Criminal Courts
Credit and Finance
Housing
Labor and Employment
Policing
Public Benefits
Across the FieldAmicus Brief in Pennsylvania v. Green
Logan Koepke, Tinuola Dada, and Emma Weil
Amicus briefWe filed a legal brief in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania describing the capabilities of mobile device forensics tools (MDFTs) and how they facilitatate invasive searches of cellphones. Search warrants, like the one in this case, often fail to limit the scope of a search at all. However, we argue that narrower searches are possible, and that courts must create new legal safeguards to avoid allowing general digital searches. We also advocate for audit logs in MDFT software, which would allow judges and defense lawyers to inspect the steps a forensic examiner took and to challenge the execution of a search.
Related Work
In this brief, we explain how the Government’s remarkable technical assertions — that mobile device forensic tools can only extract all data off of a cellphone and cannot perform a narrower search — are incorrect.
PolicingWe are suing the NYPD for records concerning the department’s use of mobile device forensic technology. Upturn is represented on a pro-bono basis by Shearman & Sterling, LLP and the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (S.T.O.P.).
PolicingWorking with the Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School, we filed a brief in New Jersey v. Pickett supporting the defense’s request to fully examine TrueAllele, the probabilistic DNA analysis software used in the case, in order to assess its reliability.
Criminal CourtsThis report is the most comprehensive examination of U.S. law enforcement’s use of mobile device forensic tools. Our research shows that every American is at risk of having their phone forensically searched by law enforcement.
Policing