Shared publicly  - 
What do you think? Does this worry you?
Randy Hudson's profile photoJ.B. Saunders's profile photoJake Parker's profile photoJoe A. Jordan's profile photo
doesn't worry me. I can see no reason why the police would seize my phone. If they take someone's phone, there is probably a valid reason
wooohhh, I do NOT like this at all. Warrantless is a word of contradiction if there ever was one. Jd later peace
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
couple thoughts cross my mind; i agree that if the cops seize my phone, they have a valid reason. also, though, nowadays there's a lot more incriminating information on my phone than the phone calls ;)
Thank's Mark! Yeah, what he said! Jd later peace
I'm far more concerned about the judge's ruling that "obtaining the information from the phone company was not considered a search because by subscribing to the wireless service, the user is deemed to surrender any privacy interest he may have had in his phone number." As Justice Sotomayor noted in January, we need to consider how third-party doctrine applies in today's technological society. When you subscribe to communications services, are you implicitly sharing all of your communication data with the provider?
With it only be limited to finding the phone's phone number and nothing else I am not really worried about that decision. I agree that if the decision were to be upheld if they found other information such as files, apps, and so on then it would make me worried about my privacy. As it sits the judges decision only allowed them to use the cell phone's number and call history that they got from the cell phone provider.
So, you would allow them the inch and expect them to not take the mile?
nonnoonnononononnnnonn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That would be a huge mistake. The fight over civil liberties is ongoing. Please do not lie down on this! No one here has so far, but not many MM's come here either. Fight the Fight Jd later peace
And yet we lecture other countries about human rights, civil liberties and democracy....
I had to read the article first.
If the cell phone was used in a crime, directly or indirectly, in the case in the article - drug sales - the person was arrested for what was sure to be a major crime - i have no problem with them taking a look.
Now if you are stopped for a simple traffic violation or something similar an they attempt or desire to check your cell phone - yes i have a big problem with it - its none of their business an should not be legal.
The big problem with all of this, it will be abused by over bearing police officers/police depts.
Used properly this is an incredibly effective tool for catching scum like the person described in the article. Law Enforcement is a very fluid thing - sometimes things can be waited for and other times immediate action needs to be taken.

People here need to keep this case in context with the people it was affecting, IE: drug dealer ... its is not grandma off the street.

Most if not all evidence that is not obtained properly with a warrant is not ever going to be able to be used in court. I have seen 100's of cases dismissed and true criminals let go for the most asinine of technicalities. even after hundreds if not thousands of hours were spent on the case and obtaining all the proper paperwork.

Most are way over blowing this type of search. And everyone also needs to realize criminals are in most cases complete idiots and voluntarily give up their rights and hand over evidence that incriminates them even after being told 100 times not to do it.

Not knowing the details of ever case just makes all opinions assumptions and assumptions make for very inaccurate thought processes..
+Dave Kal Where do you draw the line? If the phone was used in a crime, it's evidence and can be impounded until a search warrant is granted. Is a policeman allowed to look through a wallet or handbag? Should an electronic device be treated differently? (I don't know the answers; just asking the questions.)
Matter of fact when the cuffs are put on and you are detained/arrested the officer can indeed look thru a mans wallet or a womans handbag,, and they can look thru any other bag you have with you - no warrant needed , they may ask you if they can look first if you are detained but after arrest they legally can without asking.
A item like a cell phone, computer, etc they should have to have a warrant to go snooping but of course they dont in many cases if they can easily access it.
No if it is "locked" or otherwise secured. not without a warrant
Privacy isn't about whether you have something to hide or not. It's the fact that information like that should require a warrant, reviewed and signed by someone liable for the use of that information. Circumventing an entire branch which was put in place for a reason is unconstitutional and illegal. If this does pass expect it to be fought at the supreme court level.
That's bs Sir. Conservationism stated in one word, hide. I have NOTHING to hide, but my personal life, property, and information is NOT the purview of any Government Agencies employee's without due process and probable cause. ie. I take hydrocodone 4x's daily and have for years! Due to an existing infringement of my personal right's I was forced to take a "test" to PROVE I actually used the drug, not a drug pusher for profit. The pill bottle was in my overnight bag when I was "stopped" at a insurance checkpoint. My insurance exceed's Arkansas's minimum. So Mr. McGimpsey, please tell my WHY I should have been MADE to prove my innocence at the cost of my time, fuel, and pride. At least "they" paid for the damn test!
Whoever has nothing to hide: Please give us the password to your voicemail, the number and password to your bank accounts and keys to your house.
Unless you have something to hide in any of them, you have nothing to fear!!!.

And besides, you can trust me.
A pluse 1 isn't good enough for that one Paul, I'm emailing bout 400 of the most important people I know just to brag on you. So very well put Sir. You ROCK!!
The real question is do criminals get to be protected by all the laws no matter their crime or do they give up all these rights and protective laws when they break the law.....
+Brent Burzycki The thing is:

When a politician or a police officer is accused of anything, the first thing you hear: "Don't forget that EVERYONE is presumed innocent till proven guilty!!!"

Yet, that same line is conveniently forgotten when Joe Sixpack is suspected of anything! Do you really think their cellphones are confiscated or scrutinized like anybody else's?? No sir.

