Reclassify American citizen as potential terrorist threat and that whole telco can of worms is set aside. People really need to sit down and realize how far this country has regressed by simply being conned into subservience both internally and internationally.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Warrantless Cellphone Search Is Legal In California
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
Phoenix333
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2009
- Messages
- 3,510
He got busted for buying meth from a cop, and then they searched him and his phone. Even if the case went the other way, the next time they busted someone they'd just get a court order that would be approved since he was buying meth from a cop, and it would get searched anyway. Same end result down the line as far as those arrested are concerned. The lesson here is: Don't buy meth from cops, and don't do drugs in the first place and you won't have to worry about getting busted for it. All the people citing privacy implications: I do agree that no warrant searches are not good. My point is that if this guy hadn't been a dope head this case wouldn't have even existed to cause this problem in the first place.
hehe - friggin cops ;-)
Yeah, God forbid a cop should actually arrest a meth dealer in the act. He was already a criminal just by his acts alone. He was already too gone to really make an iota of differences whether he was searched or not.
Sensationalize less, hmm?
He's overreacting to my clarification regarding what wouldn't fly. The whole TSP issue is that "Oh god, we're all potential terrorist *insert dumb logic here*" despite the fact the program is judicially reviewed by actual federal judges who preside over our nation's federal courts all over the country.
I love law enforcement threads - lack of knowledge and a distrust/hatred for police seem to go hand in hand.
I don't have an issue with this, as the subject is already under arrest. A search warrant for the cell phone wouldn't be difficult to get in this case anyway.
I don't have an issue with this, as the subject is already under arrest. A search warrant for the cell phone wouldn't be difficult to get in this case anyway.
Incorrect. Research "Terry v Ohio" to learn what a terry frisk really is.
fattypants
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2010
- Messages
- 3,284
If we're going to err, we'll err on the side of freedom. It has nothing to do with lack of knowledge.
Then why didn't they get it? I guess "shoot first and ask questions later", or maybe "forgiveness is easier to get than permission" is how we run our police forces these days.
"A guy wanted to get high" just doesn't seem to be a good enough justification for me to agree to piss on the constitution. Different strokes, I guess...
Runningflame570
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2008
- Messages
- 493
I'd want them to get a warrant.
The old, "Think of the children!" appeal to emotion remains as invalid as ever. Why shouldn't the police have to get a warrant?
Sure, but opinions aside, the law says drugs are illegal. The guy broke the law and he's got what's coming to him. Doesn't matter what you think of the law. It's the law.
If you disagree with a law, get a bunch of people to write to your congressperson to get it repealed. Ignoring the law isn't the way to go about it.
Runningflame570
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2008
- Messages
- 493
There is such a thing as civil disobedience. Unjust laws should not have to be followed. Lets say you had a black girlfriend and Texas decided to pass an anti-miscegenation law (given the way the state has been going, not out of the question).
Would you follow it?
It's not a matter of disagreeing with the law, it's a matter of where are the limits.
SamuraiInBlack
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2003
- Messages
- 5,771
More reason to not move there.
fattypants
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2010
- Messages
- 3,284
The passing of laws kinda loses its meaning when the state supreme court has shown that it will just overrule any propertly laws (to include the constitution) anyway in favor of the police.
fattypants
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2010
- Messages
- 3,284
I mean, yeah the guy broke drug laws, but then the police broke constitutional laws and the state supreme court backed them up. Two wrongs don't make a right.
People seem to think "unreasonable" = "never search"
of course not - I have a Japanese girlfriend and I'm white after all. lol
But there's a fine line between civil disobedience and breaking the law I think. Some politicians may decide that drugs are categorized as dangerous as guns, and murdering people is against the law and not subjected to civil disobedience too. Have to be careful how you protest.
While I understand most of the misinformed nonsense in this thread and many others stems from many posters just regurgitate whatever crap the media or whichever Im not biased biased ass website they get their info from is the norm; the fact of the matter is that most have no idea what their rights are be them Constitutional or Case-Law given.
This is frankly old news and just the California Courts just reiterating what several other Case-laws already state. The whole but it is a Smart Phone so it should be different excuse is bullshit.
The article mentions US v. Edwards and US v. Robinson, but Chimel v. California would also have been sufficient to search the phone. Heres a news flash for any fucktard drug dealers out there, DONT PUT YOUR ILLEGAL DRUG TRANSACTIONS ON YOUR SMARTPHONE, DONT SAVE YOUR IDIOT CLIENTS REQUEST IN YOUR TEXTS AND STOP DENYING THE DRUGS IN YOUR POCKETS ARE YOURS.
That being said, for those that really do want to know their rights, and most case-law actually helps you not the Police, actually read the Constitution and its Amendments and google/bing/whatever case laws I should know.
Here are a few to start out with.
Chimel V. California
Minnesota v. Olsen
US v. Leon
Harris v. US
Terry v. Ohio
Illinois V. Wardlow
Carroll V. US
Maryland V. Wilson
Keep in mind I pulled these off the top of my head and may all not be relevant to this particular issue. Id also recommend learning the difference between Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion.
This is frankly old news and just the California Courts just reiterating what several other Case-laws already state. The whole but it is a Smart Phone so it should be different excuse is bullshit.
The article mentions US v. Edwards and US v. Robinson, but Chimel v. California would also have been sufficient to search the phone. Heres a news flash for any fucktard drug dealers out there, DONT PUT YOUR ILLEGAL DRUG TRANSACTIONS ON YOUR SMARTPHONE, DONT SAVE YOUR IDIOT CLIENTS REQUEST IN YOUR TEXTS AND STOP DENYING THE DRUGS IN YOUR POCKETS ARE YOURS.
That being said, for those that really do want to know their rights, and most case-law actually helps you not the Police, actually read the Constitution and its Amendments and google/bing/whatever case laws I should know.
Here are a few to start out with.
Chimel V. California
Minnesota v. Olsen
US v. Leon
Harris v. US
Terry v. Ohio
Illinois V. Wardlow
Carroll V. US
Maryland V. Wilson
Keep in mind I pulled these off the top of my head and may all not be relevant to this particular issue. Id also recommend learning the difference between Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion.
D
Deleted member 222586
Guest
What kind of age of consent do you have?
Brilliant, so know buying drugs is something ilegal, luckily such bullshit is not here
Mmmm everything? How is related to buy some weed to have your house searched? Jeeeez, such a ton of bullshit.
fattypants
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2010
- Messages
- 3,284
Unless the officer witnessed the phone being used in the commission of a crime, he should obtain a warrant to read through the man's personal communications. Had he monitored the guy's texts covertly, he would have to obtain a warrant, so he should most certainly need a warrant to monitor his texts openly.
If you were pulled over and were charged with speeding, you'd be pretty indignant if a cop was allowed to pop open your trunk, remove your seats, and bring in a dog to sniff through your car.
Which would be true if had not been lawfully arrested. They did not snatch the idiots cellphone, see he had texts relating to drugs and then arrest him. They arrested him for drugs and found the cell on his person, allowing them to proceed without a warrant.
The same would apply to a traffic stop, if you were caught speeding and pulled over, your rights to search, seizure and the 4th amendment apply (minus the plain sight rule) and your car can not be searched without your express permission. However, if you get pulled over for speeding, and when your license is ran and you come back with a warrant, then yes your car can legally be searched as you have been lawfully arrested.
Ocellaris
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2008
- Messages
- 19,077
Except for that fact that would be a huge waste of time for the cop, unless you gave them a reason to search your car... But I guess some of us live in a tin foil hat world, where any interaction with law enforcement will end with jail time, a strip search, and the cops will sit around and look at nudes of your girlfriends.
This guy was arrested for buying drugs and denied buying the drugs. Then he resorted to the old "Oh these aren't MY drugs" defense. By some people's logic, I guess he should have just gone free at that point. Except he had more evidence on him, and the phone provided the text message needed to make the criminal admit the crime.
That's quite the leap, from buying drugs to speeding. I'm pretty damn libertarian in my ideas about personal freedom and even I have trouble equating the two.
Phoenix333
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2009
- Messages
- 3,510
Brilliant, so know buying drugs is something ilegal, luckily such bullshit is not here
Where is "here", exactly?
How typical, figures out this would be in Thousand Oaks. Or Thousand Jokes as it's known, neighbor to Slimy Valley. TOSD has got some of the fucking stupidest cops known to man.
They let sensitive patient data leave right under their watch from my old boss/job after a bad business breakup with a management company.... Almost fell for the [guy that actually stole computers when cop was there] "I'm the manager here, they [aka me and the doc] broke in on the weekend, stole data" line. 1) Lease in my old bosses name, 2) HIS FUCKING NAME (was, now) on the door w/ a 12 sqft sign ffs, 3) I wasn't within 30 miles of the location at the time. The management company's nurse also stole surgery log books, training manuals, possibly crash cart drugs if memory serves at the same time (belonging to MY boss, not them).
In short, way off-topic here, but goes to show that T.O. Sheriff's don't know how to do basic police work, figures they'd get away with this kind of crap. They shouldn't be able to search a phone without a warrant, but the problem here is he kinda gave up most of his rights when he got popped. Delete incriminating evidence, sheesh.
They let sensitive patient data leave right under their watch from my old boss/job after a bad business breakup with a management company.... Almost fell for the [guy that actually stole computers when cop was there] "I'm the manager here, they [aka me and the doc] broke in on the weekend, stole data" line. 1) Lease in my old bosses name, 2) HIS FUCKING NAME (was, now) on the door w/ a 12 sqft sign ffs, 3) I wasn't within 30 miles of the location at the time. The management company's nurse also stole surgery log books, training manuals, possibly crash cart drugs if memory serves at the same time (belonging to MY boss, not them).
