Police Given Direct Line To Cell Phone Searches

[daddyo]

Unbelievable. Welcome to Amerika.

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/03/06/police-given-direct-line-to-cell-phone-searches/?fb_ref=.T1d1qjQ7Uoo.like&fb_source=home_oneline

[Guest Torrin]

Unbelievable. Welcome to Amerika.

http://dfw.cbslocal....ce=home_oneline

Another good reason to have your phone locked every time you turn it off (if you are concerned about anyone looking at it).

[E4 No More]

^{Um, did you miss this part?}

^{"The judge in the appeal case, Judge Richard Posner, agreed that the officer had to search the phone immediately or risk losing valuable evidence. Judge Posner ruled it was a matter of urgency, arguing it was possible for an accomplice to wipe the phone clean using a computer or other remote device."}

^{IIRC police can search without a warrant if they have probable cause and there is valid risk of distruction of evidence.}

[daddyo]

^{Um, did you miss this part?}

^{"The judge in the appeal case, Judge Richard Posner, agreed that the officer had to search the phone immediately or risk losing valuable evidence. Judge Posner ruled it was a matter of urgency, arguing it was possible for an accomplice to wipe the phone clean using a computer or other remote device."}

^{IIRC police can search without a warrant if they have probable cause and there is valid risk of distruction of evidence.}

Yeah, I read that part. Sorry, but that's not enough reason to circumvent the 4th Amendment. My phone is my property.

Is it OK with you for them to search your home or your car without a warrant?

Edited March 8, 2012 by DaddyO

[E4 No More]

FYI: Did you know that cordless phones can be monitored by anyone with a HAM radio? When I was a police officer I knew of another officer that would carry a hand-held HAM radio and monitor the phone calls of known dirtbags.

[E4 No More]

Yeah, I read that part. Sorry, but that's not enough reason to circumvent the 4th Amendment. My phone is my property.

Is it OK with you for them to search your home or your car without a warrant?

The courts disagree with you. Been that way for decades.

[daddyo]

The courts disagree with you. Been that way for decades.

And the courts have NEVER been known to rule against the Constitution. Right.

[Jonnin]

Yeah, I read that part. Sorry, but that's not enough reason to circumvent the 4th Amendment. My phone is my property.

Is it OK with you for them to search your home or your car without a warrant?

Your home? No. Your car? Absolutely, its been done, is done, regularly. Evidence that can easily be destroyed or transported has long been searchable by the police. I happen to agree with it as far as the car goes, for physical evidence. There is nothing they can see or do on your phone, however. They can get a warrant & examine the call records. A phone should operate under the same rules as a laptop --- whatever those rules are --- and probably should require the warrant under most circumstances.

[k9wh91984]

Can we say Gestapo? I corrected this question for the masses.

Edited March 9, 2012 by k9wh91984

[E4 No More]

Can we say Gustapo?

I can and will when someone shows me a documented case where a LEO came up to someone without probable cause, snatched the phone out of their hand, and searched the contents of said phone. Until then, no!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Wasn't there a thread talking about the State of Michigan and their use of a

device that can download where your smartphone has been and is part of that

state's law?

[DaveTN]

Yeah, I read that part. Sorry, but that's not enough reason to circumvent the 4th Amendment. My phone is my property.

Is it OK with you for them to search your home or your car without a warrant?

The 4^th amendment protects you from “unreasonable searches and seizuresâ€. I searched hundreds of cars without a warrant. Houses are harder, but given “Plain Viewâ€, being called there, etc.; warrants aren’t always needed for them either.

They weren’t Rummaging through his phone to see what they could find; they accessed it to get the phone number, they then subpoenaed the call records. They successfully made an argument that evidence could be destroyed. Being a criminal is not always fair; the good guys won one. No rights were trampled.

Here’s the case if anyone wants to read it…..

http://www.abajourna.../CellPhones.pdf

It will take the SCOTUS to define the limits of a cell phone “searchâ€.

[k9wh91984]

I can and will when someone shows me a documented case where a LEO came up to someone without probable cause, snatched the phone out of their hand, and searched the contents of said phone. Until then, no!

Wow that response sounds like it came from a cop. LMAO

What's the old saying? Any interaction with LE is a negative interaction?

Edited March 9, 2012 by k9wh91984

[Oh Shoot]

Can we say Gustapo?

Sure, but can we spell it?

- OS

[k9wh91984]

Sure, but can we spell it?

- OS

Oh wait wait English master Gestapo. I can only do so much from a phone lmao

[Oh Shoot]

Oh wait wait English master Gestapo. I can only do so much from a phone lmao

I usually don't go there, but couldn't resist, the way you used it in sentence.

- OS

[Dolomite_supafly]

I think this is a fantastic way to get information. Cells phones contain a lot more information than people realize. But I do have a problem with it.

