iPhone and IP Box experts please

What usually happens with these devices once the case is concluded? Are they returned to the owner regardless of what they may hold as they have undeniable rights to the property? Or are they held onto as evidence until such time as they can be examined (if ever)?

… which brings us here …
http//www.forensicfocus.com/Forums/viewtopic/t=13928/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reference

This is a useless piece of legislation. Only one person was ever prosecuted for it.

Seemingly 5 (five) cases of sentencing connected to RIPA III (section 49) are recorded
http//www.thelawpages.com/criminal-offence/Failure-to-comply-with-a-(section-49)-notice-582-22.law
Not that many anyway.

jaclaz

Seemingly 5 (five) cases of sentencing connected to RIPA III (section 49) are recorded
http//www.thelawpages.com/criminal-offence/Failure-to-comply-with-a-(section-49)-notice-582-22.law
Not that many anyway.

jaclaz

I think that is where they have just been charged with that offence as this one isn't listed there
http//www.gmp.police.uk/live/nhoodv3.nsf/dae147a8712bbae180257a2c00493fa0/f4ef51184df78f0c80257d7300535c42!OpenDocument

I suspect there are a lot more than listed.

What's your experience of this? My experience is most defence solicitors advise their client not to give out passwords and the like in interview.

If your in the UK, Section 49 of RIPA means they can charged for failing to provide a password. Up to 5 years for CSE offences. That often helps.

In my experience 90% of the iPhones I receive the owner miraculously has forgotten their passcode. In interview they can rattle off the last 30years of their life story, however forget their passcode to a device they use 50-100 times a day.

Whats 5years in HMP compared to the potential evidence on the handset.

In my experience 90% of the iPhones I receive the owner miraculously has forgotten their passcode. In interview they can rattle off the last 30years of their life story, however forget their passcode to a device they use 50-100 times a day.

Whats 5years in HMP compared to the potential evidence on the handset.

Seems like there's a funny game going on in the varying counties of the United Kingdom.

Where Chris is most people hand over their iPhone passcodes… where you are most people 'forgot' their passcodes… and where I am defence solicitors usually advise their clients not to disclose passcodes…

I wonder what Apple would have to say given their stance on privacy lol

What usually happens with these devices once the case is concluded? Are they returned to the owner regardless of what they may hold as they have undeniable rights to the property? Or are they held onto as evidence until such time as they can be examined (if ever)?

… which brings us here …
http//www.forensicfocus.com/Forums/viewtopic/t=13928/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reference

Yes I did ask this question before. But you'll notice I didn't really get a proper response. Since we have several people here dealing with this exact issue I hoped some would care to answer…

As a forensic examiner, I don't know what happens to the device afterwards in most cases.

After the examination a phone is usually stored in the evidence locker until the case is over. After that it might be available for the owner to pick it up (either unchanged or wiped) or it might be destroyed or wiped and auctioned. It really depends on the case.
I guess some phones just sit in the evidence locker for years and years and nobody (including the suspect) really cares what happens to them.

If the phone belongs to a witness, it is usually returned pretty fast.

I think that is where they have just been charged with that offence as this one isn't listed there
http//www.gmp.police.uk/live/nhoodv3.nsf/dae147a8712bbae180257a2c00493fa0/f4ef51184df78f0c80257d7300535c42!OpenDocument

I suspect there are a lot more than listed.

Well but that is exactly the point, as I see it.

IF UK courts emits tens, hundreds or thousands of "RIPA orders" or "Section 49 notices" BUT the people actually sentenced or going to jail for failing to comply are 1 (or 5 or anyway a very small number) might mean either that
1) most people, when faced with the risk of going to jail for 2 to 5 years, decide to reveal the password(s)
2) a number of people that anyway do not reveal the password(s) are not afterwards sentenced for this failure to comply

If you prefer, number of people which were

• issued "Section 49 notices"
• consequently induced to comply
• prosecuted for failure to comply
• actually sentenced for failure to comply

can be very different, and without all those pieces of data it would be difficult to determine whether the provision in the Law is effective or useless or simply rarely used by Courts.

jaclaz