SC Limits Cellphone Search

The one you hung out in during Reconstruction? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I think the Enfield Drug was opened in the mid 1950's or so. Not in 1800's. And back in the 1950's "residents" of Clarksville were not allowed to sit at the "soda fountain" counter..... same as "Woolworth's" on the corner of 6th and Congress. Yes, even in Austin!!!! The Democrats were in control.

Where were you, loud mouth? Swimming in someone's ball sack?

"You've come a long way, baby!"

And I don't "hang out" in drug stores ... that's your expertise apparently.

Cowboy.

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. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Wow, that is one bullshit example.

First, you added in a "no cell phone" area, whatever that is.

But even if there is a law against using a cell phone while driving, if you were stopped only for a broken headlight, the cop has NO reason to believe you were using your cell phone because he did not see you doing it.

And if he DID see you doing it, he doesn't need to search the phone. He already has evidence to give you a ticket.

If you don't have probable cause to believe a crime occurred, you CAN NOT conduct the search FIRST and THEN use the results of the search to say you have probable cause. Got it? You are bootstrapping probable cause onto the search. If you allow that, the exception swallows the rule and the 4th Amendment is useless.

The entire state of Texas is a "no child pornography" zone.

Imagine if a cop pull you over for speeding and searches your phone for no other reason than to see if your phone had child porn in the "no child porn" area you just "passed through". See the problem with your example?

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

Again. That's NOT a loophole.

If there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, the search is justified. You seem to believe that the police should NEVER be allowed to search people.

Loopholes are things people use to avoid punishment, taxes, duties, etc.

The government doesn't need or have loopholes. It has powers. It is the one handing out the punishments, taxes, duties, etc.

You may think you should be free to take any property you want, but if the government has a "robbery statute" that restricts that freedom, would you call it a loophole?

Wow, that is one bullshit example.

It's only bullshit on an SOB Blog when someone wants to look "correct."

First, you added in a "no cell phone" area, whatever that is.

That happens to be a geographical area designated as a DO NOT USE CELL PHONE AREA and since you purport to be from "Up East" you ought to be familiar with the N.E. states that prohibit the use of cell phones while driving, and if you now pretend to be a "Texan" then you need to acquaint yourself with the school zones prohibiting the use of cell phones while driving through the school zone (of course you probably don't pay attention to the reduced speed signs either. Like I said ....It's only bullshit on an SOB Blog when someone wants to look "correct."

But even if there is a law against using a cell phone while driving, if you were stopped only for a broken headlight, the cop has NO reason to believe you were using your cell phone because he did not see you doing it.

See the explanation above. And there you go injecting facts into the scenario that you cannot supply, except when It's only bullshit on an SOB Blog when someone wants to look "correct." FYI: The cop can arrest you for a broken taillight. You do know that Ted Bundy was arrested in Florida during a "busted taillight stop"? Or did you?

And if he DID see you doing it, he doesn't need to search the phone. He already has evidence to give you a ticket.

"He" or "she" doesn't have to give you a ticket, "he" or "she" can arrest you. Then "he" or "she" has possession of your cell phone. See, It's only bullshit on an SOB Blog when someone wants to look "correct."

If you don't have probable cause to believe a crime occurred, you CAN NOT conduct the search FIRST and THEN use the results of the search to say you have probable cause.

Go read Terry vs. Ohio and New York vs. Sibron decided the same day PLUS 1,000's of cases afterwards including those allowing LE to do what is incorrectly called a "stop and frisk" on a motor vehicle. Like I said, ..... It's only bullshit on an SOB Blog when someone wants to look "correct."

Got it? You are actually going to "teach" me something about arrest, search, and seizure? Like I said ... It's only bullshit on an SOB Blog when someone wants to look "correct."

You are bootstrapping probable cause onto the search. If you allow that, the exception swallows the rule and the 4th Amendment is useless. A conservative guess is that 90% of the SEARCHES in Texas (and probably in the country) are WARRANTLESS searches. Most LE officers have NEVER applied for a search warrant, wouldn't know how to do it, and probably wouldn't get one if they tried. Like I said ......It's only bullshit on an SOB Blog when someone wants to look "correct."

The entire state of Texas is a "no child pornography" zone.Actually the ENTIRE UNITED STATES just to make sure you realize that FACT.

Imagine if a cop pull you over for speeding Now you change the facts .... you said busted taillight!!! and searches your phone for no other reason than to see if your phone had child porn in the "no child porn" area you just "passed through" Dumbshit: When you drive any where in the U.S. you are in a "no chlid porn area" and there you go changing the facts again. .. Like I said ... It's only bullshit on an SOB Blog when someone wants to look "correct." . See the problem with your example? No. Because my example was the "cop" accusing you of talking on the phone in a "cell phone free zone" ... and now you have changed "my example" ..... didn't work with me, doesn't it? Like I said .....It's only bullshit on an SOB Blog when someone wants to look "correct." Originally Posted by ExNYer

You are a lawyer's wet dream. Unless you don't have a legal defense fund. And if you don't have the funds, you can be your cell mate's wet dream.

Of course you could always take matters into your own hands, and fight with the "cop" to keep him from looking at your phone, because you think he needs a search warrant to look at it, and you think he needs probably cause to get one and doesn't have probable cause. Then he can charge you with an additional charge of "arresting a search" along with assault on a "cop"!

Do you get your law from the Reader's Digest? Or out of your ass?

Again. That's NOT a loophole. Originally Posted by ExNYer

No, what he related is reality.

Like the "charge" of "POP" = piss off the police. You probably know about that!

He is suggesting that people get stopped AND FRISKED for acting suspicious in a suspicious place or circumstance .... it is called a "reasonable suspicion" that someone is about to commit a crime or is committing a crime and the U.S. Supreme Court allows LE to stop, talk to the person, frisk them for the officer's protection (and temporarily retain property in their possession during the stop). In that contact the cell phone comes into play, just like pagers did.

You are trying to interpret the recent opinion to mean LE cannot touch your phone without a warrant. The opinion doesn't say that, and IMO the supreme court won't either in the future.

Rather than try to write a scenario when they can't look at your phone .. you should be thinking about scenarios in which THEY CAN look at your phone!!! That is how you avoid problems.

exNYer, here's the truth of the matter:

A cop can stop you for whatever reason they can come up with and do whatever they want including pulling out their service weapon and shooting you. It will be another matter if any of that is "justified."

Same with a judge. You can have a lock solid, air tight case (I don't watch TV). The judge is king in that courtroom and can rule anyway s/he wants. If you don't like it, appeal, contribute to their opponent next election or seek some type of remedy where the judge is kicked off the bench. The point is you will have to live with their decision for some time.

"Deserve ain't got nothing to with it."

"Deserve ain't got nothing to with it." Originally Posted by gnadfly

And "principal" is the way it's spelled not "principle."

You are a lawyer's wet dream. Unless you don't have a legal defense fund. And if you don't have the funds, you can be your cell mate's wet dream.

Of course you could always take matters into your own hands, and fight with the "cop" to keep him from looking at your phone, because you think he needs a search warrant to look at it, and you think he needs probably cause to get one and doesn't have probable cause. Then he can charge you with an additional charge of "arresting a search" along with assault on a "cop"!

Do you get your law from the Reader's Digest? Or out of your ass? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Shit for brains:

Don't fight the hypothetical.

Does it really matter that I said a cop pulls you over for "speeding' as opposed to "broken headlight" as in the first post?

Does it really matter that I said Texas is a "child porn" free zone as opposed to all of the USA? Was there a point to your stupidity?

Does it really matter that a cop arrests you rather than tickets you for the broken headlight? Thanks for pointing out how Teddy Bundy got arrested. What does that have to do with searching the phone? Was there a point to your stupidity?

Did I mention anything about fighting the cop? Was there a reason you injected that stupidity into the conversation? Are you THAT desperate to change the subject?

Ohio v. Terry held that the 4th amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure is not violated when a cop frisks someone without probable cause to arrest, if the cop has a "reasonable suspicion" that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime AND has a reasonable belief that the person may be armed and dangerous.

So, what does THAT have to do with a cop looking at your text messages and the pictures on your iPhone? If he's got your phone already, we aren't talking about frisking you any more - that has been done already or may be done separately.

The SC held - and you apparently missed this part - that the cop needs to get a warrant to search a cell phone. "Reasonable suspicion" about a crime occurring or you being armed and dangerous doesn't apply to the contents of your phone.

Like Chief Justice Roberts said "Cell phones differ in both a quantitative and a qualitative sense from other objects that might be kept on an arrestee’s person.”

So, the whole POINT of Riley v. California was to CUT BACK on what the cops can do to your cell phone. Ohio v. Terry doesn't help them.

So, going back to our example(s) - broken headlight or speeding, you choose - arrested or ticketed, you choose - how does the cop get a warrant to search your cell phone? What does he tell the judge he has "probable cause" for?

It is not an answer to say "He can make up a lie and say he heard you talking about drugs with someone" and he needs a warrant to search to see who your drug buddy was.

If you assume lies to get around 4th amendment, then the exception swallows the rule.

So let's assume that the cop's partner won't back him up or there is video cam evidence that you weren't using the phone before or during the traffic stop. So he can't lie his way into a warrant.

Am I "looking correct" now?

exNYer, here's the truth of the matter:

A cop can stop you for whatever reason they can come up with and do whatever they want including pulling out their service weapon and shooting you. It will be another matter if any of that is "justified."

Same with a judge. You can have a lock solid, air tight case (I don't watch TV). The judge is king in that courtroom and can rule anyway s/he wants. If you don't like it, appeal, contribute to their opponent next election or seek some type of remedy where the judge is kicked off the bench. The point is you will have to live with their decision for some time.

"Deserve ain't got nothing to with it." Originally Posted by gnadfly

Well, yeah, true enough.

But if you are just going to assume that everyone in the system is corrupt, then yeah, the 4th Amendment is useless, along with the entire Constitution.

I mean, I could point out that you can appeal the judge's decision on the search warrant and get the conviction thrown out. But then you'll probably say "But what if the appellate court disregards the law and "rules anyway it wants".

And then I will say "Then appeal it to the state supreme court". But then you'll probably say "But what if the state supreme court disregards the law and "rules anyway it wants".

And then I will say "Then appeal it to the US Supreme Court". But then you'll probably say "But what if the US Supreme Court disregards its OWN law and "rule anyway it wants".

But let's be a little more practical and assume that at least someone in the chain is competent and not corrupted and does his or her job correctly.

The Riley v. California case is GOOD news. Stop fighting it.

The cops can no longer just search your phone for no good reason. A cop now has to get a warrant to search your phone unless he can make out some ridiculous excuse that he thinks you are going to use it to detonate a bomb.

Barring that level of ridiculousness, he needs a warrant. And if he searches anyway without a warrant, nothing that is found on the phone in the illegal search can be used against you in court. Nor can anything else that the illegal search leads the police to - fruit of the poisoned tree. See Jewish Lawyer's post about that.

Well, yeah, true enough.

But if you are just going to assume that everyone in the system is corrupt, then yeah, the 4th Amendment is useless, along with the entire Constitution.

I mean, I could point out that you can appeal the judge's decision on the search warrant and get the conviction thrown out. But then you'll probably say "But what if the appellate court disregards the law and "rules anyway it wants".

And then I will say "Then appeal it to the state supreme court". But then you'll probably say "But what if the state supreme court disregards the law and "rules anyway it wants".

And then I will say "Then appeal it to the US Supreme Court". But then you'll probably say "But what if the US Supreme Court disregards its OWN law and "rule anyway it wants".

But let's be a little more practical and assume that at least someone in the chain is competent and not corrupted and does his or her job correctly.

