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

[beast1989]

Since its not illegal i would pull mine out during a traffic stop so me and the officer could swap cell information. Then my Cops Gone Wild video would be on shelves in 3 days tops.

 

[donner]

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

And the argument that anything should go until abuse is proven is also just a useless. My point is that you can justify just about anything if you can prove that it's being done in the name of safety. That is the problem. Just because something can be done by the government, doesn't mean it should be allowed without question. Any time the government wants to do something that bumps up against a person's rights, the government should always have to prove why it's needed, not the other way around. The Carroll exception is based on the idea that you have less expectation of privacy in a vehicle because you can easily see into it. As far as i know police can't require you to hand over your phone for search on the street and yet the phone could be just as visible in that instance.

You still haven't given me an answer as to why, if something is so important on my cell phone, i can't be detained while a warrant is issued. I'm still curious what kind of information the police could want/get from a cell phone that would be of much value.

Carroll wasn't meant for this sort of thing. It's a abuse of the spirit of the ruling and is dangerous because cell phone don't just limit themselves to what is physically in the car, such as drugs or other illegal things. Cell phone have access to information that may belong to businesses, employers, financial documents, or other such things that aren't physically in the car, which Carroll was meant to address.

 

[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.

In U.S. vs. Garcia (one of the Circuit Court rulings on vehicle tracking devices, not shipments) among the reasons the courts cited for the device not constituting a search or seizure was that if it was located, it could be removed without penalty, so I'm not sure how "negative" it is........

Whether it is more economical or convenient has nothing to do with my statement.

Michael Brown

 

[Michael Brown]

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

It doesn't.

What I said was that courts have allowed the devices on vehicles without a warrant because they can be removed without penalty if detected.

Michael Brown

 

[Glocktogo]

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 statement. 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 reference to this?

In order for your comparison to be valid, you'd have to drop your silly reference to lifesaving equipment and compare it to something a little more alike. So along those lines, do you believe that patrol officers should carry wiretapping equipment in their units?

As for the Carroll exception, what about it? Where does a cell phone equate to a vehicle? Does it have wheels? Are they registered to drive on public roads? Of course not! Further, where is your PC to search a cell phone for criminal acts during a routine traffic stop? Did you see child porn on the phone when you approached the car? Did you see the phone number of a known drug dealer on the phone?

My beef isn't with the tool, it's with using a tool that's of limited moral and/or legal use as a crutch for sloppy police work. Want a case? Do the legwork. And my beef is definitely with the state wanting a half mil to provide FOIA information. In no way is that even remotely kosher. If you can't comply with a FOIA request for a reasonable fee, that isn't a tool you have any business having regardless of it's usefulness. If that fee is allowed to stand and malfeasance IS uncovered, the punitive damages against the state should be increased tenfold.

You seem to have a real issue with the scrutiny of LE using this equipment. Do you use one or want to use one? What specifically do you see as the routine use for this equipment in a patrol unit? Please elaborate.

Again with the red herring arguments. This thread has nothing to do with the TSA. If you want to discuss that, go to one of the many TSA threads. The topic here is cell phone extraction devices used during traffic stops. Try to stay on topic here please.

 

[Glocktogo]

It doesn't.

What I said was that courts have allowed the devices on vehicles without a warrant because they can be removed without penalty if detected.

Michael Brown

That makes sense. IIRC, the one issue I've seen with the removal of one didn't have to do with interference, but the subject's refusal to return the device when the LE agency demanded it's return.

 

[Glocktogo]

Since its not illegal i would pull mine out during a traffic stop so me and the officer could swap cell information. Then my Cops Gone Wild video would be on shelves in 3 days tops.

Excellent rebuttal. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Unfortunately, in some states law enforcement has decided they have more rights than the citizens they rule. IIRC, Michigan is one of those states ( http://www.rcfp.org/taping/ ). I'm sure they would take exception to citizens extracting information from their cell phones, just as they do recording law enforcement actions.

 

[doctorjj]

It doesn't.

What I said was that courts have allowed the devices on vehicles without a warrant because they can be removed without penalty if detected.

Michael Brown

I strongly disagree with that reasoning for allowing the GPS to be placed. That type of teasing could be extended to devices that bug your home or phone. Those devices aren't performing search or seizure, but just listening and or watching. And what's wrong with that as long as the person can remove it if detected without penalty??? It's a very slippery slope.

 

[Michael Brown]

I strongly disagree with that reasoning for allowing the GPS to be placed. That type of teasing could be extended to devices that bug your home or phone. Those devices aren't performing search or seizure, but just listening and or watching. And what's wrong with that as long as the person can remove it if detected without penalty??? It's a very slippery slope.

Disagree or not, it's part of the court's reasoning, not my own.

As with many things I post here, I try to offer the "rules of the road" but I do not make them.

Michael Brown

 

[Norman]

In order for your comparison to be valid, you'd have to drop your silly reference to lifesaving equipment and compare it to something a little more alike. So along those lines, do you believe that patrol officers should carry wiretapping equipment in their units?

As for the Carroll exception, what about it? Where does a cell phone equate to a vehicle? Does it have wheels? Are they registered to drive on public roads? Of course not! Further, where is your PC to search a cell phone for criminal acts during a routine traffic stop? Did you see child porn on the phone when you approached the car? Did you see the phone number of a known drug dealer on the phone?

My beef isn't with the tool, it's with using a tool that's of limited moral and/or legal use as a crutch for sloppy police work. Want a case? Do the legwork. And my beef is definitely with the state wanting a half mil to provide FOIA information. In no way is that even remotely kosher. If you can't comply with a FOIA request for a reasonable fee, that isn't a tool you have any business having regardless of it's usefulness. If that fee is allowed to stand and malfeasance IS uncovered, the punitive damages against the state should be increased tenfold.

You seem to have a real issue with the scrutiny of LE using this equipment. Do you use one or want to use one? What specifically do you see as the routine use for this equipment in a patrol unit? Please elaborate.

Again with the red herring arguments. This thread has nothing to do with the TSA. If you want to discuss that, go to one of the many TSA threads. The topic here is cell phone extraction devices used during traffic stops. Try to stay on topic here please.

I would have no issue with patrol officers carrying wiretapping equipmet, if they have room for it in their vehicle. They use of the equipment would and is governed by case law, and policy and procedures. Maybe I'm not paranoid enough, but I do not fear technology. If you don't like the use of this device to aide in compiling a case that's fine, whenever you work the street you can build your cases without it. I don't believe that a specific tool should be unavailabe because someone thinks it cuts out the 'leg work'.

In reference to the Carroll exception, if you have PC for searching a car for a violation of say, trafficing, possession with intent, etc or if you're search under the carroll exception leads you to reasonably believe such a violation exists would you typically also search the phone as a ledger of contacts? I'd say that training and expierence would lead you to believe that most low/mid/high level dealers as well as trafficers uses their cell phones as ledgers, callenders and communication devices in furthering their crime. If this is true, and US v Ross states that you have the same scope with Carroll as you would with a search warrant, why would you not use a device such as this.

I have not, nor will I most likely ever use one of these. I do think that can be a useful tool, especially when working interdiction. Also I believe that it is funny the amount of paranoia that is running rampant. At no point did it say these were being used during "routine" traffic stops. Is it entirely possible the are being used in a criminal interdiction manner? Yes. If I was going out on a limb I'd say that's what they're being used for.