DoJ publishes cybercrime manual, how much power cops have

[Declan McCullagh]

*******
See: http://www.cybercrime.gov/searchmanual.htm
*******

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,41133,00.html

    The Feds'll Come A-Snoopin'
    by Declan McCullagh (declan at wired.com)

    2:00 a.m. Jan. 12, 2001 PST
    WASHINGTON -- Ever wonder how much leeway federal agents have when
    snooping through your e-mail or computer files?

    The short answer: a lot.

    The U.S. Department of Justice this week published new guidelines for
    police and prosecutors in cases involving computer crimes.

    The 500 KB document includes a bevy of recent court cases and covers
    new topics such as encryption, PDAs and secret searches.

    It updates a 1994 manual, which the Electronic Privacy Information
    Center had to file a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain. No
    need to take such drastic steps this time: The Justice Department has
    placed the report on its cybercrime.gov site.

    PAGERS VS. PDAs: Anyone who's arrested will likely be patted down for
    guns, contraband and electronic devices.

    So be sure to yank the batteries if you're about to be nabbed. During
    an arrest, cops can scroll through the information on your pager
    without a warrant.

    What about PDAs? The latest word, oddly enough, might be a 1973
    Supreme Court case, United States v. Robinson, that permitted police
    officers to conduct searches of an arrestee's possessions. Lower
    courts have extended this rule to include pagers.

    But PDAs more closely resemble computers in processing speed and
    storage capacity.

    Concludes the DOJ: "Courts have not yet addressed whether Robinson
    will permit warrantless searches of electronic storage devices that
    contain more information than pagers. If agents can examine the
    contents of wallets, address books and briefcases without a warrant,
    it could be argued that they should be able to search their electronic
    counterparts (such as electronic organizers, floppy disks and Palm
    Pilots) as well."

    Not everyone agrees that an arrest can lead to a full search. "The
    search incident to arrest is less settled," says Jennifer Granick, a
    San Francisco attorney specializing in computer crime law.

    [...]

    "NO KNOCK" SEARCHES: Conservative activists may hate this, but "no
    knock" searches, where Kevlar-clad goons toting M-16s break through
    your front door without warning, aren't going away. If anything, the
    Justice Department seems to think they're even more necessary when
    dealing with computer crimes.

    "Technically adept computer hackers have been known to use 'hot keys,'
    computer programs that destroy evidence when a special button is
    pressed. If agents knock at the door to announce their search, the
    suspect can simply press the button and activate the program to
    destroy the evidence," the manual says.

    It doesn't end there: The Justice Department cites a 1997 case,
    Richards v. Wisconsin, in which the Supreme Court said agents can
    conduct a no knock search even if the judge granting the warrant
    didn't approve one. That's allowed when agents have a "reasonable
    suspicion" that the subject of the search could destroy evidence or
    obstruct the investigation.

    [...]