
https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-righ...
Shocking - not enough people know about this stuff.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff