| Author | Message | ||
     Johnnylunchbox |
Whisperstealth, real classy. | ||
| Eboos |
Something that I find very interesting is how little many Americans know about our constitution. It is an amazingly simple document which is easily read, yet a good number of us do not know what is contains (myself included until fairly recently). Not only does it establish the framework of our government, it also lays the foundation of law in the country, and everyone's protected freedoms. With regard to lawyers trying civil rights cases, there are rewards far greater then money. | ||
| Ourdee |
I have got off before because of a search being done wrong. If you consent, even if you think you are innocent, ignorance will not get you off. Somewhere, someplace, sometime you broke the law! You could have ate the wrong food at the wrong place and have broken federal law because of it. If you are under 25 and have had sex, you probably broke some law. Circumstances can put you away just like facts. I want a lawyer. Exercising my rights as they pertain to self incrimination has set me free before. Don't get me wrong, I am the first to have strangers in my neighborhood identified. And I film any adult that approaches a child. That said, If an officer is told by you that he may search your stuff, I'm going to sit back and watch. And if you run from the police in my neighborhood, I will try to trip you. | ||
| Fresnobuell |
You are NUTS if you consent to ANY type of consented searching. Just like you are NUTS to talk to cops under ANY circumstances. Best case is they leave you alone, ie you have nothing to gain from cooperating with the cops. They are not your friend no matter what you think. Someone needs to post that great video about the lecture reinforcing why you should NEVER talk to a cop. One of the main problems is the courts deem a cop an "expert" witness, which means your word is sh1t and his word is gospel in the eyes of a judge. Basically, this means he can do anything to you on the street, then writeup a totally different version in his report. Cell phone cameras might make cops think twice about doing the Rodney King to someone now, but i tell myself if I ever run from the cops on my bike and then decide to give up--it better be in a public place. Catch my drift? | ||
| Xodot |
NEVER been held or detained by a lawyer, dentist, or cashier. You analogy is flawed at best. And typical of leftist rhetoric. Police may be "people" like everyone else. But People who CHOSE their line of work and CHOSE to be held to a higher standard. Police do indeed need to be held to a higher standard and the snowstorm treatment (and many more just like it) have nothing to do with legislation that allows this kind of intrusion. Grow up people. The world is and always has been in }chaos. Our judicial systems are here to keep us able to own stuff. Without the judicial system having some effect, anarchy results. That is not overstating the truth. So strike the balance between freedom to do what you want and security to have what you want to keep. We set that balance as citizens in a democracy. Truly the laws and application of those laws are in the hands of society. I have seen the shift in 30 years of policing and living in one society. Police are WAY more accountable than ever before and the trend continues to make them even more professional with each new recruit class. If you want to make a large change in society, you have to take time to achieve it in an orderly way - or revolt. Egyptians have been doing that for months now with mixed results. BTW Whisperstealth - I think leftist rhetoric is actually anti-police. Would have made more sense to me if you had said "right-winged rhetoric". Also the "lawyers and dentist and clerks can be asses too" opinion was not an analogy. Wrong word used there Whisperstealth. | ||
| Eboos |
Actually, you are both right. Extreme left and extreme right both result in a police state. | ||
| Azxb9r |
If the area has laws regarding cell phone use while driving, the info from your phone could be used to prove that you were or were not on the phone at the time the officer pulled you over. The officer could say that they saw you using the phone as probable cause. It would be similar to them seeing you take a drink from a beer or smelling alcohol or pot when they pull you over. I am not sure why they are doing it in Mich. (or how I feel about it yet) but if it gets people off the phone while they are driving I might like it. | ||
| Eboos |
However, even with probable cause, the scope of any search can not exceed the boundries of the purpose of the search. Meaning if they could use probable cause as a reason to search your phone to ensure that you were talking or texting at the time of the stop, then they would be limited to just that. That would not allow them to download, or search the contents of your phone beyond that. | ||
| Paint_shaker |
