The Michigan State Police have been accused of using encryption apps on their government-issued phones to avoid having to provide texts in response to FOIA requests. www.lehtoslaw.com
In a lawsuit, is the plaintiff entitled to an adverse inference when the state police admit that they have destroyed communications in violation of FOIA via use of encryption technology?
But if you don't know which case were deleted then dose that mean every case? That could create a violation of the public interest in prosecution of criminals! We need a laws like treason for public officials undermine our system.
@@patrickday4206 I would think there are laws against destruction of official records. But you're right, if they deleted data and can't prove which data they deleted, it would affect every case related to that area. Massachusetts had an issue a few years back where a lab tech, Annie Dookhan, "helped" the prosecution by ensuring that thousands of drug tests came back positive. When it was discovered, many, many people had to have their cases re-tried, and the state dropped 21,000 cases. Who knows how many innocent people were locked up and guilty people freed from all of that?
Based on this article they are committing felonies, and as such should be arrested just like any other citizen would be. How many felonies are they going to commit before somebody does something?
They have a philosophy of plausible deniability that is founded on the fact that in order to do anything about it they will exhaust your assets through a string of lawsuits and thus win by default because their pockets are deeper than yours. The major corporations have been rewriting law like this for years so now it seems government and their appendages want in on the act.
The whole system is corrupt. The biggest lie you've been made to believe is you're innocent until proven guilty. Nah you you're immediately guilty. Innocence doesn't exist they'll just charge you and maybe lower your charges and make it seem like they're doing you a huge favor while dragging you in and out of court and taking your money on top of whatever else you have to do. It's not meant to help anyone but them.
These cops are obviously doing something wrong, otherwise they wouldn't be going to such lengths to avoid transparency. "A clear conscience has no reason to fear the truth."
And as any cop will tell you - without attribution, of course - that quotation is, purely and simply, barnyard excrement. Because cops are absolute believers in "anything you say WILL be used against you" be it ever so truthful - and cops, unlike citizens, are NOT required to tell the truth.
@@writerinfact1768 I like what you're saying in general, but I believe the OP was referring to government officials. I don't think a government official can hide their on the job communications or state business for any legitimate reason other than legitimate security reasons. In their case, the quote applies well.
They would like if all us citizens did that! Heck, they didn't ask me or us when they put all our information on the computer for all to see! Isn't that a breech of your rights, private information as well as security to you, since you address, SSN, medical, etc, are all accessible to everyone that knows or can find.
Imagine the secretary of state using a personal sequestered email server to avoid Gov't record retention laws that she knew about from her days as co-president.
@@fishgutz4272 the state department kept the original hard drive and replaced it with a copy that had any e-mail they didn't think she should retain as a private citizen. That's what happens when a government IT guy is maintaining your equipment but it was probably purged during Trump's term like the pandemic contingency plans Obama left him.
IT guy here. While this doesn't invalidate anything Steve said, it's also a failure of of the MSP's IT department. Almost every company I ever worked for not only had a policy that you weren't allowed to install unapproved apps on company issued equipment, they also altered the operating system of the device to make it impossible to do so. It's easy to do so on desktop / laptop class equipment, but also possible on mobile devices. (Although harder). If you're sophisticated enough you can bypass these types of blocks, but in my eyes that just compounds the issue of bypassing the policy.
Another IT guy here. Yes, DTMB did spell it out in the acceptable use policy. This is a clear violation of the policy. Citation below. Page 3 of the State of Michigan Technical Standard document number 1340.00.130.02 published by Dept of Technology, Management, and Budget and revised on 9/5/2019 states explicitly "Users also shall not: ....... Use unauthorized peer-to-peer (P2P) networking, file sharing, instant messaging or Internet Relay Chat (IRC) applications or services." and "Use non-DTMB approved email servers or services to conduct SOM business." On Page 5 the "No Presumption of Privacy" clause states " Any data Users create, store, process, or send using SOM IT Resources remains the property of the SOM." and " Users have no expectation of privacy in their use of SOM-provided email, instant messaging, computing equipment, Intranet or Internet access, or other SOM information systems."
Endpoint management. If it's a state phone with the right software they can lock that sucker down so you can only do what you're supposed to. The Feds have that set up real well.
That's a policy for you and me. This is for government work, especially upper management. They are not held to the same standards and probably have more to hide. The people that enforce laws and policy are above accountability. I think they forget they work for the people.
In respect to the “shouldn’t that other cop get fired too?” for allowing misconduct to occur. Should it be treated like an aiding and abetting charge? Lesser then the other offender, but still on record and disciplinable. This might deter LEO’s from being complicit with misconduct by fellow officers
Reasonable inference. If seven cops are at a scene, and one out of the seven ... the one that shows the violent confrontation ... "malfunctions," it should be admissible in court that the video should reasonably exist and cannot be shown to exist, thus by reasonable inference, might have been destroyed or supressed. The jury should be (ideally) the finder of fact in such a matter.
@@WhereWhatHuh There was a situation in Prince George's County, MD (corrupt as hell) where a news crew was following around a county executive, doing a story on corruption and waste. They were pulled over by a dozen police officers, pulled out of their cars at gunpoint, one reporter was injured, and when they went to request the video, the county said that ALL of the dash cams were either 'not on, or malfunctioned'... Tell me how a dozen cameras stop working, at exactly the same time? But prove that in court. The accuser bears the burden of proof, thus you have to prove they WERE recording.. Kinda hard to do....
@@goofygal27 I'm thinking that a combination of discovery requests, depositions, and interrogatories could at the very least put the officers into the position of having to perjure themselves in a way that would be blatantly obvious to a jury. "Sadly, no body cam footage exists..." can be spoken in the same tone of voice that one might use to say, "And Brutus is an honorable man ... "
@@darengarber8482 One is not asking anyone to prove that the footage does not exist. One is hoping to place the deponents in the position of stating, under oath, either that the footage does exist and that they refuse to produce it (contempt of the court order), or that the footage does not exist but ought reasonably to have existed (negligence in either not creating the footage or in destroying the footage). I doubt that one could bring criminal charges, with the burden of reasonable doubt, but one could probably bring civil charges, with preponderance of evidence.
Indeed. IT has responsibility to lock down admin privileges in Gov't phones. If I had a company mobile phone, I wouldn't be able to download any app to the phone.
@@fishgutz4272 problem most government agencies are terrible about anything security, they do not pay market so get the low end of talent, basically barely keeping up with daily admin stuff, care about what pothers do, they do not have time or expertise to control devices like some major corps do, not right but government is terrible why personal data in their hands is bad!
Plausible deniability..order through chaos, division and cognitive dissonance. We have to go back to being human beings to one another we are supposed to not hurt each other.
When listening to the Police scanner you often hear "10-21" (Call me) when the dispatcher or office want to speak without it being available for a FOIA request.
@@SKCITServices Not necessarily. I've designed Call Centers. Only the Call Center specific extension number is recorded. A telephone instrument can have multiple extension numbers, and typically do. A number not assigned to the call center, such as a person's direct extension number, usually is not recorded. The officer calling in won't use the call center number, they use the direct line....so no recording, and no call center statistics of the call.
The county dispatch center that my agency used had only 1 phone line that was not being recorded. All of the other phone lines going to it were always being recorded.
@@bigbadalphawolf9330 Which county and State? How do you know there is "only 1 phone line that was not being recorded?" Unless your county dispatch center only has about 3 people, that isn't how it works. All 911 calls are recorded. Not all calls into a dispatch center are 911 calls or even calls for service. Calls to management, admin or staff, for example. The recordings aren't set up by phone line, they're set up by extension number. They also keep extensive data on each call; what phone number called, what date & time, which extension number they were connected to, how fast the call was answered, how long the call lasted, if the caller received a recording or was placed on hold, if so, for how long, if they were transferred, if so, to what extension number. There are typically 911 lines and direct dial lines called DID lines, so people who aren't calling for service, can call to specific managers and staff who aren't taking the 911 calls. Those extension numbers are not recorded. A call center telephone can have multiple extensions on it. One for 911 calls, one for speaking with a manager or co worker, for example. Only the extension number assigned to the call center is recorded, not the second number on the same phone. Seriously, I have designed 911 call center systems as well as many others, through out the US. The other way around it, is to call a person's personal cell phone. Either way, no FOIA will turn up a recording unless they specifically dialed 911.
@@phillip1330 as someone who works in IT. I can tell you that is not possible. there are mobile device management application that can prevent installation of some apps. however, some devices (Apple iPhone and iPad) are designed to give the end users ultimate control and you can not prevent them from installing some apps or using some web based apps. that is one area where Windows Phone was better as it was designed to be able provided central management by the IT department. one other thing to note is that most "apps" are really just a local front end for a web based app, so the data is out there in the "Cloud" on the applications server. most IT departments are lucky if they know what department to bill the phone and data plan to.
@@phillip1330 that is not always the case, but it is generally possible to get automated notifications when users do certain things you want to track. In some cases you need to install a custom app to make it happen though.
Mr. Steve it sounds like the top state police need a little shake up. And that might be more states than just your state. Thanks for reporting this kind of story.
Police attitude towards brotherhood in the badge has gone too far. Its a brotherhood of the people. They arent in the military. They serve us and they treat everyone like they are guilty of a crime until they get back to the station and treat only fellow employees with respect it seems.
@Game in a Jar true, but generally speaking they only ask if you have a bias that would preclude you from offering a fair judgement. You might rethink how you answer that, because just have a bias doesn't make you unfair, everyone has bias.
@Game in a Jar yes if that system is actually flawed you are fairly assessing it as such. If people critical of the police accept the bs evaluation of their own judgment from the very entities that are corrupt, the whole point of trial by jury goes by the wayside. Are you so biased you couldn't be convinced by any case that someone was guilty of a valid crime? If not, why would you evaluate yourself as unfair?
@Game in a Jar So does that sound unreasonable or unfair to you? It sounds fair to me. The system doesn't get to define fair. Don't lie to a judge, but don't accept the the evaluations of people who are biased towards prosecution either.
@Game in a Jar yes, so why are you giving tme determining what is fair credibility? If they dismiss you, then leave, but when they ask if you can be fair you say yes, because you can be. They can't read your mind.
That’s true, but radio systems used by police are not only controlled by police but are almost always recorded which means they are open to public records requests unless they are being used in an open investigation. Apps such as signal are not controlled by police which means they have no access to the messages for public records requests.
All of those who installed the various apps should be fired, no pension, no back pay, pension, health, nothing. Pre-emptively violating state laws and potentially federal laws they should also be prosecuted. Additionally, if they were communicating with each other, isn't that considered a conspiracy?
I empathize with your response to this issue but maybe just termination and revocation of their ability to work in Law Enforcement would be sufficient if they have not been convicted of an actual crime. However, I would like to see more exacting and stringent rules and restrictions for Law Enforcement workers, and swifter more severe repercussions and punishments when they either knowingly or unknowingly break those rules and restrictions.
There are situations where encryption is required for the job. I would classify government employee communications one of those however the difference is they are using a third party app which should not be allowed unless its fully vetted and the app that's chosen should have a back end server that archives all messages sent through the app to maintain the chain of communications. That is how this is supposed to work however these folks dont want to commit the resources required to implement and maintain such a system.
@@fyrfyter33 IPhones are NOT end to end encrypted.. their messaging app may be depending on the specific app, but in an enterprise situation they still go through a central server to relay the message from one device to the other and during that relay via a central server the message is retained along with the key since it's an 'enterprise' key. If IPhones were end-to-end without a central server by default in an enterprise deployment, that breaks the document retention requirements all corporations require for legal reasons and IPhones would never be used in an enterprise/corporate environment. Please learn the details of what you are attempting to speak definitively about, before speaking next time.
Steve, it's not just that some people believe that the police operate under a "us versus them" mentality, they are trained to operate that way. CNN had a segment on their site this past weekend about Warrior Training for officers where that idea is the central theme to the training.
@@SpynCycle57 you haven’t been to another country. That’s normal for police to where stuff like that. Police walk around with rifles and vests on. Police in England even have external vests. For some reason people get all up tight about what someone is wearing. The short answer to that is that it doesn’t matter. That stuff has greater functionality than what police were wearing before.
One of my brothers is a Gov't lawyer. He never makes personal calls on his Gov't issued phone. He never uses his personal phone for Gov't business. That's just smart. I'm not in Gov't. But I don't use my company email for anything personal.
I personally have had more than my share of encounter's with Police who were up to no good! I survived everyone, but just know the meeting's have had an impact on my social life and life in general!
@@barryervin8536 body and dash cameras were the best thing to happen to the police. The huge drop in false complaints. Of course that’s not news. I wonder why future Police won’t care about the community?
For them in their official business yes as mentioned by hanelyp1. However the use of the app itself shouldn't be considered nefarious. It's just a private messaging app, so they should be able to use it on their own phones (not state issued ones) for private matters.
Under state law, tampering with evidence is defined in a relatively broad manner. A defendant could potentially be charged with this offense-a felony-if they destroy, alter, conceal, or falsify any evidence related to an ongoing criminal investigation or court proceedings
Police became more of an "us vs. them" thing when they started the "War on drugs" and started using unmarked road pirates to generate revenue. Long gone are the days of marked cars and uniformed cops who are out to help the community. Their primary concern is generating revenue.
Yes thats the problem...they r acting as if they r at war with the general public on a daily basis & their actions r what have given them a bad rap in the publics eyes. Only they can change it & they must uphold the law with their fellow officers as they so called do with us.
As a former city council member in TX, our city was small & did not issue city email addresses to council. When a foia request came in we were told to give any conversations/emails to city attny & a cd/rom was given to requesting party. We were told even our private email addresses were subject to foia because we were conducting official city business on it. There is no excuse for privacy (excluding some areas of personnel issues) when it comes to foia requests for government documents/texts/emails.
That's what my parents always told me when I was a teenager: "as long as I'm paying the bills, you will obey my rules! If you don't like it, you can move out and pay for your own phone!" If cops don't want to be accountable to the taxpayers, they need to quit their job and go work in the private sector.
when I was young I remember my parents talking about good cops and abusive cops now stuff gets put on social media. I have seen newbies to law enforcement get overly concerned about their authority than just enforcing the law
Look at the old TV shows like "Leave it to Beaver", or "Dennis the Menace". The police in some of those episodes were portrayed as Steve said...part of the community, there to support the residents. I think that changed in the 1960's when riots arose that were against the Vietnam war, equal rights, Chicago's Democratic Convention 1968, etc.
@@konagolden3397-That's incorrect. It's the "qualified" portion of immunity. Cops can't lose their Immunity if they didn't "realize" they were wrong. And since cops LIE, there is no way to prove they didn't know, because their encrypted comments have been erased. You don't have Q.I.; that's why it doesn't work for you.
@@ronmcmartin4513 If I used the phrase, "ought to apply to them, in my opinion." would it matter to you? I disagree with the entire concept of Qualified Immunity and am expressing my opinion. Opinions aren't incorrect. They may be ill conceived or ill advised. I also do not support the use of encrypted devices or lying. Truth, honesty, liberty,and trust live in light, not darkness.
After Steve posted this video I watched in horror. As a citizen of Michigan I immediately wrote the State of Michigan AG office a polite letter asking for an explanation........crickets still waiting for a reply going on 6 weeks
But ... **wink** **wink** she didn't know, totally ignorant of the law! Of course. Every state and federal official (cops too), should have an investigator following them, and they should be paid a bonus for each crime documented.
This issue is quite common when the person who is supposed to enforce the policy is request by someone higher them to break it. It's far to common they just break it so they won't get fired.
Thank you for an Education. I’m from Chicago, retired in Arizona. I find the Law fascinating. I also find corruption of the Law equally fascinating. When I see our Capital invaded, I ask myself why are so many of my fellow Citizens pissed off? Smoke and mirrors and shadows.....oh my. Trust in our legal system is the only guarantee Citizens will actually follow it. Chaos is an ugly thing to witness. Vietnam Vet USN
I'll be polite with simply saying "geeze louise" instead of something harsher that immediately came to mind. Encryption PLUS non-records-retention PLUS secret messages? But UNTIL A BAD GOVERNMENT ACTOR GOES TO PRISON this means essentially nothing.