Problem isn't those who stay within the rules it is those who will use it to step outside of the rules. It will slowly be integrated into normal operations and at some point it will be the norm. "License, registration, proof of insurance and cell phone please" will become the saying when you get pulled over.

Another big problem is society as a whole assume what LE tells you to do is on the up and up. Most times they are but even when they aren't people go along with it because they know no better. Hate to say it but criminals know more about the law than the average citizen.

Dolomite

[MikePapa1]

The exigency argument in this case is, I think, misplaced. If the phone is in the possession of the police and the defendant is in custody, then there is no reasonable basis for not seeking a warrant.

[RobertNashville]

Forgive me but I don't see a problem here or maybe I'm just ignorant of the law???

For the sake of argument, let's say I'm fencing stolen property, I'm arrested in the act, and when I'm arrested I'm holding a file folder with the names and addresses of who I bought the stolen items from and who I've sold stuff to...would a police officer need a warrant before they could open the file folder and look at the information? I think they do not but I may be wrong. If they don't need a warrant to search the paper file folder I"m holding in my hand, why would they need a warrant to search my smart phone which for the vast majority of people today, have replaced the paper file folder???

If there really is a difference and some one can explain the difference to me I'd appreciate it.

[RobertNashville]

I think this is a fantastic way to get information. Cells phones contain a lot more information than people realize. But I do have a problem with it.

Problem isn't those who stay within the rules it is those who will use it to step outside of the rules. It will slowly be integrated into normal operations and at some point it will be the norm. "License, registration, proof of insurance and cell phone please" will become the saying when you get pulled over.

Another big problem is society as a whole assume what LE tells you to do is on the up and up. Most times they are but even when they aren't people go along with it because they know no better. Hate to say it but criminals know more about the law than the average citizen.

Dolomite

I see your point but isn't that always the problem? By that I mean, any law enforcement officer or public official with power (by virtue of the office they hold) can abuse any law or any rule if they want to do so....that's why it's important for us to elect good people...good people who oversee/run our police departments and law enforcement agencies so that they hire good people in the first place and get rid of any bad apples that show up (and even from the best apple tree you'll usually find a bad apple now and then).

[daddyo]

The problem is potential abuse on the part of law enforcement. If they have reasonable suspicion that's actually based on the law, that's one thing. But look at how many cameras/cell phones have been confiscated because someone was videotaping police in the performance of their duties, which is not a crime.

The problem comes when law enforcement goes beyond the boundaries of actually enforcing the law.

[RobertNashville]

There have always and likely will always be officers who will go beyond the boundaries of enforcing the law - maybe I'm missing something but I don't see how this court decision make that situation either better or worse?

[MiddTennTaco]

The 4^th amendment protects you from “unreasonable searches and seizuresâ€. I searched hundreds of cars without a warrant. Houses are harder, but given “Plain Viewâ€, being called there, etc.; warrants aren’t always needed for them either.

They weren’t Rummaging through his phone to see what they could find; they accessed it to get the phone number, they then subpoenaed the call records. They successfully made an argument that evidence could be destroyed. Being a criminal is not always fair; the good guys won one. No rights were trampled.

Here’s the case if anyone wants to read it…..

http://www.abajourna.../CellPhones.pdf

It will take the SCOTUS to define the limits of a cell phone “searchâ€.

Thank you +1

[DaveTN]

The problem is potential abuse on the part of law enforcement. If they have reasonable suspicion that's actually based on the law, that's one thing. But look at how many cameras/cell phones have been confiscated because someone was videotaping police in the performance of their duties, which is not a crime.

The problem comes when law enforcement goes beyond the boundaries of actually enforcing the law.

You can’t tie the hands of law enforcement on what someone may do any more than you can arrest someone for something they may do.

All evidence whether obtained in what we (the public) feel was a “justified†search or not will be challenged in court by the defense and will be ruled on by a Judge. That’s one of the reasons we have Judges; cops make the decision to search in minutes and then the system takes weeks or months to debate whether they made the right decision or not.

The fact that a search is thrown out doesn’t mean the cop is bad or had ill intent. As technology progresses it will be tested in the courts.

You see accessing a drug dealers cell phone to get the number so you can get a warrant for the records as a violation; I see it as good Police work that put at least one street thug in jail for 10 years.

Could someone use their wild imagination to think up a scenario where innocent citizens’ rights could be violated? Sure, but that will be dealt with when it happens.

[daddyo]

I don't see this any differently than the overreaching authority that the TSA has to perform intrusive searches at the airports.

At any rate, it will be interesting to see how much evidence is culled from cell phones to convict the bad guys. And if there are no abuses of this decision, I'll be pleasantly surprised.