Police Given Direct Line To Cell Phone Searches

[DaveTN]

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.

You don’t see any difference in searching a suspect that has just been arrested dealing drugs in an undercover buy and searching a law abiding citizens that is not suspected of any crime but merely wants to get on an airplane?

[daddyo]

You don’t see any difference in searching a suspect that has just been arrested dealing drugs in an undercover buy and searching a law abiding citizens that is not suspected of any crime but merely wants to get on an airplane?

I've already stated my case.

[RobertNashville]

You don’t see any difference in searching a suspect that has just been arrested dealing drugs in an undercover buy and searching a law abiding citizens that is not suspected of any crime but merely wants to get on an airplane?

+1

Edited March 9, 2012 by RobertNashville

[daddyo]

"Many critics are asking the same question. They call the ruling an invasion of privacy that far outweighs the needs of law enforcement."

We've surrendered far to many of our freedoms already.

[CQB Elite]

You don’t see any difference in searching a suspect that has just been arrested dealing drugs in an undercover buy and searching a law abiding citizens that is not suspected of any crime but merely wants to get on an airplane?

Unfortunately the term "law abiding citizens" was a lot less defined after 9/11. Mohammed Atta was law abiding right up to the point he stormed the cockpit and took control of an airliner.

[DaveTN]

"Many critics are asking the same question. They call the ruling an invasion of privacy that far outweighs the needs of law enforcement."

We've surrendered far to many of our freedoms already.

Choosing to take up this issue on an “Invasion of Privacy†or “Surrender of Rights†platform is no different than the anti’s saying that we (those that carry) may harm someone or cause crime rates to rise. One may happen in limited cases, the other is fiction. Gun owners that were legally carrying with permits have shot innocent citizens and murdered Police Officers. Should we outlaw all carry permits because of that? I think not.

Some people see any search as a violation. That was not the intent of the 4^th amendment and protecting criminals certainly was not the intent of our founding Fathers.

Search subsequent to an arrest, plain view, and exigent circumstances, are all present in this case. I don’t see how an Officer could have much better probable cause. However, when you have been sentenced to 10 years in prison and the state is providing legal assistance; you can file this kind of non-sense.

[RobertNashville]

Unfortunately the term "law abiding citizens" was a lot less defined after 9/11. Mohammed Atta was law abiding right up to the point he stormed the cockpit and took control of an airliner.

Actually, he wasn't "law-abiding" was he? Hadn't he overstayed his visa initially; left and then re-entered the U.S. when the original overstay should have kept him out?

Anyway, calling him a law-abiding citizen is a stretch...after all, he facilitated himself and others to get flight training here in the U.S. and had plotted the 9/11 attacks for a long time...his crimes started long before the actual attacks.

Edited March 10, 2012 by RobertNashville

[f3joel]

http://online.wsj.com/article/AP1f54bb4e52614b5c99c2ec49951bb914.html

[RobertNashville]

http://online.wsj.co...49951bb914.html

I'm not sure of your intention of posting this???

I think we all know and no one here has denied that officers make mistakes and that some officers are just as crooked as the criminals they arrest.

I suppose that we could eliminate all crimes committed by law enforcement officers if you got rid of all law enforcement officers (they they would just be standard criminals). Likewise, we could also eliminate all unreasonable searches and seizures if you eliminate all searches (which I suppose would be moot if you eliminated all law enforcement since no one would be left to do the searches).

However, I don't think either option is a good idea.

[f3joel]

My intention was to show that a court has found a problem with search of the phone in at least one instance.

That is what this thread is about is it not?

I wouldn't say a crooked officer is just as crooked, I see them as far worse...

[DaveTN]

My intention was to show that a court has found a problem with search of the phone in at least one instance.

That is what this thread is about is it not?

I wouldn't say a crooked officer is just as crooked, I see them as far worse...

That trial was for perjury and filing false Police reports. I don’t see anywhere that the court addressed whether or not their search of the cell phone was legal; it has no bearing on this case.

Charges were dismissed against the criminal and the Officer was convicted and faces 7 years in jail. Other than the criminal walking free; the system worked.

