SC Limits Cellphone Search

the notion of either you OR LL having nude pictures of ANYBODY GIRLFriend on your cellphone is bloody laughable. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I can't speak (and won't) for anyone else, but there are no nude photos on either my work phone or my hobby phoneS. With respect to IMAGES, like any COMPUTER when one logs onto ECCIE (or any other SOB Board) with ads and/or photos of nude females those IMAGES are downloaded onto the harddrive (memory card) on the instrument being used for access to the site, and if that happens to be a cell phone ... they are there ... until securely wiped!

What cannot be "securely wiped" are the file servers through which data must "flow" to arrive at the instrument being used for access. Like this posting now!

So, YR, THIS TIME you are correct. Even though you did not intend the statement to import the reality, but to attempt to cast ridicule on others, which is about all you can do, which is in and of itself an intellectual challenge for you on your best day (which are rare)!

It only works on the insecure, mindless, fools with whom you associate in the RW in order to "appear" intellectually superior....not on the board .. this one or any others.

Otherwise, have a nice day at the Enfield Drug ... cowboy!

Little early to be blitzed ain't it, LLIdiot?

We ALL know what I was talking about.

We ALL know what I was talking about. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Crowded at the Enfield Drug soda fountain, is it?

They just pretend to understand you by nodding their heads, ...

..... so as not to upset you any more than necessary.

But often it's used even when there's absolutely no reason at all for a search. Originally Posted by JCM800

How?

If there is absolutely no reason for a search, how does a police officer demonstrate probable cause to get a warrant?

If you are stopped for having a busted headlight on your car - and NOTHING else, how does the officer demonstrate probable cause to get a warrant to search your phone?

And search it for WHAT?

How?

If there is absolutely no reason for a search, how does a police officer demonstrate probable cause to get a warrant?

If you are stopped for having a busted headlight on your car - and NOTHING else, how does the officer demonstrate probable cause to get a warrant to search your phone?

And search it for WHAT? Originally Posted by ExNYer

To make sure you didn't use it in the "no cell phone" area you "just passed through" .... and usage with a time stamp is "evidence" of the violation, which can be deleted if not checked and verified immediately.

Do you ever pass through States with "cell phone free" areas?

You have a choice in life:
1. give up your cell phone until he gets a warrant or
2. waive the warrant requirement on his "cell phone search waiver"!

Like I said: Don't be taking any victory laps yet.

How?

If there is absolutely no reason for a search, how does a police officer demonstrate probable cause to get a warrant?

If you are stopped for having a busted headlight on your car - and NOTHING else, how does the officer demonstrate probable cause to get a warrant to search your phone?

And search it for WHAT? Originally Posted by ExNYer

They can legally search anything they want without a warrant, with probable cause ....that's the loophole.

You can be stopped sometimes just for what area you're in, or because of the time of night you're in a particular area ...or hell, just because of what race you are.

Now sure they're supposed to have witnessed something occur before violating your rights .....but sometimes that's not the case.

They can legally search anything they want without a warrant, with probable cause ....that's the loophole.

You can be stopped sometimes just for what area you're in, or because of the time of night you're in a particular area ...or hell, just because of what race you are.

Now sure they're supposed to have witnessed something occur before violating your rights .....but sometimes that's not the case. Originally Posted by JCM800

Yes, but if they made up the reason, and it can be shown later in court it was an illegal search, evidence thereby obtained is not admissible, and the chain of events set off by said search may create unusable evidence as "fruit of the poisonous tree".

From Wikipedia:

Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally.[1] The logic of the terminology is that if the source (the "tree") of the evidence or evidence itself is tainted, then anything gained (the "fruit") from it is tainted as well. The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine was first described in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (1920).[2][3][4] The term's first use was by Jewish Justice Felix Frankfurter in Nardone v. United States (1939).
Such evidence is not generally admissible in court.[5] For example, if a police officer conducted an unconstitutional (Fourth Amendment) search of a home and obtained a key to a train station locker, and evidence of a crime came from the locker, that evidence would most likely be excluded under the fruit of the poisonous tree legal doctrine. The discovery of a witness is not evidence in itself because the witness is attenuated by separate interviews, in-court testimony and his or her own statements.
The doctrine is an extension of the exclusionary rule, which, subject to some exceptions, prevents evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment from being admitted in a criminal trial. Like the exclusionary rule, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is intended to deter police from using illegal means to obtain evidence.

Yes, but if they made up the reason, and it can be shown later in court it was an illegal search, evidence thereby obtained is not admissible, and the chain of events set off by said search may create unusable evidence as "fruit of the poisonous tree". Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

As a practical matter, data off a phone has intel usage primarily and for the most part the data is sufficiently embarrassing or damning that a "legal" jousting battle is too risky and expensive as an option ... for the "benefits' of the challenge. It can almost always be argued they could have found the information anyway from another resource. If someone has shit on their phone worth a $50,000 to $100,000 legal battle there got other "evidentiary" issues more ominous than dirty pics on a phone or sextexting messages.

One spells it principAL ... not principLE.

Look at the 2 cases underlying the the SCT decision. They weren't "hobbying." Get a hobby phone or two and use them. Clean them up and don't leave "ATFs" on them or glamour shots of your last gfe.

As a practical matter, data off a phone has intel usage primarily and for the most part the data is sufficiently embarrassing or damning that a "legal" jousting battle is too risky and expensive as an option ... for the "benefits' of the challenge. It can almost always be argued they could have found the information anyway from another resource. If someone has shit on their phone worth a $50,000 to $100,000 legal battle there got other "evidentiary" issues more ominous than dirty pics on a phone or sextexting messages.

One spells it principAL ... not principLE.

Look at the 2 cases underlying the the SCT decision. They weren't "hobbying." Get a hobby phone or two and use them. Clean them up and don't leave "ATFs" on them or glamour shots of your last gfe. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I agree, and as cheap as the throwaway phones are, remove the SIM card, crush it, burn it, throw the ashes away out of sight, then drive ten miles away, and smash the phone into ten pieces, and get rid of those pieces separately. Do it every couple of months....
The built in GPS on your car, I'm not sure what to do about it....the fact that you have two GPS enabled phones in the car and at the same place at the same time...one in your name, one a throwaway..I'm not sure to do about that, either.

Crowded at the Enfield Drug soda fountain, is it?

They just pretend to understand you by nodding their heads, ...

..... so as not to upset you any more than necessary. Originally Posted by LexusLover

You mean the one in Clarksville?

You mean the one in Clarksville? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

No. The one outside of Clarksville that fools fools like you into believing they are partaking of Austin cultural history by fraudulently advertising they are in Clarksville, like so many shyster realtors do to stick cheap housing up folks ass with over-inflated marked up "in" digs and do so by redrawing the boundaries of Clarksville on their ads so suckers like you believe it really is Clarksville. That one.

the fact that you have two GPS enabled phones in the car and at the same place at the same time...one in your name, one a throwaway..I'm not sure to do about that, either. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

get an older model hobby car and ...

......................... put the smart phone on airplane mode then turn it off.

The built in GPS on your car, I'm not sure what to do about it....the fact that you have two GPS enabled phones in the car and at the same place at the same time...one in your name, one a throwaway..I'm not sure to do about that, either. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

Great, now I have to get a hobby car.

LL beat me to the hobby car remark by THAT MUCH!

get an older model hobby car and ...

......................... put the smart phone on airplane mode then turn it off. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Actually, a hobby car without GPS makes a lot of sense...thanks

No. The one outside of Clarksville that fools fools like you into believing they are partaking of Austin cultural history by fraudulently advertising they are in Clarksville, like so many shyster realtors do to stick cheap housing up folks ass with over-inflated marked up "in" digs and do so by redrawing the boundaries of Clarksville on their ads so suckers like you believe it really is Clarksville. That one. Originally Posted by LexusLover

The one you hung out in during Reconstruction? Before they created Town Lake? Before they built the pink dome?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

what a fucking wannabe.