PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Michigan: Police Search Cell Phones During Traffic Stops


petegz28
04-20-2011, 07:31 AM
ACLU seeks information on Michigan program that allows cops to download information from smart phones belonging to stopped motorists.

The Michigan State Police have a high-tech mobile forensics device that can be used to extract information from cell phones belonging to motorists stopped for minor traffic violations. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan last Wednesday demanded that state officials stop stonewalling freedom of information requests for information on the program.

ACLU learned that the police had acquired the cell phone scanning devices and in August 2008 filed an official request for records on the program, including logs of how the devices were used. The state police responded by saying they would provide the information only in return for a payment of $544,680. The ACLU found the charge outrageous.

"Law enforcement officers are known, on occasion, to encourage citizens to cooperate if they have nothing to hide," ACLU staff attorney Mark P. Fancher wrote. "No less should be expected of law enforcement, and the Michigan State Police should be willing to assuage concerns that these powerful extraction devices are being used illegally by honoring our requests for cooperation and disclosure."

A US Department of Justice test of the CelleBrite UFED used by Michigan police found the device could grab all of the photos and video off of an iPhone within one-and-a-half minutes. The device works with 3000 different phone models and can even defeat password protections.

"Complete extraction of existing, hidden, and deleted phone data, including call history, text messages, contacts, images, and geotags," a CelleBrite brochure explains regarding the device's capabilities. "The Physical Analyzer allows visualization of both existing and deleted locations on Google Earth. In addition, location information from GPS devices and image geotags can be mapped on Google Maps."

The ACLU is concerned that these powerful capabilities are being quietly used to bypass Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches.

"With certain exceptions that do not apply here, a search cannot occur without a warrant in which a judicial officer determines that there is probable cause to believe that the search will yield evidence of criminal activity," Fancher wrote. "A device that allows immediate, surreptitious intrusion into private data creates enormous risks that troopers will ignore these requirements to the detriment of the constitutional rights of persons whose cell phones are searched."

The national ACLU is currently suing the Department of Homeland Security for its policy of warrantless electronic searches of laptops and cell phones belonging to people entering the country who are not suspected of committing any crime.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/34/3458.asp

chiefsnorth
04-20-2011, 07:32 AM
Well, you've nothing to fear if you aren't a potential domestic terrorist.

Dave Lane
04-20-2011, 07:35 AM
Damn lib-tard ACLU fucking shit up again. The right has the right to know what you are doing in order to judge you properly.

chiefsnorth
04-20-2011, 07:38 AM
Damn lib-tard ACLU ****ing shit up again. The right has the right to know what you are doing in order to judge you properly.

I guess the "right" makes a lot of policy in Michigan, in your opinion?

chiefsnorth
04-20-2011, 07:42 AM
One thing I will point out is that while I think this is terrible policy, if the people involved are consenting to the search there's nothing legally wrong here.

The cops are allowed to lie to you and frequently use weasel wording and pressure tactics to get people to consent to searches. If they are saying something like "We are running scans on smartphones for terrorism linked activity, may I see your phone please?" most people would just hand it over.

No different than "We're looking for some stolen laptops, do you have anything like that in the car?" "No." "So you don't mind if we search then?" "Go ahead." "Oh, look what we found.."

dirk digler
04-20-2011, 07:54 AM
Damn I need to get me one of those devices

BucEyedPea
04-20-2011, 07:54 AM
Well, you've nothing to fear if you aren't a potential domestic terrorist.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

KC native
04-20-2011, 07:54 AM
This is horseshit.

blaise
04-20-2011, 07:59 AM
Well, you've nothing to fear if you aren't a potential domestic terrorist.

I suspect if it's being used, it's being used more to pull over someone they suspect has some dealings with a known drug dealer and they're looking to find all the contacts and any other information they can.

Simplex3
04-20-2011, 08:08 AM
I suspect if it's being used, it's being used more to pull over someone they suspect has some dealings with a known drug dealer and they're looking to find all the contacts and any other information they can.

So the fishing expedition is ok by you as long as they *might* be after a drug user?

Garcia Bronco
04-20-2011, 08:12 AM
Do they have a warrant? Then they can't search it and no law passed at the Federal level or State level can allow for that unless there is probable cause. The ACLU is right to go after the state.

blaise
04-20-2011, 08:18 AM
So the fishing expedition is ok by you as long as they *might* be after a drug user?

No, but I don't really know how or when they're using it, or if they even have. I'm just speculating as to why they want the device.

Simplex3
04-20-2011, 08:21 AM
No, but I don't really know how or when they're using it, or if they even have. I'm just speculating as to why they want the device.

That article and many others say they're threatening people pulled over for minor traffic violations to get their phone.

blaise
04-20-2011, 08:22 AM
Do they have a warrant? Then they can't search it and no law passed at the Federal level or State level can allow for that unless there is probable cause. The ACLU is right to go after the state.

I guess, but they don't even seem to have evidence that it's ever been used. They're asking for the police to tell them if it ever has, and if so when and how. I would think defense attorneys would have been calling the program into question if the information had been used as evidence. If you were an attorney wouldn't you say, "How did you get all those cell phone records?"
I don't know if they're using it for court evidence. Seems to me they want it so they can figure out which people to investigate. I'm just speculating, though.

Simplex3
04-20-2011, 08:32 AM
Maybe they could show up and rummage through all of our houses to figure out who to investigate.

Chiefnj2
04-20-2011, 08:35 AM
If the police have nothing to hide they should respond to the FOIA request.

KC native
04-20-2011, 08:36 AM
I guess, but they don't even seem to have evidence that it's ever been used. They're asking for the police to tell them if it ever has, and if so when and how. I would think defense attorneys would have been calling the program into question if the information had been used as evidence. If you were an attorney wouldn't you say, "How did you get all those cell phone records?"
I don't know if they're using it for court evidence. Seems to me they want it so they can figure out which people to investigate. I'm just speculating, though.

There is always a way to use this type of stuff. They will just use the phone to point them in the right direction and then claim they came about the info in another way.

Everything about this is unsettling.

HerculesRockefell
04-20-2011, 08:40 AM
Do they have a warrant? Then they can't search it and no law passed at the Federal level or State level can allow for that unless there is probable cause. The ACLU is right to go after the state.

They don't need a warrant if people consent to the search.

People need to learn to tell the police no.

blaise
04-20-2011, 08:44 AM
There is always a way to use this type of stuff. They will just use the phone to point them in the right direction and then claim they came about the info in another way.

Everything about this is unsettling.

That's what I think they're doing. They get a name they know is associated with someone they're investigating. They pull them over and pull the cell phone data, and then they say, "Ok, now we know X, Y and Z are also people we need to look at." Then they just do another investigation on those people.
I don't know why the cops wouldn't turn the information over though. Maybe a bunch of city and state politician names pop up all over the place. Reminds me of The Wire a little.

BIG_DADDY
04-20-2011, 08:47 AM
People should be freaking out over this shit. I can't even begin to tell you how pissed off I would be.

Otter
04-20-2011, 08:49 AM
One thing I will point out is that while I think this is terrible policy, if the people involved are consenting to the search there's nothing legally wrong here.

The cops are allowed to lie to you and frequently use weasel wording and pressure tactics to get people to consent to searches. If they are saying something like "We are running scans on smartphones for terrorism linked activity, may I see your phone please?" most people would just hand it over.

No different than "We're looking for some stolen laptops, do you have anything like that in the car?" "No." "So you don't mind if we search then?" "Go ahead." "Oh, look what we found.."

I can't search right now but there are two videos (about 20 minutes total) on youtube that everyone should watch when they have a couple extra minutes preparing dinner or sitting on the thinker or whatever. The two videos are separate lectures. One given by a defense attorney followed up by a detective (both consultants now if I remember correctly) both with over 20 years experience in their perspective roles in the judicial system talking to future defense attorneys.

The defense attorney talks about how his clients could put him in the best position to win the case and the detective lectures about tactics he uses to get people to incriminate themselves.

Absolutely invaluable knowledge to have if it's ever needed but very educational and interesting (especially part 2) more than anything else. It's well worth your time. Also, a point both of them touch on is that don't assume you'll never need to know this stuff because they met many law abiding people who thought the same thing.

Was able to locate them thru Google.

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE

Watch them if you haven't already.

Royal Fanatic
04-20-2011, 08:53 AM
Well, you've nothing to fear if you aren't a potential domestic terrorist.

The potential for abuse by the police department is why there are laws and court decisions against this sort of thing. It takes about 10 seconds with Google to find NUMEROUS examples of this.

I'm a supporter of law enforcment, but this thing does stink.

Chiefnj2
04-20-2011, 08:58 AM
They don't need a warrant if people consent to the search.

People need to learn to tell the police no.

It's easy to say that sitting at your computer. For example, it's late at night your speeding 8 mph over the speed limit and the officer pulls you over. He says you were speeding and talking on the phone. You say "I wasn't on the phone". He says he has a machine that can clear up that issue within 30 seconds. You'd likely say "here is the phone" if you weren't talking. He can download and do whatever he wants with the all the data and your present state of mind is just focusing on proving you were right about not being on the phone, and hoping you don't get a ticket for being 8 mph over the limit.

BIG_DADDY
04-20-2011, 09:04 AM
The expansion of police powers and the police state has been going on for a half a century now. That added to overlegislation and the emrgence of the nanny state should be a huge concern for everyone. I have bitched about it since I have been posting here but always get shouted down by the "If you didn't do anything wrong what do you have to worry about" and "the police are just doing their jobs" tards that frequent the BB. You can look back over the years there is a whole herd of them who won't care until a right they personally hold in high regard is taken or they are harrassed mercilessly. Personally I think this country deserves what it gets at this point.

blaise
04-20-2011, 09:08 AM
The expansion of police powers and the police state has been going on for a half a century now. That added to overlegislation and the emrgence of the nanny state should be a huge concern for everyone. I have bitched about it since I have been posting here but always get shouted down by the "If you didn't do anything wrong what do you have to worry about" and "the police are just doing their jobs" tards that frequent the BB. You can look back over the years there is a whole herd of them who won't care until a right they personally hold in high regard is taken or they are harrassed mercilessly. Personally I think this country deserves what it gets at this point.

I think in this case, though it might be legislation not catching up with technology. Maybe there's just nothing saying the cops can't search the phone records just as they would the car itself, as long as they have consent. So, the cops do. And because they seem to be keeping the information out of court evidence there's no other challenge to it.

chiefsnorth
04-20-2011, 09:34 AM
Again, they could browse through your phone five years ago, if you gave them permission. There is nothing illegal about this.

The problem is that we have people making policies around what is basically phishing - farming personal information with no guidelines around how it will be maintained or used. The police are not an intelligence agency and the state government in Michigan has no right to make them one.

I laugh when people say one side or the other is to blame for this. Government is a self aware entity that has the same motivations as a person does - to act to increase it's own wealth and influence.

LOCOChief
04-20-2011, 09:51 AM
This is horseshit.



You probably don't need to worry about this as I don't imagine that they are able to require the same of a dirty illegal mexican varmit like yourself.

chiefsnorth
04-20-2011, 10:16 AM
You probably don't need to worry about this as I don't imagine that they are able to require the same of a dirty illegal mexican varmit like yourself.

Wuh-oh. Unless you are well connected, I bet you get in trouble with the admins for that one.

Simplex3
04-20-2011, 10:23 AM
I think in this case, though it might be legislation not catching up with technology. Maybe there's just nothing saying the cops can't search the phone records just as they would the car itself, as long as they have consent. So, the cops do. And because they seem to be keeping the information out of court evidence there's no other challenge to it.

Which is precisely why the government should be given a list of all the things that it *can* do, with everything else being off limits.

HerculesRockefell
04-20-2011, 10:28 AM
It's easy to say that sitting at your computer. For example, it's late at night your speeding 8 mph over the speed limit and the officer pulls you over. He says you were speeding and talking on the phone. You say "I wasn't on the phone". He says he has a machine that can clear up that issue within 30 seconds. You'd likely say "here is the phone" if you weren't talking. He can download and do whatever he wants with the all the data and your present state of mind is just focusing on proving you were right about not being on the phone, and hoping you don't get a ticket for being 8 mph over the limit.

Where is it a crime to talk on the phone in your car? DC?

It's not a crime in Colorado, so your hypothetical means shit to me.

You also assume people are absolutely retarded. How many people are going to let an officer walk off with the phone or hook a Cellebrite up to it, when all they have to do is check the call log?

You really stretched things for your scenario.

Again, people need to know their rights. If they're stupid enough to consent to things like this, it's their own fault.

Amnorix
04-20-2011, 10:31 AM
Definite 4th amendment violation in my mind. That **** needs to be stopped.

HerculesRockefell
04-20-2011, 10:31 AM
I think in this case, though it might be legislation not catching up with technology. Maybe there's just nothing saying the cops can't search the phone records just as they would the car itself, as long as they have consent. So, the cops do. And because they seem to be keeping the information out of court evidence there's no other challenge to it.

The police can search anywhere if you consent to them searching that location/object (ex: phone). It's that simple.

Simplex3
04-20-2011, 10:34 AM
Again, people need to know their rights. If they're stupid enough to consent to things like this, it's their own fault.

You're missing the part where the second they arrest you they can dump your phone without your consent, even though they may never actually charge you with anything.

HerculesRockefell
04-20-2011, 10:34 AM
Definite 4th amendment violation in my mind. That **** needs to be stopped.

How? The 4th Amendment provides protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. A consent search is not a violation of the 4th Amendment unless you can show coercion to get the consent.

Again, people need to learn how to say no.

This is as much on the morons who consent as it is the police.

scott free
04-20-2011, 10:35 AM
Paging Mr. Orwell to the white courtesy phone.

Muck Fichigan.

Simplex3
04-20-2011, 10:37 AM
Things like this are (in part) why I have full disk encryption on my laptop now. As soon as it's offered on a phone and implemented in a way that matters I'll be doing that as well.

HerculesRockefell
04-20-2011, 10:38 AM
You're missing the part where the second they arrest you they can dump your phone without your consent, even though they may never actually charge you with anything.

Where in the article does it say they're doing that?

The article says MSP is asking motorists to allow them to search the phone if they have nothing to hide. That's a straight quote from the ACLU staff attorney. If they were pulling info off the phones of the people who were being arrested, he would have said they were doing that too.

Simplex3
04-20-2011, 10:45 AM
It wasn't in that article, but it is in several others.

http://www.mobiledia.com/news/87523.html
A recent California court case seems to give police the right to use data from an arrestee's cell phone against him in court without a warrant. The Department of Homeland Security also reportedly searches phones and laptops at airports with murky legal justification.

HerculesRockefell
04-20-2011, 10:55 AM
It wasn't in that article, but it is in several others.

http://www.mobiledia.com/news/87523.html

And there's no allegation of the police doing that in Michigan (yet), as of right now, it's a consent issue in Michigan. Again, if people are consenting, that's their own damn fault.

Also, your article links to the article about the California case, but that article doesn't give the court's justification on why they said the search of the cell phone was justified as a search incident to arrest. It also mentions a USSC case that the dissent claims contradicts the court's ruling that is on point with electronic devices. That article is vague on what both opinions say.

Otter
04-20-2011, 11:03 AM
Things like this are (in part) why I have full disk encryption on my laptop now. As soon as it's offered on a phone and implemented in a way that matters I'll be doing that as well.

Do you trust telecommunication companies not to be in bed with the government and have a back door for their embedded encryption? This is definitely a matter for 3rd party software if it's the government you're worried about getting the data off your smartphone.

Linux based 3rd party software at that.

Amnorix
04-20-2011, 11:15 AM
How? The 4th Amendment provides protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. A consent search is not a violation of the 4th Amendment unless you can show coercion to get the consent.

Again, people need to learn how to say no.

This is as much on the morons who consent as it is the police.


Agreed IF they are getting consent every time, which frankly, I doubt.

Simplex3
04-20-2011, 11:22 AM
Do you trust telecommunication companies not to be in bed with the government and have a back door for their embedded encryption? This is definitely a matter for 3rd party software if it's the government you're worried about getting the data off your smartphone.

Linux based 3rd party software at that.

I use LUKS on my laptop, which runs Linux.

KC native
04-20-2011, 12:51 PM
And there's no allegation of the police doing that in Michigan (yet), as of right now, it's a consent issue in Michigan. Again, if people are consenting, that's their own damn fault.

Also, your article links to the article about the California case, but that article doesn't give the court's justification on why they said the search of the cell phone was justified as a search incident to arrest. It also mentions a USSC case that the dissent claims contradicts the court's ruling that is on point with electronic devices. That article is vague on what both opinions say.

As of now police are going through phones as soon as you are arrested. I know one guy who got 4 people in trouble because he was arrested for mouthing off to an off duty officer at a bar. The off duty officer , who was in plain clothes ad there drinking, told one of his on duty buddies and the guy continued to mouth off. Well, he gets arrested for public intoxification. He had 2 grand in his pocket so the police go through his phone.

Two weeks later, that guy and 3 others get rounded up by narcotics.

Granted the guy was a dumbass but the going through the phone and then launching a narcotics investigation because of the search of the phone without a warrant is bullshit. Also, this guy was not a friend of mine. He was an acquaintance of one my friends and I didn't like that motherfucker but he got 9 years because of an illegal search. That is bullshit.

KC native
04-20-2011, 12:53 PM
You probably don't need to worry about this as I don't imagine that they are able to require the same of a dirty illegal mexican varmit like yourself.

Wow. You are a piece of shit. I bet otter actually pos repped this post.

blaise
04-20-2011, 12:56 PM
As of now police are going through phones as soon as you are arrested. I know one guy who got 4 people in trouble because he was arrested for mouthing off to an off duty officer at a bar. The off duty officer , who was in plain clothes ad there drinking, told one of his on duty buddies and the guy continued to mouth off. Well, he gets arrested for public intoxification. He had 2 grand in his pocket so the police go through his phone.

Two weeks later, that guy and 3 others get rounded up by narcotics.

Granted the guy was a dumbass but the going through the phone and then launching a narcotics investigation because of the search of the phone without a warrant is bullshit. Also, this guy was not a friend of mine. He was an acquaintance of one my friends and I didn't like that mother****er but he got 9 years because of an illegal search. That is bullshit.

Man, that dude is a dumb. It's like the people on Cops driving around in a car with no tags, no headlights, and a bag of 200 crack vials. If you're in the business of selling drugs you need to keep your mouth shut and stay invisible.

vailpass
04-20-2011, 12:57 PM
Wow. You are a piece of shit. I bet otter actually pos repped this post.

LMAO

ClevelandBronco
04-20-2011, 01:00 PM
As of now police are going through phones as soon as you are arrested. I know one guy who got 4 people in trouble because he was arrested for mouthing off to an off duty officer at a bar. The off duty officer , who was in plain clothes ad there drinking, told one of his on duty buddies and the guy continued to mouth off. Well, he gets arrested for public intoxification. He had 2 grand in his pocket so the police go through his phone.

Two weeks later, that guy and 3 others get rounded up by narcotics.

Granted the guy was a dumbass but the going through the phone and then launching a narcotics investigation because of the search of the phone without a warrant is bullshit. Also, this guy was not a friend of mine. He was an acquaintance of one my friends and I didn't like that mother****er but he got 9 years because of an illegal search. That is bullshit.

