A New York judge refused to force Apple to unlock the iPhone of a particular case in open court in Brooklyn district drug trafficking, according to a statement broadcast Tuesday by the court.
The cause was opened in October last year and was presided by Judge James Orenstein, but the sentence currently charged by the pulse that keep the authorities with the Apple company to disclose information of a phone used in the killing of San Bernardino.
In the case of Brooklyn, the judge decided that the reasons presented by the prosecution do not justify force Apple to avoid security key on the iPhone, for a number of reasons detailed in the judgment, 50 pages.
"After receiving the facts and arguments of the parties, I conclude that none of these factors justify imposing on Apple's obligation to assist the government investigation against their will. Therefore, I deny the motion," the text.
The main defendant, Jung Feng, was arrested in the New York borough of Queens on June 11, 2014 by conspiring with four other individuals for trafficking methamphetamines.
In the police inquiries the authorities seized several items, including an iPhone 5s, and investigations resulted a year later in the request to be allowed to recover information from that and other mobile phones.
Although another judge authorized the search and within two weeks was given to execute, agents of the US Drug Enforcement Administration, tried to access content but were unable to circumvent the security key.
From this, the authorities required the help of Apple to unlock the iPhone Feng, and realize the company accepted only if authorized by a judge, in a parallel case which went to court Orenstein.
The exchange of documents and arguments between the parties agreed this month with the steps made by the California courts to also make the phones of one of the murderers of San Bernardino, where 14 people died will unlock.
Although the judge Orenstein agreed that the request was in line with two of the three conditions to issue orders in accordance with an old law procedures, he found that was not met with the third, which means that the order is given "according to the uses and principles of law ".
The decision was based on the Judicial Mandates Act 1789 and not necessarily legal precedent for other requests in the same direction, according to legal experts.
In fact, the magistrate, in its judgment, acknowledges that Apple has allowed access to phone your brand in 70 other federal cases, and remember that ultimately it is the judge who has the authority to accept or deny motions as mentioned.