The article never mentions a specific instance of the use of the device. It mentions the MSP has the device and won't provide the ACLU on how they are using the device. That being said, I am not a fan of this device UNLESS a warrant has been issued. Wikipedia had the following information; Computers and privacy Over the last decade, courts adjudicated whether the government can access evidence of illegal activity stored on digital technology without violating the Fourth Amendment. Many cases discuss whether incriminating evidence stored by an employee in workplace computers is protected under the reasonable expectation of privacy. In a majority of cases, employees do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy for electronic communications at work.[77] However, one federal court held that employees can assert the attorney-client privilege with respect to certain communications on company laptops.[78] On January 30, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Ziegler, 497 F.3d 890 reversed its earlier August 2006 decision upon a petition for rehearing. In contrast to the earlier decision, the Court acknowledged that an employee has a right to privacy in his workplace computer. The court also found that an employer can consent to searches and seizures that would otherwise be illegal.[79] In Ziegler, an employee had viewed at work websites of child pornography. His employer noticed the conduct, made copies of the hard drive, and gave the FBI the employee's computer. At his criminal trial, Ziegler filed a motion to suppress the evidence on the ground that the government violated the Fourth Amendment rights. The Ninth Circuit allowed the lower court to admit the evidence. After reviewing the relevant Supreme Court opinions on a reasonable expectation of privacy, the court acknowledged that Ziegler had a reasonable expectation of privacy at his office and on his computer. However, the court found that the employer could consent to a government search of the computer without infringing on the Ziegler's Fourth Amendment rights. On March 11, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled, in Rehberg v. Paulk, 598 F.3d 1268, that a person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in an e-mail once any copy of the communication is delivered to a third party.[80] On December 14, 2010, in United States v. Warshak, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his emails and that the government violated Warshak's Fourth Amendment rights by compelling his internet service provider to turn over his emails without first obtaining a warrant based upon probable cause.[81] On January 3, 2011, in The People v. Gregory Diaz, the Supreme Court of California ruled for allowing warrantless search by the police of suspects' cell phones at the time of the arrest, on the grounds of preventing destruction of evidence such as text messages[82]: the loss of privacy upon arrest extends beyond the arrestee's body to include “personal property... immediately associated with the person of the arrestee” at the time of arrest. [...] this loss of privacy entitles police not only to “seize” anything of importance they find on the arrestee's body [...], but also to open and examine what they find. | ||
| Eboos |
The January 3rd ruling I'd like to see more information on. The suspect was under arrest, not simply detained, correct? The cell phone was in the suspect's possesion at the time of arrest, correct? Then fair game. If the suspect was detained, a non concentual search of his phone was done and incriminating evidence was found, that evidence would be inadmissible. | ||
| Eboos |
crap, my bad. You pretty much said the same thing I just said in the last line. | ||
| Whisperstealth |
>>>Thanks for asking for the LEO opinion and then bashing it... If* you are referring to me. - Then I would say NO one had yet to identify themselves as a LEO, therefore I had yet to bash one's opinion. I gave mine. If a LEO has given an opinion but did not identify him/her self as such, it is on them, not me. If you are a LEO - (Wait, just read your profile, you are. Why not declare that first and foremost in your post?), then your opinion is right about where I thought it would be. Right to the "investigative tool" line. Basic strategy of just about all LEO's defending their invasive tools and techniques. And the - If it was obtained with out PC, it can't be used in court, is BS and beyond the point. A sad excuse for something that should not have happened in the first place. Once the info is obtained, it can't be un-obtained. The info can then later be "cleaned up", and made to appear to come from a different "source, CI, etc." And don't tell me similar things have not happened in the past. >>>Think somewhere in the country, a phone tech saved a picture, or something from a customers phone they weren't supposed to. How about we write an article about that? Let me quote myself: "NEVER been held or detained by a lawyer, dentist, or cashier. You analogy is flawed at best." I'm sure it happens, however, I've never had a phone tech use anything on my phone against me either. Never had one show up later at my house. A Higher standard... >>> Also the "lawyers and dentist and clerks can be asses too" opinion was not an analogy. Wrong word used there Whisperstealth. Your right. Thanks for the correction. It was not an analogy. But his opinion was used mitigate (Is that the right word), the ass---- actions of those that should be held fully accountable. >>>Police do indeed need to be held to a higher standard and the snowstorm treatment (and many more just like it) have nothing to do with legislation that allows this kind of intrusion. Again your right. However they are both part of a larger whole. Pieces that when combined with others form an ugly picture of abuse and over control. It never is one thing, or two, or three etc, but when the pieces get put together, they form a truth that I can not ignore. For the record, I am not anti-police or law enforcement. I am anti abuse, over-control and corruption, things I have all personally seen and experienced. This gadget is just another brick in the wall, to steal a line... And BTW: The LEO's around my area have been pretty damn cool. I've gotten tickets, and rightly so. I've been warned, when the LEO's could have written me up. Never been searched here, nor really harassed. I consider myself lucky to have gotten fair and balanced police service, and hope it continues. But not everybody can say the same. >>>On January 3, 2011, in The