He was sentenced to nine years for the crime of being the subject of an illegal search? Is that really your story?

KC native
04-20-2011, 01:01 PM
Man, that dude is a dumb. It's like the people on Cops driving around in a car with no tags, no headlights, and a bag of 200 crack vials. If you're in the business of selling drugs you need to keep your mouth shut and stay invisible.

Yea, he is a fucking dumbass which is why I didn't like that motherfucker.

KC native
04-20-2011, 01:06 PM
He was sentenced to nine years for the crime of being the subject of an illegal search? Is that really your story?

No, I condensed some details because I don't feel like typing it out on my phone. Long story short is the contents of the phone were forwarded to narcotics. He was not on narcotics radar before this. Wiretaps were then obtained based on the content that was forwarded and that got him busted with 10 lbs of dro first and then after he bailed out 45 lbs of reggie ad some xtacy.

vailpass
04-20-2011, 01:08 PM
You actually KNOW people like that?

ClevelandBronco
04-20-2011, 01:13 PM
You actually KNOW people like that?

There's not much difference between people like that and some folks in the investment industry. My old college roommate is doing time for running an investment fraud of some sort. Glad I lost track of him (even happier that he lost track of me) years ago. It's not like he was an investment pusher, though. He was just slingin' to his friends to keep himself in the game.

KC native
04-20-2011, 01:33 PM
You actually KNOW people like that?

That guy was a small timer compared to some I've known but yes I know people like that.

Otter
04-20-2011, 01:43 PM
I use LUKS on my laptop, which runs Linux.

Use BCRYPT on my memory stick. I don't even save passwords on my laptop, there's no info on there worth stealing.

Simplex3
04-20-2011, 01:58 PM
Use BCRYPT on my memory stick. I don't even save passwords on my laptop, there's no info on there worth stealing.

I use TrueCrypt on my thumb drive.
My passwords are all stored in B-Folders which I run on my laptop and on my Android phone.
Everything is using AES-256.
I don't use the same password twice, so I have to have my passwords with me on the phone when I'm on client sites.
Where I have the option I don't use passwords, I use RSA keys.
Where I have the option I use two factor authentication as well.

I understand none of that is perfect, but the barrier is high enough that by the time someone would have the chance to break in I would have time to change all the locks.

KCinNY
04-20-2011, 02:17 PM
"No, you may not search me, my car or my phone. I'm citing my Fourth Amendment privilege against illegal searches and siezures. Am I under arrest or am I free to go?"

Problem solved.

HerculesRockefell
04-20-2011, 02:36 PM
No, I condensed some details because I don't feel like typing it out on my phone. Long story short is the contents of the phone were forwarded to narcotics. He was not on narcotics radar before this. Wiretaps were then obtained based on the content that was forwarded and that got him busted with 10 lbs of dro first and then after he bailed out 45 lbs of reggie ad some xtacy.

Someone that stupid should be removed from the gene pool.

CoMoChief
04-20-2011, 03:35 PM
How is this not violate the 1st amendment? or 4th?

vailpass
04-20-2011, 03:41 PM
"No, you may not search me, my car or my phone. I'm citing my Fourth Amendment privilege against illegal searches and siezures. Am I under arrest or am I free to go?"

Problem solved.

And, potentially, other problems just beginning.

KC native
04-20-2011, 03:55 PM
Someone that stupid should be removed from the gene pool.

I wouldn't shed a tear if that happened. He put a lot of people at risk because he was drunk, had money in his pocket, and thought he was a super gangsta.

Although, I will say those quantities are nothing in Texas. If you get caught with under 50 pounds usually you will just get probation. You have to remember that they are busting truck loads here all the time. My friend's brother got busted with 200+ lbs at a checkpoint (For those unfamiliar with Texas, there are ICE checkpoints coming out of El Paso and south Texas) and his sister got nabbed with 150 lbs and they both only got probation.

The thing that fucked that guy was the xtacy. That shit is the same as having heroin or meth in the fed's book.

HerculesRockefell
04-20-2011, 04:20 PM
I wouldn't shed a tear if that happened. He put a lot of people at risk because he was drunk, had money in his pocket, and thought he was a super gangsta.

Although, I will say those quantities are nothing in Texas. If you get caught with under 50 pounds usually you will just get probation. You have to remember that they are busting truck loads here all the time. My friend's brother got busted with 200+ lbs at a checkpoint (For those unfamiliar with Texas, there are ICE checkpoints coming out of El Paso and south Texas) and his sister got nabbed with 150 lbs and they both only got probation.

The thing that ****ed that guy was the xtacy. That shit is the same as having heroin or meth in the fed's book.

Not saying the amount is huge, but anyone caught with weight (which 10 lbs is), who then bonds out, and gets caught it sounds like rather quickly with even more in weight, is a retard who shouldn't be allowed to breed.

Garcia Bronco
04-20-2011, 07:46 PM
I wouldn't shed a tear if that happened. He put a lot of people at risk because he was drunk, had money in his pocket, and thought he was a super gangsta.

Although, I will say those quantities are nothing in Texas. If you get caught with under 50 pounds usually you will just get probation. You have to remember that they are busting truck loads here all the time. My friend's brother got busted with 200+ lbs at a checkpoint (For those unfamiliar with Texas, there are ICE checkpoints coming out of El Paso and south Texas) and his sister got nabbed with 150 lbs and they both only got probation.

The thing that ****ed that guy was the xtacy. That shit is the same as having heroin or meth in the fed's book.

Good thing they busted him and your drug dealing/taking friends. We don't need that crap in our schools.

RJ
04-20-2011, 08:35 PM
They can have my cell phone when they pry it from my cold. dead fingers.

Phobia
04-20-2011, 10:41 PM
Wuh-oh. Unless you are well connected, I bet you get in trouble with the admins for that one.

"Enter and participate at your own perile. This forum is lightly moderated."

Anywhere but D.C. and he'd get a vacation. This is not an invitation to post racial slurs in D.C. but we look the other way often in this forum because if we start nitpicking this forum we'd do nothing but police D.C.

Hog Farmer
04-21-2011, 07:14 AM
I think if they're gonna do that then they need to be profiling. When you see a raghead you need to scan his shit. Personally , every time I've been stopped the officer can't get away fast enough.

crazycoffey
04-21-2011, 10:50 AM
I think if they're gonna do that then they need to be profiling. When you see a raghead you need to scan his shit. Personally , every time I've been stopped the officer can't get away fast enough.


probably because you still have hog jiz on your mouth....


:Poke:

crazycoffey
04-21-2011, 11:01 AM
couple thoughts, first it would be an invasion, in my opinion, of your privacy to look at your phone for any reason other than you give me permission, during a routine traffic stop.

A search incident to arrests is to document possessions on your person and in your car for inventory purposes first, yes illegal property found during that search is admissible in court. Searching through your phone wouldn't be legal in a search incident to arrest. Again, I can ask and if you say yes, then it's legal.

I have only looked at a few phones during official work. two of the most recent, a mom is piss drunk and tried to kill herself drinking a bottle of nail polish remover. Her two kids are aged 4 and 6. There is no one else in the house, she's going to the hospital. I can not legally let a neighbor watch the kids, and if possible I don't want to call child services and have the kids go to a foster home for a few days, when I've met the dad from other calls (long bad break up). I looked through her phone to find his number. If I found something substantial, I'm thinking dangerous felony levels, you're damn right I'd add that information in my report. I was acting in good faith and I would stand by that. As it turned out that day, I got the dad's number and he came and picked up his kids.

The second time; a teenage boy was found in a girls school locker room, dressed in the girls clothing he found there, wacking it with a plunger with his ass. It's a big school and we asked if anyone else was in there. He swore there wasn't, I grabbed his phone and looked at recent text messages to discover his "buddy" was in fact a part of the criminal act. I stand by that "abuse" of my power too....