Sounds like the MSP is getting caught with there pants down. The police probably started changing there view during "the war on drugs" how we word things can impact our frame of mind. Instead of calling it a war on drugs perhaps it should have been called eliminating addiction?
Fun fact; the murder solve rate plummeted at the start of the drug war & never recovered. Solving rapes & murders is hard work & rarely results in asset forfeiture. Drug arrests are low-hanging fruit, VERY profitable too. Federal money flows depending on drug arrests too. Oddly, the rate of drug use & addiction is NOT lower despite billions of dollars spent & increased punishment. Almost like it's NOT solving the problem 😕
I am absolutely shocked, shocked I say, that you would imply that "law enforcement" would fail to follow the law. Shocked! Next thing you know, you would be saying that WWE wrestling is not real, that it is scripted.
@MrPesky1: The people who are being discussed here are way above the highest pay grade occupied by any of the Internal Affairs officers in their department.
Any public employee who used encryption on an agency owned device should be fired, period. Such a person has violated the public trust, cannot be trusted, and has no right to hold a public job.
Geez, let’s throw everyone in jail for using a freely available app that everyone else has access to. It’s so criminal that they have that ability (insert sarcasm).🙄 It’s not illegal to use an app
You forget, many times the officer is suppressed. Often an issue is taken up to the chain-of-command. It is in fact, very much like the military. However, at times a supervisor suppresses a report of an incident for reasons unknown.
I do think cops often see people at their worst. After a certain amount of exposure to this, one's brain adapts and changes and "thinks" differently. Now, the higher ups in the state police organization should definitely know better.
The shift occurred with the patriot act. When the policy went from community to a more military state. Homeland gives them hummers apc gear and training to be more military. The military has a completely different outlook on the enemy, its us vs them eliminate the enemy. Vs a community enforcement of people who you live with everyday
They usually have 2 channels, at least they did back in the 80's. One channel you could monitor, the other channel was private (maybe encrypted, IDK). When my Grandpa was the Undersheriff, he would switch his monitor back and forth between 2 channels when he was at home.
@@mbryson2899 that is how it should work ... What ever app was approved should have a feature for another management app to backup the message and data to a server to provide foia data retention.
A few years ago I was listening to my police scanner when I heard a sheriff's deputy in Eaton County Michigan broadcast somebody's social security number on an unencrypted radio channel that anybody can listen to. I raised hell with the county board of commissioners about it.
I was teaching my daughter to drive when a cop flew by doing about 50 in a 25mph zone. We saw him a minute later, parked alone in a cul-de-sac, working on his computer. I wrote a letter to the department and the chief wrote back to tell me it was a “code 3 emergency”. B.S.
The issue seems to be the lack of FOIA compliance not the encryption. Perhaps a government version of the messaging apps could be developed. Similar to how there's a government version of zoom used by the courts.
I noticed this years ago, the Police attitude is if you are law enforcement you are OK, if you are not, you are a criminal that hasn't been caught yet!😲 They have have this mentality since the 60's that I have known about!😲 Had relatives in firefighting and EMT's that said the same thing!!!!
I retired from one of the state of Ohio IT departments All State owned phones, laptops and computer systems can only use state approved programs.We disable the ability to download programs if possible. If you try doing so, disciplinary Action will be taken. This prevents Outside entities placing Malice software on our systems.
just wondering, how does the court look at "spoliation of evidence" with regard to encrypted data, and in this case, the auto deletion of data? does the courts draws difference conclusion for criminally vs civil, or state vs person, or person vs person?
In general can spoliation apply preemptively? If you actively take steps that seem to serve no purposes other than to avoid evidence existing in the first place, does that constitute spoliation? I'm guessing by it self it doesn't ("The right of the people to be secure in their [...] papers" if nothing else should generally allow not maintaining records), but it may well be different in case where there is a known potential future legal obligation to divulge the information. That said; does spoliation of evidence apply outside court? Does there need to be either a criminal or civil case for it to even matter? What about a FOIA request not related to such a case? What about a third party spoliator not party to a suit? All kinds of interesting questions on this one.
