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

[poopgiggle]

Yeah... I had a pastor who referred to them on a few occasions as the Anti-Christian Liberties Union. He also didn't like Dave Kopel, presumably because of separation of church and state because, from my observations, they agreed on nearly everything else.

this really has nothing to do with what you said I just think it's funny

 

[RidgeHunter]

room 101 for you pal

Underneath the chestnut tree poopiggle sold me and poopgiggle sold ye.

 

[vvvvvvv]

This is the exact reason the courts have allowed use of the GPS monitor without a warrant.

Michael Brown

Negative.

Travel on a public road can be monitored just as easily by public surveillance. It's simply more economical to use a GPS radio.

The question regarding GPS surveillance in United States v. Maynard is how much data constitutes a search, because the individual data points are not considered a search, or if mosaic theory can even exist in Fourth Amendment law.

 

[Glocktogo]

If we are only allowing equipment to leave the station that has a low potential for abuse, would you extend that logic to other devices and not allow the TASER, PR-24, OC spray, digital cameras, MDT's etc. on the street?

Red Herring

Everyone wants a large portion of people want a warrant for these. If they are mobile, in a vehicle how would the Carroll exception not apply? There is absolutely zero reports of misuse in the articles, perhaps I'm not wearing enough tin foil to see it? No one has stated these have been used on "routine" traffic stops. A handful of people have stated they would destroy their phones before handing them over. If you did that, you would most likely create additional criminal charges.

Like I said, this is not a piece of emergency equipment. It's an investigative tool with the potential for abuse. That doesn't mean it has or will be abused, but there's a growing distrust of government in this country. Abuses happen every day and the LE agency's request for a half million dollars to look at the data isn't something that engenders trust. With public authority comes responsibility and accountability. if you don't like it, there are other lines of work.

This is the exact reason the courts have allowed use of the GPS monitor without a warrant.

Michael Brown

I'm not sure how the absence of a piece of paper makes a GPS tracking device less detectable?

 

[Norman]

When did I say anything about not being accountable? I said that I believe not allowing a valid piece of useful equipment into the field because it has a "potential for abuse" is asinine. I will stand by that statment. I'm glad the administrators had the sack to do what they believed is right, and is within the law. Is your beef that they have the tool in the car, or that they're going to charge a half a million for the records? There was not a single allocation of misconduct in the article. Conversely (another red herring to follow) the TSA is still using body scanners (which IMO have a potential for abuse and should not be used under normal circumstances), and iirc the caught someone masturbating to the images shortly after the devices were actively used.

Again I will ask, what about the Carroll exception in refference to this?

 

[donner]

funny, i'm sure there are those that would argue a national gun registry would also be a 'valid piece of useful equipment' despite it's potential for abuse.

If this thing is so vital and so important, why is it wrong to require law enforcement to get a warrant before using it? Sure, it may take a bit of time, but if the probably cause is so strong that they need to look at someone's cell phone, surely they could hold them long enough to get a warrant.

Why is it wrong to ask the government to prove why it needs something that has this much potential for abuse? Why must we wait until abuse has occurred before we are allowed to question why the government doesn't need a warrant to spy on us?

Also, where is the line? Can they search out laptops while we are stopped? How much intrusion is allowable before it becomes too much?

What valid reason, aside from seeing if someone was breaking the law by texting/talking while driving, is there to search a person's cell phone? And again, if it's a valid enough reason, why can't they get a warrant first? I shouldn't have to prove why my rights should be protected. The government should always have to show why it wants to infringe upon them.

 

[Norman]

funny, i'm sure there are those that would argue a national gun registry would also be a 'valid piece of useful equipment' despite it's potential for abuse.

If this thing is so vital and so important, why is it wrong to require law enforcement to get a warrant before using it? Sure, it may take a bit of time, but if the probably cause is so strong that they need to look at someone's cell phone, surely they could hold them long enough to get a warrant.

Why is it wrong to ask the government to prove why it needs something that has this much potential for abuse? Why must we wait until abuse has occurred before we are allowed to question why the government doesn't need a warrant to spy on us?

Also, where is the line? Can they search out laptops while we are stopped? How much intrusion is allowable before it becomes too much?

What valid reason, aside from seeing if someone was breaking the law by texting/talking while driving, is there to search a person's cell phone? And again, if it's a valid enough reason, why can't they get a warrant first? I shouldn't have to prove why my rights should be protected. The government should always have to show why it wants to infringe upon them.

Since we are pointing out red herrings, that is what your first paragraph is.

As for your questioning about a warrant, that would be why I brought up the Carroll exception. You could also call it the mobile vehicle exception...etc

 

[LightningCrash]

Since we are pointing out red herrings, that is what your first paragraph is.

As for your questioning about a warrant, that would be why I brought up the Carroll exception. You could also call it the mobile vehicle exception...etc

Just as probable cause to believe that a stolen lawnmower may be found in a garage will not support a warrant to search an upstairs bedroom, probable cause to believe that undocumented aliens are being transported in a van will not justify a warrantless search of a suitcase. (United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798)

 

[beast1989]

+1 for poopgiggle

 

[Hobbes]

If the MSP hasn't been using these devices improperly that's Great. I'm thrilled.

I would like to know why they are demanding more than a half million dollars to comply with a valid FOIA request?

It makes it look like they are stonewalling.