People v. Gregory Diaz, the Supreme Court of California ruled for allowing warrantless search by the police of suspects' cell phones at the time of the arrest, on the grounds of preventing destruction of evidence such as text messages[82]: the loss of privacy upon arrest extends beyond the arrestee's body to include “personal property... immediately associated with the person of the arrestee” at the time of arrest. [...] this loss of privacy entitles police not only to “seize” anything of importance they find on the arrestee's body [...], but also to open and examine what they find. The problem with that is that you can be arrested for ANYTHING, anything at all. Then have the charges dropped. Once arrested, everything on you becomes fair game. In CA if your arrested (For Anything), they take a DNA sample and store it. Whether you are innocent or guilty. Whether or not charges are ever filed. >>>Whisperstealth, real classy. Hey Johnny:   | ||
| Eboos |
"The problem with that is that you can be arrested for ANYTHING, anything at all. Then have the charges dropped. Once arrested, everything on you becomes fair game." Sorry, but you are 100% wrong. Once again the civil liberties blood hounds would have a field day. | ||
| Paint_shaker |
"The problem with that is that you can be arrested for ANYTHING, anything at all. Then have the charges dropped." Legally, you can only be arrested if there is probable cause to believe you have committed a crime or a warrant has been issued. Corrupt LEOs are different story. (Message edited by Paint shaker on April 21, 2011) | ||
| Paint_shaker |
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." — Benjamin Franklin Freedom comes at a price and a responsibilty. It seems most Americans are willing to give up some freedoms/liberties for safety. Also it seems most also don't understand or don't care about being responsible. (Message edited by Paint shaker on April 21, 2011) | ||
| Baybueller |
"Our judicial systems are here to keep us able to own stuff." My 56 years of experience has found that not to be the case in general. The second amendment covers keeping your stuff. The judicial system seems much more interested in collecting money and growing the system. | ||
| Blake |
This makes it even more troubling...
It's one thing to have your phone searched. It's another to unknowingly provide a record of your time-stamped where-about for the past few months. | ||
| Swampy |
Just say NO! | ||
| Two_seasons |
Let's be clear here, any time you are detained by the police you are technically under arrest. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
california has been grabbing the cell phones during traffic stops since last year. and as upheld by their supreme ct, no warrant necessary. enjoy. Tovarish http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cac he:-XPaG54Uc-UJ:legalmatch.typepad.com/criminallaw /2011/01/california-supreme-court-police-can-searc h-cell-phone-without-a-warrant.html+california+pol ice+searching+cell+phones&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us &source=www.google.com | ||
| Whisperstealth |
Thanks City!! POINT MADE. And some friends want me to move BACK to CA. No Effing way. Another reason why my phone, is just that, a phone. No camera, internet, smart gadget doo-hickies... | ||
| Johnnylunchbox |
I rest my case. | ||
| Reepicheep |
I wonder what you can actually get out of a locked IPhone. Anybody know (real information, not "leet hakzors" that read something on a web site somewhere)? Blackberries are a lot better in this regard... if they were locked, they were pretty locked down. I may have to try it. Interestingly, to get at my data in my IPhone, the cops might have to violate the DCMA. Hmmmm... | ||
| Paint_shaker |
"Let's be clear here, any time you are detained by the police you are technically under arrest." That is an inaccurate statement!!!! Are you basing this on your opinion or was some new case law set that I am not aware of???? | ||
| Two_seasons |
Paint: Learned that back in college. If this statement is inaccurate, then the next time you are detained tell the police you want to step away to have a smoke and make some calls. Won't happen! | ||
| Sifo |
I just wonder how much GPS info your phone stores. How much GPS info is stored if you turn off GPS functions? There's a huge potential (good and bad) for this information. We live in a country where police aren't allowed to verify if a person has the legal right to be in this country at all, yet we are subjecting people to potential tracking 24/7. Things are way out of balance. | ||
| Froggy |
Reepi - According to the manufacturers website, it can bypass locks. I am thinking encryption is our best bet along with disabling the data portion of the connector. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
there was just an article last nite about I phones and I pads storing 'secret' gps location data. http://www.salon.com/technology/apple/?story=/news /feature/2011/04/21/apple_tracking_implications from an intell standpoint. we have always had your phone; who the f do you think built the networks ? remember your cell phone is an FCC licensed radio wave transmitter. There is No Such Agency that makes a full time job outta grabbing that data, poking through it, storing it , and data mining it; and has been doing it for nearly over two decades. your paranoia is about three; mine is closer to 11. | ||
| Sayitaintso |
I like that No Such Agency. Regardless of the little machine...if you've got bluetooth turned on your phone is basically an open device anyway. (Message edited by sayitaintso on April 22, 2011) | ||
| Phelan |
I wonder if the device could get data from an iPhone that's been put in DFU mode... |
