FORENSIC CONFERENCE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENTS

(.\fcord2016 – Chapter 27)

Digital Forensics
Seizure Procedure(s)
Mobile Phone Weapons
Best Practice Model

Greg Smith
FORENSIC CONFERENCE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENTS
(.\fcord2016 – Chapter 27 )

Discussion Topics
• Welcome to FCORD2016 (Chapter 27)
• What has happened since last Chapter
event?
• Updates to section on Smart Phone
Weapons Seizure Procedure
• Difficulties/challenges
FORENSIC CONFERENCE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENTS
(.\fcord2016 – Chapter 27 )
• Welcome to FCORD2016 (Chapter 27)
• For new attendees FCORD is a discussion and presentation channel for MTEB and IDF
members and practitioners.
• MTEB and IDF are not for profit organisations. FCORD is our focus conference. There are
numerous Chapters within FCORD e.g. Chapter 27 firearms and weapons, Chapter 31
cloning mobile phones and so on. Statute Chapter numbers are used in order to frame
the importance of the subject and work and does not provide legal advice.
• The title Chapter 27 comes from the Firearms Act 1968 which makes wide provision even
for s5(b) ‘any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of
any noxious liquid, gas or other thing..’ So devices that spray substances would be
relevant to FCORD Chapter 27. There are Enactments which it is possible to use those
Chapter numbers relating to weapons, however it is considered Chapter 27 is sufficient
even for knifes and stun guns to be dealt within this Chapter focus group.
• FCORD Chapter 27 deals with adapted devices i.e. Mobile/Smart Phones adapted as a
weapon.
• FCORD Chapter 27 remit covers observations and discussions on seizure and handling
procedures.
FORENSIC CONFERENCE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENTS
(.\fcord2016 – Chapter 27 )
• What has happened since last chapter event
• There has been an increase in Smartphones adapted as weapons
• Seizure and handling procedures are constantly evolving and these newer
weapons require updating current procedures.
• FCORD Chapter 27 is awaiting any new reports where injury or death of
examiners have occurred due to handling adapted weapons; At this time
thankfully Chapter 27 focus group work remains proactive to identify potential
risks and threats as opposed to being reactive responding to a specific event.
(c.f. see the next presentation slide as balancing identification of a risk/threat
vis-à-vis an actual recorded event).
• FCORD Chapter 27 has received expressions of interest to know about FCORD’s
work and the release of this presentation to a wider audience is to assist that
information process.
FORENSIC CONFERENCE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENTS
(.\fcord2016 – Chapter 27 )
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7451/Mobile-phone-guns-destined-Britain.html

• 'Mobile phone' guns destined for Britain

• With its keypad and illuminated display, it looks like any mobile phone. But the only
calls this model is likely to make are to the undertaker. It is a .22 pistol disguised as a
mobile. The deadly weapon is one of ten intercepted by frontier police in Switzerland
on their way to criminals in Britain, France and Germany. The gun - made in eastern
Europe - works on a simple percussion system in which bullets are detonated by high-
tension springs. On the bottom of the 'phone' is a winding mechanism made to look
like an aerial. When this is cranked the springs are pulled back to the bottom of the
casing. Then, when a button on the side is pressed, a bullet is fired from one of four
openings in the top of the device. The 'connect' button expels the shell while other
buttons on the keypad determine which of the four barrels is used. The gun is lethal at
close range. But it loses its accuracy beyond 30 metres because it has no sighting device
or grip. Police believe hundreds, possibly thousands, of similar devices have found
their way into western Europe from the Balkans in recent years. They are already so
prevalent in Germany that one Hamburg disco owner insists guests leave their mobiles
at the door in case they are weapons.
FORENSIC CONFERENCE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENTS
(.\fcord2016 – Chapter 27 )
Producing a Seizure and Handling Procedure is
never easy given the variety of smartphones on
the market. It gets even harder when mobile
phones have been adapted as a weapon. Some
observations that are worth investigating:
• Don’t go it alone believing your knowledge and
understanding of handle mobile phones and
examination of them will be enough.
• Obtain legal advice from Counsel or Solicitor
regarding seizing and handling of dangerous
items; health and safety; corporate, private and
public sector liability..and so on.
• Ensure relevant Directors and staff members
are signed off confirming they having read and
understood the procedures.
FORENSIC CONFERENCE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENTS
(.\fcord2016 – Chapter 27 )
• Updates to section on Mobile Phone Weapons Seizure Procedure
• The following minimum number of Procedure sections to be updated:

• SEIZURE
– Proximity to Suspect
– Not in possession of Suspect
– Chain of custody of seized device in handling eco-system
• HANDLING
– At site
– Hand to hand custody
– In the lab
FORENSIC CONFERENCE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENTS
(.\fcord2016 – Chapter 27 )

The suspect is seen with a handset,

then get him/her to place it on the
ground.
Even if device is not in possession of
suspect this doesn’t corroborate the
device is not a weapon and could go
off in unsuspecting hands.

Maximum distance up to 30 feet?

FORENSIC CONFERENCE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENTS
(.\fcord2016 – Chapter 27 )

Handling post seizure can impact on anyone in the chain of custody

Handling post seizure can impact on anyone in the chain of

custody up to and including an examiner. The first responder
may not realise the potential of the device to be a weapon. The
device is left switched ON and someone in the chain of custody
presses a button and gets hit by the stun gun shock.

The evidence bag is flimsy and the seized mobile jack-knifes open
into a gun position. Someone might think it is a toy and pull the
trigger of a loaded gun. Knives that flick outward from the mobile
can cut through polythene and cut someone. Two phones in one
evidence bag press on each other and releases pepper spray into
evidence bag until it explodes whilst in transit.
FORENSIC CONFERENCE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENTS
(.\fcord2016 – Chapter 27 )

Technical specs indicates double-barrelled firing .380 calibre shells.

Hammerless, high velocity, increased accuracy. 30 foot range.
FORENSIC CONFERENCE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENTS
(.\fcord2016 – Chapter 27 )

Technical specs indicates single-barrel firing 4 x .22 calibre rounds. Hammerless,

high velocity, high accuracy. 30 foot range.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1089355/Dial-M-murder-The-Mafia-
gun-disguised-mobile-phone.html
FORENSIC CONFERENCE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENTS
(.\fcord2016 – Chapter 27 )
Seized during an operation in the US (photo on right) the
technical spec for the blade size is not available. The blade
slides upwards but also requires manual intervention to slide
into recess. Thus not a flick-knife but a weapon nonetheless.

Even mobiles designed with tools for legitimate purposes

offer the potential to be used as a weapon. But they can still
cause injury although proving intent or illegal possession
might be relevant when dealing with injury during seizure
and handling.

See - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-
2572081/The-iPhone-case-turns-mobile-22-tool-SWISS-
ARMY-KNIFE-complete-wood-saw-bottle-opener.html
FORENSIC CONFERENCE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENTS
(.\fcord2016 – Chapter 27 )
• If the substance in devices like these were to go
off in the face of the person seizing or handling
the mobile would that be covered under The
Firearms Act 1968 - s5(b) ‘any weapon of
whatever description designed or adapted for
the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other
thing..’ ?
• Ensuring safe handling may make the difference
between a detained suspect getting away if the
stop and search or arresting officer is unable to
see, thus potentially paralysed for a time.
• Health and Safety is important under the egg
shell skull rule but criminal causation due to a
defendant’s action under the thin skull rule (you
take your victim as you find them) further
elaborates the need to have seizure and
handling procedures legally scrutinised.
FORENSIC CONFERENCE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENTS
(.\fcord2016 – Chapter 27 )
These adapted devices can produce a
short-term paralysing effect and is
very painful when a person is
exposed to their shock.
• They potentially produce the
higher risk due to unsuspecting
persons not realising their
capability, as their design is so
close to iPhone and Android style
handsets.
• The variety of ways the weapon is
designed for the mobile phonecan
be such an outer jacket (mobile
cover) producing the stun gun to
embedded pins on the outer-rim
of the phone.
FORENSIC CONFERENCE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENTS
(.\fcord2016 – Chapter 27 )
FORENSIC CONFERENCE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENTS
(.\fcord2016 – Chapter 27 )
• Difficulties/challenges – In the Workplace
• Getting the framework of the Seizure and Handling Procedures just right
remains an essential task, and even more so where mobile phones have been
adapted as weapons.
• For the purposes of seizure and handling procedures more understanding of
hazards in the workplace are needed and how to deal with mobile phones
discovered to be a weapon particularly late on in the chain-of-custody?
• Mobile phones adapted as a weapon is not the usual run of the mill seized item
and handling and even examining such devices, particularly where it is not
suspected the mobile phone has been modified to be used as a weapon cannot
be understated. Familiarity and high exposure to handling and examining
ordinary mobile phones does not train the examiner for these circumstances.
• Obtaining good legal advice is essential and ought not be left to guesswork that
may of itself lead to legal and damages liabilities should someone get hurt or
worse.
FORENSIC CONFERENCE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENTS
(.\fcord2016 – Chapter 27 )
• Difficulties/challenges – Workplace Standards
• ISO/IEC 17025 is a management system standard specific to defining the requirements for
the competence of testing and calibration laboratories. The standard identifies and makes
provision for the requirement to take measures regarding health and safety in the
management plan; receipt of exhibits and so on.
• ISO/IEC 17025 generically defines universal principles that can be adopted by different
industries. It does not prescribe, nor can it do so, how to do deal with mobile phones
adapted as a weapon. That is not criticism of the standard merely the standard was never
designed to set industry-specific finite requirements, but corroborate what is in place.
• Seizing and handling mobile phones and protecting evidence is not simply consigned to
making sure that its data content remains original and otherwise unfettered from human
intervention. There are finite issues associated fingerprints, GSR remnants, drug
contamination remains, and blood stains etc. So seizing and handling have a wide range
of rules connected to these procedures.
• Seizure and Handling has a multitude of requirements derived from Regulations,
Statutory Law, Case Law, Practice and Procedure etc. Weapons add more requirements.
FORENSIC CONFERENCE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENTS
(.\fcord2016 – Chapter 27 )
• Difficulties/challenges – Legal Advice
• It should be absolutely clear that obtaining legal advice is unavoidable, thus
inescapable. ISO/IEC 17025 is not a legal protection mechanism and therefore
cannot provide insurance to accredited companies or organisation that fall foul
of health and safety or criminal rules.
• Whilst FCORD2016 Chapter 27 refers to its origins being drawn from a Statutory
title FCORD2016 Chapter 27 does not give legal advice. Signposts may be used
regarding legal documents etc., but getting the appropriate and proper legal
advice is essential.
• Legal advice is needed because there are so many civil and criminal statutory
laws in place it is extremely difficult without expert legal advice to know which
enactment or provisions would apply where (a) a mobile phone adapted as
‘type’ of weapon (b) has been discharged or inflicted (c) on a person (victim)
involved in the seizure and/or handling within the chain-of-custody process.
FORENSIC CONFERENCE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENTS
(.\fcord2016 – Chapter 27 )
• Difficulties/challenges – Examples of Statutory Law
• Health and Safety in the workplace (Act) is usually a good starting point.
• But what about The Occupiers Liability Act for a visitor who is injured at site?
• What if the weapon doesn’t fall within the provisions of the Firearms Act but
the Prevention of Crime Act or the Criminal Justice Act? Would description of a
weapon affect the intention to use and/or injury sustained from its use?
• Would there be potency in any legal redress where a ‘thing’ used as weapon or
accidently caused an injury listed under the Restriction of Offences Weapons
Act as opposed to a device legally imported and then sold as it was not listed
for prohibition under the Customs and Excise Management Act.
• Defining a weapon and how it is used can be two difficult issues. However, the
injury of one person (victim) during seizing or handling is one too many.
Problematical is that laws for public sector workers maybe different from
private sector workers, corporations and private companies.
FORENSIC CONFERENCE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENTS
(.\fcord2016 – Chapter 27 )

BEST PRACTICE PRINCIPLE

* SEIZURE AND HANDLING PROCEDURES

NEED TO BE APPLIED ON A CASE BY CASE
AND A DEVICE BY DEVICE BASIS, ALSO *
FORENSIC CONFERENCE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENTS
(.\fcord2016 – Chapter 27 )

Mobile Telephone Examination Board

and
Institute for Digital Forensics
Can be found on LinkedIn
FORENSIC CONFERENCE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENTS
(.\fcord2016 – Chapter 27 )

THANK YOU
END OF FCORD2016 CHAPTER 27
DISCUSSION CHANNEL