[f3joel]

The officers actually gleaned the information from improperly perusing pictures on the man's iPhone

no bearing huh

[DaveTN]

The officers actually gleaned the information from improperly perusing pictures on the man's iPhone

no bearing huh

Correct, no bearing on the Officers case.

The Officers lied about how they got information that there were drugs in the guy’s house. If they had said they saw it in pictures while searching his cell phone, the Judge they were requesting the warrant from for the house would have had to make a decision based on that. They choose to lie and say he told them there were drugs there.

The search of the house was unlawful because they perjured themselves to get the warrant. I don’t see anything addressing them looking through the phone.

I’m not saying you shouldn’t have posted the link, that’s what we do here… discuss. I’m saying that if you think the court made any ruling that a cell phone can’t be searched, you need to help me out because I just don’t see it in the case you posted.

[CQB Elite]

Actually, he wasn't "law-abiding" was he? Hadn't he overstayed his visa initially; left and then re-entered the U.S. when the original overstay should have kept him out?

Anyway, calling him a law-abiding citizen is a stretch...after all, he facilitated himself and others to get flight training here in the U.S. and had plotted the 9/11 attacks for a long time...his crimes started long before the actual attacks.

I wasn't calling him a law abiding citizen. I was making the point that when Atta handed his boarding pass to the gate agent he appeared to be just some normal guy getting on a flight. This was in response to the poster commenting on the over reaching authority of the TSA.

[Guest HankRearden]

This is nothing new. Courts have rendered similar decisions on cell phones for several years now.

Basically it has been ruled by several courts that a search incident to arrest of a persons cell phone without a warrant is valid.

Incident to arrest. That doesn't mean walk up, demand your phone and begin going through it. That means a person has been taken into custody. The cell phone can be searched just like their wallet and anything else they have on them.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Unfortunately the term "law abiding citizens" was a lot less defined after 9/11. Mohammed Atta was law abiding right up to the point he stormed the cockpit and took control of an airliner.

You're probably exactly right, but what would this ruling do in that situation?

[RobertNashville]

This is nothing new. Courts have rendered similar decisions on cell phones for several years now.

Basically it has been ruled by several courts that a search incident to arrest of a persons cell phone without a warrant is valid.

Incident to arrest. That doesn't mean walk up, demand your phone and begin going through it. That means a person has been taken into custody. The cell phone can be searched just like their wallet and anything else they have on them.

I've always assumed, as I hinted at earlier, that if you are being arrested for a crime anything you have in your possession will be searched and that likely the search would be deemed "legal"'; no warrant required...I've never thought that a cell phone would be any different than anything else you might have with you.

If I'm wrong about that then someone please set me straight...if I'm not wrong then it seems to me that this story/court decision is pretty much a non issue; or at least not a game changer.

[Guest Skeeter]

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.

Did He Know ( or Should Have Known ) He was Violating Federal Law ?

You Can't Enforce The Law By Breaking the Law.

If You do then Your Just a "thug" with a Badge.

.

[CQB Elite]

I've always assumed, as I hinted at earlier, that if you are being arrested for a crime anything you have in your possession will be searched and that likely the search would be deemed "legal"'; no warrant required...I've never thought that a cell phone would be any different than anything else you might have with you.

If I'm wrong about that then someone please set me straight...if I'm not wrong then it seems to me that this story/court decision is pretty much a non issue; or at least not a game changer.

You correct in a sense. For years we were allowed to search "incident to arrest" without a warrant. This ruling came from New York v. Belton. Belton was arrested and the police searched the car he was riding in. Many years later the SCOTUS heard Arizona v. Grant. In that case they ruled that police can search incident to arrest so long as what they are searching for relates to the original offense. For example- Grant was arrested for a traffic offense and police searched his vehicle. They found drugs and he was charged for those as well.Police should have only been searching for things related to the traffic offense.

Many times have I been searching a home or vehicle and found something unrelated. We would immediately stop, seal the area and apply for a search warrant. That is the best thing to do if prudent to do so.

In your example searching a file folder of a person arrested for dealing in stolen property would not be too much of a stretch. Searching his cellphone may be. The court would have to rule on that at a suppression hearing or on appeal.

[CQB Elite]

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?

As a LEO I've searched tons of homes, businesses, automobiles without a warrant. They were all legal searches.