>Specifically, Judge Judith Dein, of the federal district court of Massachusetts, gave agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)

>Specifically, Judge Judith Dein, of the federal district court of Massachusetts, gave agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) the right to press Robert Brito-Pina's fingers on any iPhone found in his apartment in Boston. The bloke was suspected to be trafficking guns, hence the application for a search warrant Yesterday in the thread about the MA state police getting told they need a warrant for real time location date I said that MA judges will consider politics when reading the law. This is exactly what I mean. MA really doesn't like guns (this is a statement of fact, I'm not going to get into a discussion of whether that hate is justified). It's no surprise that a MA judge allowed the state to go after someone accused of a firearms related crime. Had this been the DEA asking for a warrant for a drug trafficker's phone the judge would likely have ruled the other way. >Jacobsen notes that gun traffickers "often use cellular telephones to acquire or sell illegal guns" and that they are "normally maintained for reasonably long periods of time because they are expensive, can often be subject to long-term contracts that contain substantial penalties for early termination, can store large amounts of information, and do not easily wear out." He also notes that even when people buy a new phone, they will typically transfer the contents of their old phone onto it. What BS. People who make their living trafficking in illegal things use burners for their business. Everyone with a brain knows this. The ATF know they are not likely to find anything on that phone they don't already know. The ATF is just looking to set a precedent and they picked a forum likely to let them set that precedent. FYI the second page of this article includes a pretty good summary of relevant case law to date.