NOTHING LAW ENFORCEMENT DOES SHOULD BE ENCRYPTED and all communication between them should never take place on any private device, network or application.
Some radio traffic is encrypted. Is that illegal? No. Is it illegal to have an app installed on your phone? Nope. Idk what the deal is other than people think they need to know everything that is not relevant to them.
@@AJ-ib4oy I don't give a damn what the information is. It is all public information and should never be encrypted. Police are corrupt. They even make calls on personal phones using their own secret talking code when they are called to a call or are on one. So, stop supporting the real criminals.
On the 'if other cops know one of their own is a problem aren't they all responsible to some degree' aspect... If a citizen is aware his friend is a serial killer, has seen signs of it, perhaps the trophy collection, or the friend confided in him, whatever, that citizen is going to come under fire for not raising the alarm. Same for if you have a kid who says "I'm going to shoot my teacher tomorrow at school", you bear some responsibility if the little bastard does it. I appreciate cops need to 'have each others backs', but this should not include defending clearly wrong actions. It places the cops overall in a bad situation and compromises the trust the public needs to have in their services and their authority. People make mistakes, this is fine, but patterns of behavior are a police specialty, something they are supposed to be aware of, and that level of introspection in the force is a healthy thing for that same police force.
If you have 10 bad cops and 1,000 good cops who turn a blind eye, you have 1,010 bad cops. There needs to be a policy of collective responsibility ... and they absolutely mustn’t be allowed to investigate themselves.
@@CantankerousDave I wouldn't support such a wide scope of blame. But the culture does need to change or it cannot improve. While I don't expect anyone to be perfect and make perfect decisions in every situation, there needs to be a certain level of honor valued above peer loyalty.
Hey Steve when I was growing up the COP's were members of the community. They news our names they tried to help us when we had problems and a lot of times they were are friends. As I grew up it was the new guy's who try and make a bust to look good and the old guy you could talk to him and come to an understanding and not have things get out control. Now I have friend and I'm not sure about that. When he joined the police dept. he said I can't believe what these guy's do! Two years later I saw him and he was not the same guy I new.It was like he was in a Gang. I can't tell what he said but it scared the hell out of me to the point when I see a cop I have a panic attack. It's not that I want to bash the cop's but a cop can kill someone and be off work with pay and not have any consequences you start to paint them with same brush. I can't the difference between the FOP and the MOB.
two attorneys are sitting at a bar chatting... one asks the other "how do you know when a lawyer is telling a lie? " they both laugh , hold thier beers up and take a drink .... the other one asks the first "how can you tell when a cop is telling a lie?" the first lawyer says "they are on the witness stand."
If they used that app even once in a state issued phone isn’t that automatically destroying state records? Btw several members of the Trump admin were also caught using a similar app
@@beekeeper8474 it’s not like, it’s exactly the same. Deleting public records should be a crime that has a significant punishment. I don’t care if it’s the city council a cop or the president of the United States. The only reason to delete public records is to hide or cover something up.
In reference to the second officer not being fired I think back to something I heard growing up and I tell my kids all the time it’s easy to stand up to a stranger that is bdoing the wrong thing, it’s much tougher to stand up to your friends for the exact same thing”
I'm an old guy...I've seen the changes...when cops stopped walking a beat...they're now in cars and SUVs and even APCs...I think new cops should have to start walking a beat...get to know their community, make connections...who the good people are, who the lost are, who the local kids are, etc...put a quick reaction team made of corporals/specialists in cars ready to respond for more serious situations...with your Sargent in charge or Lt. running a section of your town or whatever...but the nucleus would still be beat officers...no doubt it would be more expensive...but worth it...also, no more surplus military gear...that's for National Guard...if stuff is that out of control...you need the national guard anyway...🤷♂️ your officers need to come from the community they are going to police...and need to be thoroughly screened psychologically...can't hire those with personality disorders...and frequently screened thereafter...finally...no more union...maybe a professional association...but those unions are used to protect bad officers...they should have to have a license to be an officer...that can be pulled if they violate the law...I was a paramedic for 30 years...its the same with us...we have a license and if we act poorly, can lose the right to practice.