The Riley v. California case is GOOD news. Stop fighting it.

The cops can no longer just search your phone for no good reason. A cop now has to get a warrant to search your phone unless he can make out some ridiculous excuse that he thinks you are going to use it to detonate a bomb.

Barring that level of ridiculousness, he needs a warrant. And if he searches anyway without a warrant, nothing that is found on the phone in the illegal search can be used against you in court. Nor can anything else that the illegal search leads the police to - fruit of the poisoned tree. See Jewish Lawyer's post about that. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Pretty much like I posted. The cops and judge can do anything. It will up be to you to deal with the consequences. Tell them no you can't search my car and no I won't unlock my phone so you can search it. They may let you go. But if they don't they may search your car with or without a warrant or take your phone even if you object. Then it will be up to you to make consequences for them.

BTW, the "they can do anything they want" was told to me by an attorney friend.

Pretty much like I posted. The cops and judge can do anything. It will up be to you to deal with the consequences. Tell them no you can't search my car and no I won't unlock my phone so you can search it. They may let you go. But if they don't they may search your car with or without a warrant or take your phone even if you object. Then it will be up to you to make consequences for them.

BTW, the "they can do anything they want" was told to me by an attorney friend. Originally Posted by gnadfly

Yes, I've got attorney friends that say the same thing.

But "doing anything they want" in a traffic stop is not the same as you being convicted and going to jail as a result.

A cop can search your car even if you say no, but they can't use what they find unless they get a warrant.

And they can take your phone, but then what? Assuming you password protect it - like most people do - how is the cop going to get a warrant from a judge to allow an IT guy to unlock the iPhone of a guy who was stopped for a broken headlight?

For WHAT are they searching?

BTW, the "they can do anything they want" was told to me by an attorney friend. Originally Posted by gnadfly

For WHAT are they searching? Originally Posted by ExNYer

Give the smelly ol' Turdfly a couple of days. He needs to consult with his "attorney friend" prior to responding.

I think the Enfield Drug was opened in the mid 1950's or so. Not in 1800's. And back in the 1950's "residents" of Clarksville were not allowed to sit at the "soda fountain" counter..... same as "Woolworth's" on the corner of 6th and Congress. Yes, even in Austin!!!! The Democrats were in control.

Where were you, loud mouth? Swimming in someone's ball sack?

"You've come a long way, baby!"

And I don't "hang out" in drug stores ... that's your expertise apparently.

Cowboy. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Actually I remember the 50s quite vividly, as well as the Woolworth's luncheonette. They didn't let flamers sit there either, or have you forgotten.

The only ball sack swimming here is being done now, in 2014, by you, Mr. Factual!

You're simply confused. Or, you're so confused it's simple. Or you're simple, and that's why you're confused.

Either way, you're utterly full of shit. And wrong.

Yes, I've got attorney friends that say the same thing.

But "doing anything they want" in a traffic stop is not the same as you being convicted and going to jail as a result. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Conviction is another matter. If you are sitting in jail, the balls in your court.

A cop can search your car even if you say no, but they can't use what they find unless they get a warrant. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Are you positive about that? What if they "thought" they saw a gun in your car or smelled dope? Also, don't assume you are always near a major metropolitan area.

And they can take your phone, but then what? Assuming you password protect it - like most people do - how is the cop going to get a warrant from a judge to allow an IT guy to unlock the iPhone of a guy who was stopped for a broken headlight?

For WHAT are they searching? Originally Posted by ExNYer

They have your phone. It's up to you to get it back. You could refuse to surrender it. What they are searching for may be irrelevant. Again, they may let you on your way, they may haul you in for additional questioning. I believe we are saying much the same things. I agree you should stand up for what you believe is right. I'm just pointing out the reality of a possible situation.

He needs to consult with his "attorney friend" prior to responding. Originally Posted by bigtex

Good advice. Try it sometime.

Oh, I forgot. "AIRBORNE"!!!!