California Public Records Request: mobile device forensic tools

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to the California Public Records Act, I hereby request the following records:

Records regarding the thousand oaks police Department’s use of mobile device forensic tools (MDFTs).
This includes any software, hardware, process, or service that is capable of any of the following:
• extracting any data from a mobile device,
• recovering deleted files from a mobile device, or
• bypassing mobile device passwords, locks, or other security features.
Examples of MDFTs include, but are not limited to, products or services offered by vendors such
as Cellebrite, Grayshift, Oxygen Forensics, BlackBag Technologies, Magnet Forensics, MSAB,
AccessData, Paraben, Katana Forensics, BK Forensics, and Guidance Software/OpenText.
I specifically requests the following records under the California public records act
1. Purchase Records and Agreements: Any and all records reflecting an agreement for purchase,
acquisition, or license of MDFTs, or permission to use, test, or evaluate MDFTs since 2015.
2. Records of Use: Any and all records describing the Department’s use of MDFTs since 2015.
a. In particular, we seek records reflecting the department’s aggregate use of MDFTs. For
example, monthly reports that reflect the total number of MDFT cases for each month,
broken down by type of crime, and number and type of phones, and number and type of
other devices.
i. Please specify any instances where the department used Cellebrite Advanced Services,
or otherwise transferred possession of a device or its contents to a vendor for off-site
processing, including Regional Computer Forensics Laboratories.
ii. Please include any instances of forensic examination of a device (e.g. using JTAG or
chip-off processes) that may not involve a vendor’s product.
3. Policies Governing Use: Any and all records regarding policies and guidelines governing the
use of MDFTs, including but not limited to: training materials regarding their operation,
restrictions on when they may be used, limitations on retention and use of collected data,
security measures taken to protect stored and in-transit data, guidance on when a warrant or
other legal process must be obtained, and guidance on when the existence and use of MDFTs
may be revealed to the public, criminal defendants, or judges.
Due to the ubiquity of mobile devices, law enforcement sees the data stored on mobile devices,
like cellphones, as key sources of evidence for investigations. However, mobile devices can
contain large amounts of people’s sensitive and private information, much of which may be
irrelevant to a given investigation. As the Supreme Court recognized in Riley v.
California, “[o]ne of the most notable distinguishing features of modern cellphones is their
immense storage capacity.” As such, forensic searches of mobile devices are often highly invasive,
and we believe that such searches by law enforcement are increasingly common.
Mobile device forensic tools (MDFTs) are used by law enforcement to extract data from mobile
devices. In some cases, if the data on the mobile device is encrypted, some MDFTs can help law
enforcement circumvent a device’s security features in order to access otherwise inaccessible
data. These capabilities have been the subject of broad public debate, for example, in the
aftermath of the high-profile San Bernardino shooting in 2015. Whether or not devices are
encrypted, law enforcement’s use of MDFTs is an issue of significant public interest.
Currently, there is a considerable lack of public information available regarding how local
law enforcement agencies use MDFTs, and the policies and procedures that govern such
use. The public is entitled to understand the Department’s activities and capabilities with
respect to MDFTs, and this request seeks to further the public’s understanding.

The requested documents will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes.

In the event that there are fees, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 10 calendar days, as the statute requires.

Sincerely,

Mr. adonis gaynor

this request is being withdrawn because of a typo error was not meant to be made to the thousand oaks police dept but instead the lacounty district attorneys office . thanks