Your Cell Phone Searched During A Routine Traffice Stop, Without A Search Warrant

[SMS]

I routinely agree with you on most things, but I'm not sure I do here. Sure it's a viable LE tool, but I don't think they should be in patrol cars on regular shift duty. Too much risk of inappropriate use. These should only be leaving the station with a warrant in hand IMO.

Sure enough, regular patrol use is questionable.

What I'm getting at is we should all slow down on pushing the JBT alarm button. The title of the thread and source article indicates these devices are being used without warrants during routine stops yet that has not been established, and some of the loonies are already acting as if it has. It's misleading.

Sure the ACLU has asked the question, but that's kind of like "When did you stop beating your wife Senator"...it presupposes something that has not been established as fact.

So, has anyone or any agency, group, whatever come forward to state that these have been used during routine stops?

(and I put my unwarranted GPS tracking device on my kids school bus!)

 

[Roadking Larry]

I don't know why people are upset about this kind of thing. The founding fathers never imagined cell phones so couldn't possibly have meant for them to be protected under the 4th amendment.

 

[Perplexed]

No kidding ... and you kids want to know why I keep my old phone that only rings and takes voice mail ...

Why stop there? Why not go back to phones with cords and wall plates, and a pencil and note pad for "voice mail"? Honestly, I don't know how we survived those days

 

[LightningCrash]

I don't know why people are upset about this kind of thing. The founding fathers never imagined cell phones so couldn't possibly have meant for them to be protected under the 4th amendment.

and it's not like you need a cell phone that big anyway.


Seems like the title is jumping the gun, but it will be interesting to see what the ACLU finds out. The fact that the police asked for half a mil to comply with a FOIA request doesn't help things.
It's almost like the "I'm going to have to wake a judge up to sign a warrant" thing in reverse.

 

[Bierhunter]

I think the whole "viable tool for LE" thing was misunderstood. It is a viable tool. I use similar things in my line of work. The key is how it's used. These types of tools need to be used "legally". I don't touch phones unless I have a consent form from the owner, or it's given to me as evidence in a case with all the legal paper trails. If I was LE, I wouldn't dream of seizing phone data during a routine traffic stop. I don't know what Michigan's laws are, but I'm glad I don't live there anymore.

It'll be interesting to see how the story turns out.

 

[dutchwrangler]

More bandaid remedies that don't solve the root problems and only infringe on the rights of those who abide by the law. Give the government an inch (or tool), and they will abuse it and use it against us. Safe and secure... that's all most people want these days. Damn freedom and liberty.

 

[HMFIC]

When I read the article, my first thought was that it was going to be used to provide evidence to cite people for texting while driving.

 

[dutchwrangler]

Although not related to this thread in particular, it's a wonder Michigan still exists and they're spending money on gadgets...

http://detnews.com/article/20090402...--Eight-year-population-exodus-staggers-state


The company I drove for up until a few months ago had a terminal on the south end of Detroit for loads going to Canada. I'd get up there almost weekly. Each week it seemed that more stores in the area were shutting down. I was amazed by the number of places that were closed and empty. I've never seen anything like it in any other part of the US. Detroit is becoming a ghost town.

 

[sanjuro893]

When I read the article, my first thought was that it was going to be used to provide evidence to cite people for texting while driving.

That's what I originally thought too.

 

[vvvvvvv]

The people searched must have been criminals because the ACLU only defends criminals.

Even then, such a device would arguably be an unconstitutional search even under arrest rather than a traffic stop.

Searches of a closed container incidental to an arrest can only be conducted to reasonably target the object of the search. For example, a reasonable suspicion of trafficking illegal aliens does not mean that an officer can search a suitcase unless that suitcase could reasonably hold a human and feels heavy enough to reasonably contain a human.

Likewise, searching a phone as a closed container is limited to searching for evidence directly related to a specific criminal offense. For example, if an officer sets up a drug buy via text message, then the phone can only be searched for that specific text message that proves the communication. However, society places a higher expectation of privacy on communication, so just because text messages or phone calls could have been used in a crime does not make a search compliant with the Fourth Amendment. Use of a device to indiscriminately access all data on a phone also accesses privileged information (such as confidential client-lawyer communications) that most certainly requires a specific warrant to obtain even when arrested for an alleged crime.