When you live close to New York do get to see these things very frequently.
+Brent Burzycki The police aren't empowered to decide whether or not you're a criminal; that's the function of the judiciary. This country was founded on the principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and needn't waive any rights until then.
I'm sorry Sir, but your real question is not real at all! If not for the rights our forefather's placed in the Constitution of our great land, the criminals of which you speak would literally get by with murder all of the time! Without due process and probable cause all police agencies would be so overwhelmed with work, no one, not even the child molester, serial rapist, no one would ever be brought to justice. It is our right's that separate, or should, the wheat from the bull...... Jd
On second thought:
Let's do away with the Constitution.......unless we have something to hide, we don't need it!!
lol I would give anything to have the ability to reduce concepts to a short tweet, if you will.
+Brent Burzycki guy are you serious?...these protections do in fact let real criminals off the hook when procedures aren't followed and their rights are violated(yes criminals even of the vilest sort have rights) but they also protect regular folk from being unjustly accused or incorrectly suspected. this forces law enforcement to have some real evidence of a crime before they can go poking through your life. I defy anyone to say that if their life was scrutinized they could say they have never broken any laws. in your world this is all the rationalization needed for giving up our rights
+Adam Liss gladly i did not say that... seeing we are talking about a court case...

This as we all might or might not know is a very complicated issue... I am a firm believer in if you commit crimes, you have no rights. You made a bad decision and now you get to pay for that decision. We are constantly protecting the rights of criminals (And do not take this out of context) I am not talking about every crime in the world - I am talking about serious felony crimes that most here I assume actually will believe are serious crimes.)

Earlier this year I heard reports of cops using software to download entire copies of phone data at any and all traffic stops... now that is a blatant abuse of power and clearly against some set of rights... where for no good reason and non related too my possible crime my privacy would be compromised. Most jurisdictions would never have time to even do this on traffic stops and all that data would be useless and take hours to go over. There is no manpower for that type of investigation on every stop... we do not even have enough cops on the street to handle felony crimes....

Every time someone is booked - at least in CA all their property is seized and secured. This is either given back to them later or could be used against them in court to prove the case against them. So there is plenty of time to get a warrant...

As with anything - incorrect use of all the laws does happen, but the majority of laws are adhered too.... if they are not the effort a cop, or prosecutor or DA put into the case is useless when the criminal gets off because one items of evidence was miss handled in any number of ways...

Maybe while we toss out the constitution, we can also start a program to better educate the criminals in the world to make sure they know not to give up their rights as soon as they get caught... that should be pretty helpful to the overall goals of keeping the peace...

The even better aspect of this is everyone is very happy to speak out against all these issues when it has not happened to them, their family or in their neighborhood...once it does the rules seem to change drastically as to what should and should not be allowed...
Please, let's all take a breath, chill, and agree on the subject that started "all this." Do police, anywhere in the USA, have the right to cell phone without a warrant? If you think that in 'some' situations they DO, then it must be ALL situation's. One can not change the rules "on the fly" to fit individual situation's. My 'little ol' opinion is that let the crooks go! Hell yeah, let um go if you can't get um in a fair, constitutional manner. I do not like seeing the guilty go free more than anyone else, but who make's the call? The officer or agent in the field? Let's just wing it? Sorry, I talk to a lot of "hotties" on my cell and I don't want my conversation's heard by anyone but the luck lady of the evening. If my cell is compromised without a warrant, what's next? My video cam/corder? Now that is unconstitutional and potentially embarrassing!
+Brent Burzycki And how do we determine that someone has committed a crime? On the side of the street at the time of the arrest, or in the courtroom at the time of the conviction? Because if we can just do it on the side of the street we can save billions in court costs.
I don't know where some of you people live, but it is not safe to assume that the police will never seize your possessions without a good reason.

There is a reason it is required that a judge issue a warrant for a search. The police are not legally qualified to make such determinations. It is not within their power to determine if you are guilty of a minor offense or a serious crime, or nothing at all.
The fact is, some police are routinely "asking" to borrow your phone and then downloading its entire contents. This amounts to a search without a warrant or even "probable cause." They do not tell you what they are doing or give a reason.
Still beating this poor horse. I am finished. Jd Jake Parker
STOP THE PRESSES! You think the cell phone issue is wrong, just this morning the FAA received a request to approve the flying of up to 30 thousand, not a typo, 30,000 "drones" in American air space by every police agency from Homeland Security, FBI to local law enforcement, AND private concern's on the "promise" that information gathered would not be used to bust anyone for any level of wrong doing. If this is approved by the FAA the 30K WILL be over your head and mine by 2020! That's just eight years folks!
"I wondered whether this was something to get excited over and at first I thought it was. But after reading through the judge’s decision, I can see why the discussion has died down. Technology is constantly forcing us to look at certain situations in a new light. If the search of the phone would have gone deeper (files, apps, etc.), I would certainly have an issue with the decision and how searches of this manner could be abused. The officers seemed to have collected enough evidence before the arrest and the fact that they knew to search only for the numbers, leaves me to believe they knew what they were doing."

I have to agree. That does not mean we can relax, however... we're on the verge of a pretty slippery slope.
I don't know about any of you, cept a couple of "hotties" I have the honor of dating from time to time, but a drone hovering over my crib pisses me off more that my cell being raped with out probable cause or a warrant. Jake P
Nah, I think we should allow people to know all of our private business
Add a comment...