close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Cops can read phone texts, set text traps

Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by TBO, Jul 5, 2012.


  1. TBO

    TBO
    Expand Collapse
    Why so serious?
    CLM
    1. The Outpost Lounge

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    43,282
    12,386
    Location:
    3500 Cedar Ave S. Minneapolis, MN 55407
  2. Gun Shark

    Gun Shark
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2005
    6,293
    732
    Location:
    Florida
    My phone is locked so does that mean that they would need to get a warrant for my phone? I'm not personally worried about it, that said. I dissagree completely with that decision and think that this will go all the way to the Supreme Court of the land.
     

  3. DOC44

    DOC44
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    15,553
    4,473
    Location:
    in my recliner
    and who knows which way that loose cannon will fire:rofl::upeyes:

    Doc44
     
  4. G17Jake

    G17Jake
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2002
    6,092
    273
    OMG..... 2 bad 4 us
     
  5. Syclone538

    Syclone538
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    2,086
    0
    Pretty clear to me.

    That's the problem with "expectation of privacy", if you live in a police state then you have none.
     
  6. G17Jake

    G17Jake
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2002
    6,092
    273
    What does the privacy policy say?
     
  7. CAcop

    CAcop
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2002
    19,465
    2,165
    Location:
    California
    Courts have been consistently ruling texts and phone logs are free game search incident to arrest. Of course the closer to the arrest the more likely it will hold up.

    When it comes to email, internet history, and other searches they want a warrant.

    In the end if a warrant is neccessary for any search it will esseintally become routine to take phones as evidence, obtain a warrant, and then search. Cell warrants aren't that hard, at least the way I do them, it is more of a time issue. Of course once we get a warrant everything is free game.
     
  8. Stubudd

    Stubudd
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2008
    5,692
    108
    Location:
    Kennesaw GA
    :supergrin:
     
  9. Brucev

    Brucev
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2009
    9,189
    5
    Hum... predictable. The law&order pure bloods justify any procedure regardless of how it violates the clear intent of the COTUS. And, predictably... those who value the clear intent of the COTUS decry such invasive procedures. Predictable. Entirely predictable. The one difference is... those who would prize the COTUS over the convenience of police/prosecutors do so out of a genuine concern for the rights of all Americans under the COTUS. Those who would allow any procedure in the name of law&order are so concerned to protect society from crime real or imagined, that they are willing to see the COTUS violated and society damaged... all in the name of law&order.
     
  10. Goaltender66

    Goaltender66
    Expand Collapse
    NRA GoldenEagle

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2000
    5,169
    1
    Location:
    Under the cultural penumbra of DC
    Before everyone gets all bent out of shape over privacy concerns and invoking the COTUS, let's look at the actual fact situation:

    Not seeing how anything was violated. The police were certainly allowed to look through Lee's cell phone. The tactic of sending a text from Lee's phone to Roden is also allowed. The search of Roden's phone was allowed since Roden met up with the police for the purpose of scoring some smack and was arrested.

    How does this "violate the clear intent of the COTUS?" What was unreasonable about any of the searches of the cell phones?
     
  11. series1811

    series1811
    Expand Collapse
    Enforcerator.
    CLM

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2003
    11,385
    14
    Location:
    Retired, but not expired.
    That's not the only thing that is predictable.
     
  12. 71Commander

    71Commander
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2004
    1,248
    3
    Location:
    Tennessee & Michigan
    I love the irony.:tongueout:
     
  13. DOC44

    DOC44
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    15,553
    4,473
    Location:
    in my recliner
    I see what you did:rofl:

    Doc44
     
  14. Brucev

    Brucev
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2009
    9,189
    5
    Not seeing how anything was violated. The police were certainly allowed to look through Lee's cell phone. The tactic of sending a text from Lee's phone to Roden is also allowed. The search of Roden's phone was allowed since Roden met up with the police for the purpose of scoring some smack and was arrested.

    How does this "violate the clear intent of the COTUS?" What was unreasonable about any of the searches of the cell phones?

    If you can't see it, then you need to go to the eye doctor because you are blind as a bat.
     
  15. Goaltender66

    Goaltender66
    Expand Collapse
    NRA GoldenEagle

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2000
    5,169
    1
    Location:
    Under the cultural penumbra of DC
    If you can't explain it then perhaps it's not as clear cut as you're presenting.

    Seriously. Point out how it's repugnant to the COTUS to search the effects of someone under arrest. What, specifically, in this situation goes against the clear intent of the COTUS?
     
  16. CAcop

    CAcop
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2002
    19,465
    2,165
    Location:
    California
    You know who benefits the most from the exceptions to the 4th amendment?

    Judges.

    If they didn't carve out the exceptions we would have to wake one up every time we detained or arrested a person or stopped a vehicle and saw contraband in plain sight or observed a crime in progress inside a home. In fact it might happen so often judges would have to ride along with each officer. The constitution is not, nor was it meant to be absolutely literal.

    So get off the cross we need the wood.

    Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
     
  17. RWBlue

    RWBlue
    Expand Collapse
    Mr. CISSP, CISA
    CLM

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2004
    23,514
    822
    Maybe I am missing something, but here goes.

    Cops grab drug dealer.
    They arrest drug dealer.
    Drug dealer either co-operates or cops get warrant for accessing phone.
    Cops send message from phone to druggy.
    Cops receive message from druggy.


    I don't see this as a violation of search and censure laws.
    But it may be entrapment.

    They also don't know that the druggy sent the message.
    So the guy shows up to pick up his drugs the deal must go through. So you have him.


    One more thing, who was billed for the messages sent from the drug dealers phone?
     
    #17 RWBlue, Jul 6, 2012
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2012
  18. RWBlue

    RWBlue
    Expand Collapse
    Mr. CISSP, CISA
    CLM

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2004
    23,514
    822
    Are you claiming that the digital information in a phone or computer is in plain sight?
     
  19. Sam Spade

    Sam Spade
    Expand Collapse
    Lifetime Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2003
    14,744
    1,980
    Plain sight is irrelevant in a search incident to arrest. That's why we get to take your wallet out of your pocket, and your stolen credit cards out of your wallet.

    ETA: generic "you", of course.
     
    #19 Sam Spade, Jul 6, 2012
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2012
  20. Blankshooter

    Blankshooter
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    116
    0
    I deffinately don't see it as a violation of privacy in any way, but i do see it as a form of identity theft. The cops using the phone is not the problem, but the cops using the phone to knowingly acting as someone else is what I would see as wrong.

    The article compared it to leaving a voicemail, but a voicemail would be different in multiple ways. A call is more likely to possibly be someone different than who the number is listed to, the voice alone would be an identifier, and it would be illegal for the police to claim to be (insert drug dealer name here). By sending a text without indentifying themselves as someone else, they knew the buyer would assume it was the dealer.

    I can see it going either way, but it is a little sketchy. I mean if you walked into the police chiefs office and asked to use his computer then sent an email from his open account, chances are the person on the other end would assume you were the police chief. A little more extreme, but ideally the same action.


    Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine