Cell Search and Seizure

I'm more worried about attack butterflies - They are 'reportedly' to be found in a number of states - mean and vicious butterflies!

I think the topic is silly when based on a rumor which this one is when you use 'reportedly' as a basis.

The extra vicious "Bread & Butter Flies" are the worst of all, luckily not (as yet) everywhere.......though I fully agree, the "normal" Attack Butter Flies are bad enough.....

w

that link is when drugs are involved. I think reasonable suspicion applies here

Key words in that report- "who has been arrested"

You are 100% correct, that is the point at which all bets are off and a phone search (similar to a body search, or house/car search) could (to my mind) legally take place.......

Many others here, other than your good self of course, simply did not (want to) understand that important point.....

Hey is one of the many stories on the topic.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/21/us-michigan-cellphones-idUSTRE73K5CB20110421

So now these devices will be offered with data encryption software at a added cost to the consumer. Those criminals that have something to hide will spend the extra money for it. Those of us that don't will have to bear the burden of the intrusion into or life. At least until the cell phone companies get involve if they feel they are losing revenue.

Those devices with GPS technology that records your aware abouts can be argued as evidence in the the traffic infraction. Speed can be computed from it. How often and to what extent.

This technology is changing very fast. Faster then the government can pass laws to protect the consumer. Let alone make a decision on how they can use it to control crime with out stepping on rights written in law.

I'm not missing any point. And yes it is the land of the free. Freedoms written down in law. There has always been and always will be people that will test those freedoms.

Law enforcement and politics test the Second Amendment all the time.

What makes you think they don't test the Fourth Amendment.

With the new technology until its tested all are open to interpreting the law. This state has set a precedence in it's interpretation. Other states will follow suit unless it challenged and found it violation of the Fourth Amendment.

What I brought forth is that the GPS information stored in these devices can be construed as evidence by the state of the violation. The device they are using does not differentiate on just what data to take. What ever other personal information they get at the time is the big issue whether they have the right to it and what they do with it. As it does not involve the violation.

I think the original post was to bring it to our attention. Now that you know have you called your Representatives to speak your mind on this issue to them? Ranting and raving about it here will get you nowhere.

You are missing the point, for it to work in the way you are worrying about, you need to be arrested first!!! Got it?

Most minor infringements might get you a ticket,but usually won't get you arrested....

So just don't do anything that can get you arrested, don't be rude to Cops, don't drive too fast, don't be erratic, don't drink beer while driving, don't keep guns in your car,do have your license and insurance with you, always drive the shortest route home after buying beer/alcohol, use your signals and keep your car, especially the lights, in a good working order!!!

I am sure that I have missed a couple of dozen other do's and don'ts......but thats a start!!

Michigan State Police have reportedly been downloading data from cell phones of motorists pulled over for speed infractions <<That was the first line of the post.

Thats simply not proof.....

Try finding a reliable online source to corroborate that!! I had difficulty....

One should not believe everything one hears.

Any policeman who does as you believe can kiss his career goodbye.....

I had a quick look around and found a a few reasonable sites, but totally written for sensationalism of course:-

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

One paragraph that stood out of a mass of unsupported "facts" was:-

"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."

Which is quite correct.....

Typical modern misleading journalism.......catches out a lot of people.

I looked further here:-

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2383909,00.asp

and found this:-

On Wednesday the police released a statement outlining how its employees are supposed to use DEDs. Police must hold a search warrant, or obtain consent from the mobile device holder, before using the DED to extract mobile data. Furthermore the DEDs can only be used by "specialty teams on criminal cases, such as crimes against children," the statement read.

"The DEDs are not being used to extract citizens' personal information during routine traffic stops."

We will have to wait for someone to put a foot wrong, but at this moment, nobody has put his hand up and said that he a) has extracted data illegally, or b) said that his mobile was scanned......time will tell.......

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

From the link

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

There is no example [on that link] of cellphones being searched during traffic stops

The ACLU is rightly trying to get disclosure of the rules of use of this device to search cell phones

4/19/2011Michigan: Police Search Cell Phones During Traffic Stops
ACLU seeks information on Michigan program that allows cops to download information from smart phones belonging to stopped motorists.
I must get my eyes checked. It sure looked like that headline says,"Michigan: Police Search Cell Phones During Traffic Stops". It sure looks like it says traffic stops to me, I don't see the word "arrest" anywhere.

Just because there's a sensational headline, doesn't mean there are any facts to go along with it

but there is tremendous irony going on, when you contrast this class of initiatives across the country with other points of view in government.

on one hand, the government (supreme court) seem to think it is acceptable to invade the privacy of citizens (for lack of a better expression) just because they have a cell phone... and on the other hand, to explicitly identify cyber invasions of privacy of... as an act of war. I find it ironic, and I think it helps define the fuzzy line being crossed by the authorities...

creeping police state powers.. brrrr...

chris

Not unless you were on the cell phone at the time of being pulled over.

If its not against the law in MI by now, they could get you for inattentive drive also.

My point was more along the lines of, "how can a traffic infraction justify a search of phone data"? It's just an excuse to pry and the excuse is weak!
A ticket is not an arrest & wouldn't justify a search of your phone

See post 32

You are missing the point (one of the "sadly" many here!).

A traffic infraction does NOT result in you being arrested, unless a) you give the police a reason to arrest you (a big mouth is enough), or b) you have outstanding warrants that require you to be arrested.

The point is that unless you are arrested first, they have no legal reason to search your car, though you may be asked if you would allow that [see the COPS program as to just how many dummies allow a search and dope of some sort is found!!!!], so there is no legal way that a search of your cellphone could take place.

If you read the reports on the web, there are no FACTS in any of the ones I read that say that for example a Mr A. was searched after a normal traffic stop, he was not arrested for any reason, but his mobile was rifled.........its all third person "maybe" stuff, or you could say "Journalism at its worst!"

Don't let it get you going, its simply not worth it, just be always street legal!!

Getting your documents checked when driving is simply nothing to get concerned about. It should be done more often in some areas.....

If only one murderer or one drug supplier, one paedophile etc. is caught and jailed by these actions, it was a worthwhile job......you will certainly be happy for that, especially if it affects anyone close to you that was killed or injurred........

About the rental searches, maybe the government wants to incite more people into buying their own home!!

Andy do you really think a cop on COPS is going to do ANYTHING wrong while a camera crew is filming him or her? I'm glad for you that you haven't had bad experiences and you just love cops and feel whatever they do is just. If you were spending time in the LA area and were subjected to some of the stuff these people pull I doubt you'd hold as strongly on your position as you currently do. Don't get wrong, I'm quite glad we have them. But at the same time I know all to well how they jack people around because I've had it happen to me many times, especially as a teenager. Ask any Harley rider (except those that dress up as one on the weekend) if he's been pulled over more than once without reason and harassed. You can't convince me that your phone has ANYTHING to do with a warrant for speeding that you've failed to pay. There has to be linkage to a crime that WOULD INVOLE the phone.

Our rights are being watered down slowly but surely and I think it sucks. I don't care about the "what if crimes" that have yet to be committed theory for justifying an illegal search. Where is Thomas Jefferson when we need him????

Cops are not perfect, there are also rogue cops around, BUT, most of them are good legal cops.....

Anyone who gets stopped driving doesn't know what sort of cop he is meeting, so the clever idea is to do exactly what he asks, legal or not.....if you've nothing to hide that is.....but be really worried if that is not true......

Remember, an arrest will justify an awful lot!!!

Its the same here......and in the UK......but the UK has 4 times less murder pro rata than the USA.......that is still too high, but its a good start.....

Ask any Harley rider (except those that dress up as one on the weekend) if he's been pulled over more than once without reason and harassed.

Appearances count

when you play the part of an outlaw [1%er] it shouldn't come as a surprise when you are treated as an outlaw

same with driving a hotrod or other car that looks like it is setup to race, you are going to be under closer scrutiny...

The rules & laws as they relate to communication devices are changing quickly,How much privacy should you expect to have in public?

I'm completely against profiling, you obviously think it should be used as a tool by law enforcement. We just disagree.

I don't want to fear "going out in public". This is suppose to be the land of the free! I'll dress how ever I want. I'll never dress, ride, drive in fear because I fit a profile. We don't have a Furor running the place..well, sorta.

I didn't say I was for profiling

you can present yourself anyway you want, you will be judged on your appearance

your appearance will be an advantage in some situations & there will be a negative price to pay in others.

sorry life's like that

you live in the southland which also has it's own unique challenges

we do live in the land of the free

Your choices have consequences, you can deny the negatives exist, that doesn't make them disappear...

Interesting post. I'm 6'4" (193cm) and around 315 (picture an NFL offensive lineman type). You don't have to tell me about being judged, I've dealt with that daily since I was a kid.

There's a big difference between being judged by our appearance from the great unwashed and being "judged" by persons in positions of law enforcement. Cops ARE NOT judges!!!!

Ponder over the reason Miss Justice has a blindfold on...

Case in point: I have a Vet friend in Nebraska who was stopped at 3AM the other night while he was out for an evening ride, allegedly for doing 63 in a 60 mph zone. The state cop also said he was "interested" in what type of bike he was riding. My friend also advised the cop that he had a concealed carry permit but was not armed.

The cop put him thru a 3rd degree interrogation about what he was doing out at that time of night and asked to search his person and saddlebags. My friend, not having anything to hide, let him in hopes of avoiding a ticket and not wanting to instigate a more serious confrontation.

My friend was riding his Harley (vrs his BMW or his Kawasaki), wears leathers and has a long beard. He's also in his 60's, has multiple artificial joint replacements, and has a severe sun allergy problem. And he often doesn't sleep at night, so he likes to ride, while he is still able to.

And did I mention he's an ordained minister?

The cop held him on the side of the road for almost an hour and issued him a written warning. I find it hard to believe that the cop wasn't fishing for more than was readily apparent. And I don't like the fact that this is becoming quite common nowadays. I suppose if my friend hadn't given the cop permission to search, he would have called in a sniffer dog in hopes of scoring. That, at best, would have resulted in a multi-hour stop in rural Nebraska. I, personally, define this as unreasonable search.

Hooker

H Hooker, the only reason I had said "we had a good laugh on the previous thread about Cell Search and Seizure", is because I got so pissed off when this thread first started and that people worldwide feels that it's OK for the police to seize and search some one's personal electronics here in the USA, looking for what ever. I still get perturb about this subject just thinking about it, so I had to laugh to keep from going off again. Fortunately, my daughter isn't going to be on the front lines, but working in the back round. And yes, you are right, Lady Justice is blindfolded for a reason. So, with that, I didn't mean to reignite a heated subject. Dan

I'm with you DJ, but I feel this subject needs to be discussed far and wide, and heated if necessary, in any and all forums.

There's a growing trend that seems to say that any intrusion on our personal rights and freedoms are ok in the name of security. In the Veteran community this trend is is looked at as highly disturbing. Vets are discussing just how far we'll have to go to take back our country.

And, I don't care what the rest of the world says or thinks. This is the USA. We need to continue to hold our standards to a higher level. I have lived in Europe and Asia and know that they are different cultures with different standards and laws and traditions, and many of them don't understand our great experiment in democracy, and our focus on individual freedoms.

I think I'll go nuts the next time someone tells me that they are ok with this stuff because they don't have anything to hide. This mindset is the very antithesis to what America is all about.

Hooker

we should talk about it

the OP is not accurate the ACLU is suing Michigan to make them reveal the rules[policies] for seizure of cell phones, I haven't heard about any that didn't involve arrest, probable cause...

Should we leave this to the states to decide?

Hooker, I think you head the nail square on the head! " many of them don't understand our great experiment in democracy, and our focus on individual freedoms" What's funny is, our Constitution was written by the Europeans that fled the "Old Country" and in doing so, they reevaluate what was wrong in the "Old" systems of Governments, then wrote the our Constitution, granting us these rights, in a descending order of priority and that's on the Federal Level, not the State Level. The Fourth Amendment in the descending order is the Fourth, because of it's importance 235 years ago. It still holds as true today as it did 235 years ago. I know, I don't need to tell you this Hooker, as you grasp why they are in the order that they are in. It's too bad 'that we live in a fish bowl in toady's age of technology'

And Garthh, "Should we leave this to the states to decide?" I would have to say, "No" this is a Federal Law and should be argued at the Federal Level. It's liken' to our California State Law regarding the growing and use of Medical Marijuana. Our state says it's OK. BUT, if the the Fed's find you, you will be arrested and charge with a Federal Offence. You can not use a voice recording in court unless, (1) the person knows they are being recorded and allows it or (2) a court grants permission thru a warrant to allow such a recording, otherwise your SOL, period. Which to me, you could also argue this point in court, regarding gleaming any information found on an electronic device. Like "As of today, you were not aware that the information could be used against in a Court of Law". In other words, there was no public announcement about it being a new law, either as a State or Federal Law.

But like what I said in my previous 53, 60, our Constitutional Rights are being stretched so for out context and stomped on, that many of them no longer read as they did when they were first written. Now, we not only have to deal with gun control laws, that are so out of context, that only out-laws have guns. And now they want to Censor Mark Twain's books and remove the "N" word. My question is, if the "N" word is so offensive, why do the Blacks continuously call each other n.....? IF they remove the "N" word from Mark Twain's work, then they just as well throw- out all of his writings and all other pre1980 literature with the "N" word in them. How about this, I am a Christian and I am offended about all the literature that has been written about how the Romans's fed Christians to the lions and now I want all that literature remove from all the books, yes, History Books too! Forget the First Amendment rights, it's all offensive to me.

As far as the Second Amendment, we the people of the United States, no longer have the fire power nor the skills to hold off another attack on our shores, that went away by the means of the grocery stores, we no longer need to hunt down our meat. But I can guarantee one thing, I will be on the shores fighting to protect our 235 year old Constitution, no matter how F***ed up some people thinks it is. *Only, when you pry the gun from my dead hand, will I give up!*

And the Fourth Amendment, they've been chiseling away on it for 200+ years and that's why we are here having this discussion. I would imagine that would be the same for any country that has a police force, trying to gather any information by any means on someone, no matter who's toes or Federal Rights they step on.

"How much more are we going to put up with, before we revolt again"? It seems that our country is being ran by the Special Interest Groups with enough money to buy what they want. Where is this going to end? Or will it? I know I'm sick of it all!DJ

how would suggest the police act?

your friend's "profession" & age aren't relevant

an officer at 3am, will be likely to look for something to do

"how would suggest the police act?"

For starters how about not pulling someone over because you want to know what type of bike he's riding.

"an officer at 3am, will be likely to look for something to do"

His job is not to "find something to do" but to serve and protect the people. I don't see anything here that states he was doing that.

I would suggest that the police act within the constitutional constraints of the law. The cop's actions were clearly beyond what we once considered the norm. To stop someone for ostensibly speeding 3 mph over the limit and then subjecting the person to interrogation over non-related matters (ie; why are you out riding at 3AM?), clearly, IMO, steps over the bounds of "reasonable expectation of privacy" as established by the courts.

In other words, the police have learned that most citizens will consent to a search on request purely because they "have nothing to hide" and they wish to end the session quickly and amicably.

The corollary is that if you don't consent, the police presume that you are hiding something and press to uncover whatever it is. The fact that a citizen may just be exercising his constitutional rights seems to have no bearing on police tactics anymore. This leads to a mindset of presumption of guilt by the police.

It's a slippery slope and we are far down it right now, perhaps too far to recover gracefully. If a cop is bored at 3AM and is looking "for something to do", perhaps he needs to find a donut shop or get in depth training on constitutional rights.

"your friend's "profession" & age aren't relevant"

Of course they aren't. That's exactly the point!! Neither is the time of day/night, the mode of travel, the outward appearance of the person, nor the person's location.

Hooker

when did we ever have this perfect country you describe?

not in my years

police have always had a certain latitude

we expect them to take into account the conditions as they find them

profiling has always taken place,

do you expect the police to operate in a vacuum?

This stuff has been run through the courts many times, and the constraints on authority in place are pretty clear. I presume that cops learn this stuff at whatever academy they go to. If they exercise what you describe as latitude then they are infringing on our rights and breaking the law. The only thing left to be decided is if they are acting alone or are condoned by the department.

Read this link

From "Definition of search" on down.

And I do understand that cops are human too, but it almost sounds like you're ok with these little "latitudes". I expect the authorities, short of risk to health, to operate within the bounds of the oath they take, just as I did when I was in the military.

As far as scanning personal phones, from the link above, it sounds like it shouldn't be done, short of a full arrest for cause, when a warrant is never necessary to search personal effects. Just because somebody develops a capability that could be useful to the cops doesn't necessarily mean it should be allowed unlimited use.

Hooker

on the original topic

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

the rules of engagement should be public, the usual rules [probable cause?]

as far as I can tell controls on the police are relatively recent [60's maybe?]

certainly information being more freely exchanged, tv, internet has made the behaviour of the police is much more visible. things that would have gone un-noticed in years past, are the stuff of headlines today

there is a difference since the misnamed 'Patriot Act". Much more of the "no problem if you have nothing to hide" attitude

personally I keep a low profile

you might not be able to judge a book

but 1st impressions matter, it's human nature

look like a biker, get treated like one

I would think that the way to change is to have substantial numbers speaking with a coherent unified voice

Getting your documents checked when driving is simply nothing to get concerned about.

Really? I understand that you are in Germany, but here in the US we've got the federal government suing the state of Arizona for checking the documents of people that have already been pulled over for an infraction........................maybe the fed's didn't get the memo.

On the other, I just can't go with the argument that any infringement on freedom is okay, if it catches just one criminal. No way, no how...............ever.

You are changing the scenario to suite your argument, thats not cool. nor is it correct, you DO need to get arrested to be searched legally, I thought that had been established already? That is not an infringement of low order, that is a "high" order infrigement......simply don't do ANYTHING to get arrested - Yes Sir, No Sir etc.. CRAWL if you must!!!

I don't have anything illegal in my car, so I can be more myself, but still friendly.....

We are also talking about road safety checks that I know are carried out in the same manner in both the UK, France, Spain, Italy Yugoslavia before and after the war and Germany (forgetting for a moment the language differences and the fact that the German and some other Police are armed!). I have never had a problem. I also don't think that I am particularly lucky nor am I ever rude, even when language is sometimes a problem.....my car has been searched without me being arrested as has my caravan.....then I am on my way, its no big deal....

All the traffic is "funnelled" through a parking area where dozens of police are waiting, there is a primary sorting of vehicles where the ones with lights out or other obvious failures - bald or bad tyres for example - and all are checked for the medical box, the warning triangle, driver's licence, up to date TÜV/MOT, insurance and ID.

Some diesel vehicles are checked that they are not running on home heating oil or farm diesel. Which results in a big fine and a lot of back tax to be paid by the way......

If the police "happen to come across guns, drug paraphernalia or anything else illegal", then you are in big trouble and will be arrested on the spot!!!

Thats how most European countries do spot traffic checks.....getting upset (as I can see a lot of Civil libs in the USA might) will probably just get you arrested even quicker. e.g. Totally unproductive......

I don't want to get on a plane with a terrorist or a bomber, not do I want to be attacked or blown up on the road by the same people either and anti terrorism activities now cover many forms of transport, housing etc... The police have to take all these points into account nowadays, I find it to be a most reassuring part of their work that makes the bad guy's chosen profession to be more and more difficult to carry out. Great stuff.

I have children and grand children, I want them in particular well protected 24x7, surely you think the same......?

you DO need to get arrested to be searched legally.

You're wrong Andy. The search of a vehicle can, and is, carried out on probable cause......................probable cause is determined by the officer on the scene. It can be real, or it can be made up. The officer can simply say, "I think I smell marijuana". That's all it takes. The one requirement, at least here in NC, is that a second unit/officer must be on scene before the search is carried out. If the driver refuses the search after probable cause has been established, the vehicle can be impounded and searched anyway, off site.

The exception is a motorhome, which under the law, is considered a dwelling. They must get a warrant to search those.

I can find, and post, the actual law if you need me to.

That's great that it's done the way it is over there but this is not Europe. This is the US of A at least for now. We have civil liberties here that at least I cherish. We are increasingly becoming a Nanny state with these liberties stripped from us.

whatever happened to illegal search and seizure? bastads. all I gotta say.

I don't think this falls under miranda rights... (anything you say can and will be used against you.) as that is 'voluntary'.

absolute power corrupts absolutely.

chris

Surly it is privileged and private information. It has nothing to do with the speeding offence.

I would be suing the police, the judge has exceeded his authority.

A key word though is 'reportedly' - did this really happen or is the person writing the lead just trying to stir up a storm.

An exceedingly poorly written blurb - innuendo and conjecture but few facts

If you want to know about America, ask an American!

Here is your info...

I guess that means you have no standing to write about California

That is a perfect example of profiling. Some states get away with it by calling it "probable cause". I know and you know that police many times overstep their authority in the pursuit of crime, but sometimes it becomes necessary when it involves criminals that use the laws for their own means. My take on the whole subject of law enforcement is to steer clear of anything that could possibly place you in a compromising position. In other words, "If you haven't broken any law, you have nothing to worry about". There will always be "nosey" people who want to be involved in somebody else's business. If it doesn't concern you personally, steer away from it as quick as you can. I was a teenager too and I was never pulled over by police for any reason other than when I actually broke the law, like running a traffic light or speeding or drunking driving. I admit I should have been pulled over many times, but I guess I was just plain lucky. I attribute this luck to never pushing it to the limit. As Dirty Harry said, "a man needs to know his limitations". I know it's a movie expression, but it sure makes a lot of sense.

I find your post very valid......

For myself, in 48 years of driving I have been pulled over twice for no real reason (they call it a vehicle check over here!), and 4 times fined for driving too fast 2 x 10 DMark, 3 x 15 Euros.

No complaints ffrom me......all stops were valid. I was also not rude or upset......

I have driven many times through East Germany many years ago, where they were "hot" with RADAR, never paid a cent!!!

Big brother on steroids!

Throw in a little far left California activist judge action. Mix with some illegal patriot act... Poof goes freedom!

I would say just avoid getting arrested, but in these times, it may be easier said than done!

If, as I believe, under US law an arrested person's car may be searched, then searching his cellphone is no different!!!

Simply don't do anything to get arrested.......stay legal!!

The only people with anything to hide both in their car and on their cellphone are criminals of one sort or another, so maybe they will drive better once it is known.....could have a great affect on reducing traffic acidents......

First of all you are wrong. It is not legal to indiscriminately search a car on a routine traffic stop. Second, you must remember that once they have taken your information it will become locker room knowledge. All your personal and your client messages. Is that right? Of course not. Third, I see how Hitler rose to power so easily over there. We're a little different over here thank God.

Obviously you cannot read or understand what I wrote fully!!

You should read it again slowly!!!

You may find that I am right and you are wrong ONCE you take the time to read and understand it more carefully!!!

The first line of my post says it all:-

If, as I believe, under US law an arrested person's car may be searched, then searching his cellphone is no different!!!

Do you now comprehend it better? I have underlined the important bit to help you a little.

To my mind, it is about the same for all civilised countries that I know of....an arrested person's car may be searched! The contents of the car may include documents, they may be read and used as evidence, so can the contents of a computer found in such a car, so why not the mobile phones.....

The only surprising thing is that it would appear that the US needs to change the law to do it!! Nowhere else that I know of would need a law change for that!!!!

Also, you may now understand that there was nothing indiscriminate about that!!! In fact, I was VERY discriminate I feel.......

Understood now?

That is the problem with some people, read a few words, totally misunderstand the logic and start shouting for absolutely nothing.......DUUUUUHHHHHHH!!

A traffic citation is not an arrest and would not give right to search and seizure.

I hate to see comments that misrepresent the US. There are few if any Germans alive today that had anything to do with the Hitler regime... Total krass! Ich bitte ein Entschuldigung...

Dear Friends: Johannes is quite correct. A citation is NOT an arrest, so a search should NOT be allowed, and if it is, could easily be dismissed at trial, UNLESS the state could PROVE "probable cause" of what they later charge you with. If the later thing was NOT on the original citation, it SHOULD be thrown out of court. There ARE crooked judges that will DO whatever the Prosecutor advances, and those judges should be removed from the bench, but those may take many reversals before they CAN be removed. The appeals process, while available to many, may take liquidating all one has done in your life, to simply maintain it.

I agree with you 100%. Only those who break the law have anything to fear. Unfortunately in this country, it's considered an invasion of one's civil rights, and if the information has been gathered contrary to civil rights, it cannot be used to convict anyone. For example, if someone is pulled over for speeding and the police discover drugs after an "illegal" search, it can't be used in a court of law. Many TV crime programs have come out in recent years focusing on the rights of individuals and how to convict them.

I agree with you 100%. Only those who break the law have anything to fear.

So I guess that's what it's come to. This is all designed to catch criminals. The rest of us, that don't break the law, have nothing to fear.........................all we need to do is get used to searches to make sure we are in compliance. Sounds so easy.

I can't get comfortable with it.

Very valid points. Thanks.

And how do they determine that the information on the cell phone belongs to the person that was arrested??? Just because I have a cell phone in my possession does not mean that I'm the only person that has or can use it. At the time of arrest you are still "innocent until proven guilty"...or that used to be the way here in the USA.

So if they make an arrest that is not valid (mistakes happen) then can they still use that information on the cell phone against you?

Next they will want to access the cell phone if your stopped for speeding to confirm it via the stored GPS data!

This is just wrong!

Its only wrong .......if you have something to hide........

For example only, anyone can look at everything in my cellphone, there is nothing illegal or embarrassing there, nor in my laptop or PC. I simply don't have anything to hide......

I am sure that at least 80% of people are the same..... The other 20% live dangerously....

Clean your phone if you are worried (and you should be!!and there is bad stuff on it!!!

As to who owns the phone, once you have been arrested (needed for the police to search your car and find your phone), that is probably immaterial!

By the way, my phone is always in my pocket, they do not even need to search my car to find it!! They will find it when they search me if I have been stupid enough to break the law in such a manner that I need to be arrested......

Surely everyone has been warned about this by now? Keep your phone clean of anything illegal....!!

By the way, I am sure that fingerprinting is all that is needed to prove if the phone is yours or not!!! Mobile screens take fingerprints REALLY well!!

You are going to have to drive correctly to make sure that you never get arrested aren't you?

Plus nothing else illegal......

You will become a model citizen........

By the way, your phone could get broken and you have to send it for repair STILL WITH ALL YOUR SECRET DATA ON IT because you cannot erase it!!! That is worse than no security...phone company employees are a lot less secure than the police....

It could be stolen.

It could be lost!!!

I somehow feel that you have not thought this through in the correct manner......I was a data security expert for a large US company, most people do not understand security in any shape or form, you are not alone.....

I am not afraid of getting arrested as I don't do anything that would warrant that(that I am aware of). I do speed occasionally, sometimes even on purpose. That is a citation I am willing to pay if I I deserved it. I do not drive recklessly. Perhaps you would disagree if you consider 9mph over the limit reckless. Having sensitive data on my phone does not make me a criminal.

There are so many obscure laws on the books I honestly don't know if I am being lawful or not. I know I am not breaking any laws I consider serious, any others, frankly I don't care much about. I regularly barbeque in an open pit in my back yard. I suspect there may be some permit required for that which I never attempted to obtain. If I get a ticket, I'll say "Sorry", pay the fine, find out what idiot pushed for that law and vote for the other guy next time. I may attempt making some honey mead sometime in the future for my family and friends. I do not intend to pay any tax on it. Hmm... maybe I am a criminal.

If my phone gets broken and I cannot repair it myself, it is a goner. I will replace it. No one can compel me by force to send my phone to a repair center. Most of my sensitive data is in an encrypted folder on an internal SD card and backed up periodically. I am aware that the encryption is not 100% secure. Nothing is, yet I believe I have taken reasonable precautions. Do you know something I dont?

No matter what you do, having "sensitive" data on a portable device is always dangerous, even if you throw it away instead of repairing it. You do realise that sme data is stored on the phone and some on the card.....If stolen......

.....either you understand that or you don't. Its ALWAYS a risk.....

Having such data on your PC is many times safer, but NOT safe!!

Hip Hip hooray, for the Gestapo! As Fredski mentioned, the Police profile you when they stop you. They don't need a justifiable cause to stop you, they'll conjure up an excuse afterwards. If you think that the Police are all honest and God fearing, then you haven't heard about the San Francisco PD and the multi-PD agencies (SF East bay) under investigation for corruption, theft,(stolen) drug dealing and prostitution. Before I was 21 yrs. old, I had, on several occasions, my beer confiscated by the police, only to see them put it their trunk and tell me to go home. They didn't cite me for it because, they wouldn't be able to take it home and drink it themselves. But this kind of stuff still goes on today. Are all police honest? No! If what's on my cell phone has nothing to do with probable cause, then they have no need to access my personal Info. and they really feel it's necessary, then they should subpoena Google Inc., they'd freely give you up.

Addressing the original question "Do you think these state actions open up possibilities of searching other devices or does law enforcement have a right to search in the name of protecting public safety?" and in light of my previous post:

These are not really groundbreaking practices unless they are being done without consent and prior to or without arrest. Does anyone have information about exactly how these practices are carried out beyond speculation and rumor? If that is indeed what is happening, and it is lawful, then it would be a very slippery slope to this future... Instead of a cop pointing a radar gun at your car, he will be pointing an antenna that queries your vehicle computer for current speed as well as all historical speeds stored in its memory since the last law enforcement query. You could be pulled over once and issued dozens or thousands of tickets depending on what the evidence revealed.

If these cell phone searches are indeed being conducted without consent and prior to or without arrest then I dare say they are unconstitutional.

If somehow they are ruled constitutional then I will surmise that the government is no longer subject to the will of the people and the US is no longer a democratic republic. It no longer secures our "unalienable Rights... (to) Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." In that event, I hope all good Americans again avail themselves of their natural rights as in the Declaration of Independance. "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "

Dustin Maki

GA

You follow my line (or I yours!) of reasoning exactly.

Many here simply do not understand that causing some sort of a driving offense COULD lead to soemthing far worse (for them!) - possibly.

I see the Cops programs from the USA, it is AMAZING just how rude many of the stopped drivers are to the Police, especially the (drunk!) women!!! Also its amazing how drug dealers use cars with defective lights just BEGGING to be stopped!!! Or forget to use their signals, or drive through a Stop......I suppose we should be grateful in a way......

Originally, the police are allowed to search an arrestee, was for their own personal safety and to insure no weapons were brought into the jail, then they were allowed to search for weapons and drugs. Now, they can also search your cell phone, that has nothing to do with the security of the jail. The only way a cell phone, laptop or an I-pad can be a threat to the security of an institution, is of they're wire with explosives! I have no problem, if they open the back to insure there is no explosives. But, that does not constitute the need to open personal files that are on an appliance. If they feel that there is information that may further implicate the arrestee, then they should go through the normal avenues to obtain a search warrant. And nothing more.

This just in, WHO is currently working on the problem with the cell phones! they will band them all together, like they did with DDT.

Here's my theory on all of this:

The courts and the legislatures dream this stuff up, and allow it, to help thwart the ever increasing expansion, violence and influence of gangs and drug cartels.

The problem is, cops don't feel like they're getting paid enough, (and I don't blame them), to get their heads blown off. So, these laws, (which I feel are unconstitutional), end up being applied, for the most part, to law abiding citizens, while the real bad guys continue to operate with impunity.

A very simple and effective way to go after the bad guys, without trampling the constitutional rights of everybody else, is to simply come to grips with the fact......................and enforce it, that people that are in the US illegally are not afforded the constitutional protection that US citizens are...............PERIOD!!!!

Why it isn't that way is beyond my comprehension.

Of course, I also think a lot of these things have more to do with controlling the population, and getting us to accept more and more intrusion, than it is about getting bad guys in the first place.

So, these laws, (which I feel are unconstitutional), end up being applied, for the most part, to law abiding citizens, while the real bad guys continue to operate with impunity.

i.e., makes it look like thier doing something. no substance.

I just wonder what James Madison's 2¢ would say about this debate? And, I wonder if he's turning over in his grave? He's been dead for over 200 years, but the man had a great foresight. But, what are we worried about, the Fourth Amendment will go the ways of the Second Amendment, chiseled way like the First Amendment. Which is Bull Sh**! Oops, sorry, I'm not suppose to write those kind of words, without being moderated,(censored First Amendment?). I'm fed up with my Constitutional rights being stretched out of context, rewrote and generally stomped on. What's really sad is, Americans have been brain washed enough, to let it happen to them, with the mind set, that's been instilled, "If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear." Again, that's Bull Sh**! With that, I'm done. DJ

Until the right to bear arms is removed from the US constitution, you will have to put up with certain levels of personal intrusion by the law......even after that it will not be safe as not everyone will give them up.....

I somehow do not think that there is anything in this world that will manage to get rid of your guns......ever.

So you are probably stuck with some loss of personal freedom.....forever.

In the UK, if you are caught with an illegal handgun nowadays, its prison (go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200......)

I found a good detailed description of the UK gun laws and the history of them right her:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

Maybe the US should think of applying some of them........? But due to NIH problems, I doubt it!!!

Andy, the reason the right to bear arms is written as the Second Amendment is because this Country was founded by Renegades that bore arms at the time. The US Constitution was written in steps of priorities, (1) freedom of speech (2) right to bear arms (3) no soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner (4)which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. These Laws were written in the way they felt that was of top priority, because of the unjust ruling of the British Government. I don't have the time to go into the history of the US Constitution. But it was written in priorities and the Fourth Amendment is the the Fourth because of it's importance to the people.

Have a good day. Dan

My point actually was that the 2nd should be modified, drastically.

You appear to feel that thet the priorities of the 18th century should still apply today, why?........I don't.... I think such laws need to be repealed, but we both know that commonsense does not play any role with gun toting fanatics.....

You should read the wiki link I posted.......it shows clearly that gun ownership can be severely reduced by a good government.....that being imprisoned for 3 or more years gives a lifelong ban on having a gun license for instance....having mental problems also etc etc..

the priorities of the 18th century should still apply today, why

here is my opinion...

certain things are timeless.

Freedom
Power Mongering
Fear
Judgement
etc.

and lets be clear.. it isn't just guns.. its arms..... the right to weaponize and arm against authority or any other offender.

The greatest root cause of inappropriate weapon use is poverty, imho, but the real solution is for all to abandon their arms... not just the 'citizen', while leaving the authorities with the weapons. that just creates a a further imbalance.

Peaceful disarmament requires both parties to disarm. The police can be gun toting fanatics too.

Chris

Exactly.....................what the writers of the US Constitution understood more than politics, was human nature. Time hasn't changed that one iota.

It's frustrating for those in government that hunger for ever more power and control. That pesky, old, outdated document keeps popping up and stopping them.

I have to give them credit though..............they're doing a pretty darned good job at chipping away at it.

Wow!

They might make a film about you in years to come,it might be called "The Patriot 2"...You will be played by Mel Gibson's grandchild!!

That is to my mind, a seriously outmoded attitude nowadays (but still prevalent in many 2nd and 3rd world countries as well), so you would appear to work (unconsciously?) for Osama's followers and the like....as you are seriously "not" helping the police in your home country of choice with such an attitude and making their work far more difficult/impossible.

In a way, very, very sad to say, 9/11 has brought home to most Americans (and many of us outside the US) that they can also be seriously attacked from "OUTSIDE" of the continental USA (we can forget for the moment the likes of Timothy McVeigh).

They do realise that this is an undeclared war that will probably get FAR worse before it gets better again.....wait up. Osama dead is good, but there are enough followers to carry on the "good fight"

It would be great if we had a few high level Police/security people on CR4 to comment on their take of such an attitude in this day and age.......I personally know of none here......perhaps they have enough with trouble makers on a daily basis with their jobs...?

I know nothing that I think or write will convert anyone to another point of view, so this will be my last post in this particular blog, for me the crazies have won a battle, but not a war.......byeeeeeeee

perhaps William Wallace (Braveheart)... but I like The Patriot too...

like the time the Americans invaded Canada, and were turned back...

Each man is presented with a challenge... to kill or not to kill, but to defend self and family. Each man must decide for himself what his strategy and choice will be.

History says killing is common. The Bible (et al) is obviously shizophrenic on the subject. This is a problem that very few people have found functional answers to. It is of little point for you and I to disagree about it, when our purposes are essentially the same. (freedom from persecution) I might say that religion differs from philosophy on this problem. Without a spiritual mandate to Not Kill, religion is no different than other philosophies or logic systems.

What man is strong enough to not be violent if his family is attacked or threatened? I do not know. I have not been tested as such. I do not judge those who have been. I think it is one of life's pivotal questions.

Chris

Andy, I don't know your back round Heritage, but you suggested I read your wiki link. Your wiki link and the British Gun politics has nothing to do with us in the United States and the United States Constitution. But I would recommend that you read the United States 'Bill of Rights'.

We threw the British out of our country in 1776. And at the time, King George III and the British Parliament, all thought, we (All Americans) had "mental issues"and probably still do so, today. Here, in the United States, we have in place, Laws that protect that 200(+)year old Document. And as of today, that 200 year old Document is just as valid today as it was when it was written. And even more so today. As takes more than just the "Act of Congress" to try change anything in our Constitution. These Laws were put into place to keep people, like you, from changing anything in our 'Constitution' or 'The Bill of Rights' to the way they think it should read or what "Rights" we should or should not be allowed. All of this has been cut and dried. We are not govern by just one person, even thou some may like to think differently. The Preamble of Our Constitution starts off, " We the People of the United States"..., There is no mention of a King, Queen, Chancellor, Emperor or any one person, only 'We the People' period.

If it wasn't for the Second Amendment, we would be known as "The Commonwealth of the British Empire". As there has been several unsuccessful attempts in invade this country, only to be squashed by our citizens, who were bearing arms at the time.

It's hard for me to understand how someone, from another country, can try and pick apart, our "Bill of Rights", and bestow their option on how Our Country should be ran, it's like having a 'Sidewalk Superintendent' making judgment calls on how things should be constructed without seeing or knowing what the plans call out for. And, Our Foundation Plans, under the Forth Amendment, calls out the rules about Illegal Search and Seizure. And, " IF " personal cell phone are being illegally searched, then this won't be the last we hear about it. Dan

I puzzle a bit at the resentment evoked by non-Americans discussing America.

Particularly when the forum is full of such conversations, posted by Americans - presumably for "open discussion", which always seem to devolve into The Constitution, Government and Party politics.

By extension of that world wide forum posting and 'free speech' values; there is something 'not quite right' about pulling the 'you have no right to comment' card on 'non-Americans'.

But to follow it up with; "In, 'my own opinion', the Countries that need to change their Laws are the one's that still allow stoning to death or beheading"?

Aren't you just wanting it both ways?

I.e. you can 'voice opinion' on anything you like, and Andy (in this inst) can't.

I don't.

Do you have no pride in your country?

As politics become both more personal and more globalized it is bound to come up.

Everyone I've ever met, (that I liked), has had pride in their country, regardless of where they were from.

Any discussion/blog, regarding rules and regulations in the US, by default, have to include the Constitution. It just is what it is.

I have no resentment at all. I'll get worried when non-Americans stop discussing America.

Thanks Mark, it was well put Dan

I'm not sue if pride is the right word. Committed to my country, its people and their values, would be more my way of seeing it.

I guess the difference that that makes is if 'foreigners' start carrying on about it, my tendency is to tell what parts they've got backwards.

One example that comes to mind was a quite vitriolic shot (by an American) at our glorious leader, but they had the guy confused with his predecessor. To me, it's just a matter of pointing that out. That fixed - most of the rest was fairly right - a rational person could only agree.

I understand the the US Constitution is the overarching document, but at the same time wouldn't the State have evaluated its powers to 'regulate' against that? Or is the practice just to legislate and wait for the screaming?

I understand the the US Constitution is the overarching document, but at the same time wouldn't the State have evaluated its powers to 'regulate' against that? Or is the practice just to legislate and wait for the screaming?
Mostly the legislation is in reaction to the screaming
legislation may sometimes ignore the potential opposition
Hilarious hyjinks ensue, making lawyers across the land rejoice