In short, way off-topic here, but goes to show that T.O. Sheriff's don't know how to do basic police work, figures they'd get away with this kind of crap. They shouldn't be able to search a phone without a warrant, but the problem here is he kinda gave up most of his rights when he got popped. Delete incriminating evidence, sheesh.
Ocean
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2003
- Messages
- 4,927
to seems reasonable to be searched for proof of those same illegal activities after you have been arrested for those illegal activities.
letters from mom, notes, fingerprints, gunshot powder residue, credit card receipts, explosive residues, chemical weapons residue, all take a little bit of science and engineering and physics to turn into evidence against you -whether it is unfolding a note, testing a residue, browsing a phone, browsing a wallet. i cant really see the unconstitutional side unless your phone is password protected.
you can probably get arrested in arizona for looking like a mexican ... er, i mean ...suspected of committing the felony act of being an illegal immigrant... and that is closer to being anticonstitutional than this.
letters from mom, notes, fingerprints, gunshot powder residue, credit card receipts, explosive residues, chemical weapons residue, all take a little bit of science and engineering and physics to turn into evidence against you -whether it is unfolding a note, testing a residue, browsing a phone, browsing a wallet. i cant really see the unconstitutional side unless your phone is password protected.
you can probably get arrested in arizona for looking like a mexican ... er, i mean ...suspected of committing the felony act of being an illegal immigrant... and that is closer to being anticonstitutional than this.
I've no idea why the hell people call it a law, there is no law, they are freaking rules.
why you might ask? simple, because you make mistake you get punished every time, they make mistake, they don't always get punished, sometimes the decision is ruled in their favor by simple mean of saying "They are just doing their jobs, and mistakes does happens, that what makes them human." I don't have any problem with that as i make lots of mistake and some of might offend the law (even though they are not illegal)
I say this because i've friends who are cops, and they do go over the speed limit just to get somewhere in hurry where it's better to be early but not required to be there early. (yes using their cop cars and turning on their lights just to get in front/go through red signals, and this has been done while i was riding with them to get somewhere which was not in regards to the law)
This is something that is necessary but not required.
you don't always get ticket for speeding, you only get ticket for speeding when you are caught.
why you might ask? simple, because you make mistake you get punished every time, they make mistake, they don't always get punished, sometimes the decision is ruled in their favor by simple mean of saying "They are just doing their jobs, and mistakes does happens, that what makes them human." I don't have any problem with that as i make lots of mistake and some of might offend the law (even though they are not illegal)
I say this because i've friends who are cops, and they do go over the speed limit just to get somewhere in hurry where it's better to be early but not required to be there early. (yes using their cop cars and turning on their lights just to get in front/go through red signals, and this has been done while i was riding with them to get somewhere which was not in regards to the law)
This is something that is necessary but not required.
you don't always get ticket for speeding, you only get ticket for speeding when you are caught.
fixed.
You're "pretty damn libertarian" but you believe that buying drugs is worse than speeding? One can produce harm to the person whereas the other can produce harm to others and your preference is for the latter rather than the former? ok
The use of drugs couldn't possibly have an effect on the mind, which couldn't possibly lead to harm of other people: robbing elderly ladies($60), armed robbery of pizza deliverers(pizza and $20), stabbing your neighbor 100 times for $20 so you can get another fix, execution-style murder for drug money(yield $0), or killing your lifelong best friend when you wreck your car and his body happens to exit through the sunroof. I'm familiar with all of these cases and more.
Drugs most certainly only effect the user.
Yes I do. The car wreck I mentioned with the guy going through the sunroof - that was a friend of mine that killed his best friend. I was the one who got to lock him up that night, and also the one that prepped him when he was transported to prison.
Alcohol is a drug, the only difference being that it is legal.
Alcohol is a drug, the only difference being that it is legal.
well that's what he's talking about here...the fact that drugs should be illegal and speeding isn't a big deal to him...not even comparable according to him. So what exactly are you even jumping in to argue? That drugs (alcohol included) should be illegal? You're just being ridiculous if you're trying to argue the libertarian platform is one that supports prohibition. That's the person I quoted, so if you aren't arguing that then stfu because you're jumping in the middle of something that doesn't involve you.
See what I did there? I used a QUOTE, referencing the exact comment that I am responding to. You did not, therefore I had no idea what your comment was in response to.
If this only involves you and one other party, then why don't you keep it to PM. If you bring your discussion into a public discussion forum, then expect someone else to jump in when they find your comments to be absurd.
D
Deleted member 222586
Guest
You see, I have a problem with that. You separate drugs based on the legality of them and not how by hazardous they are. There goes your first mistake.
Second, I have absolutely no problem with people taking drugs. You never take alcohol? Nor coffee? Nor meds? Some cocaine once a year is not a problem at all, and the same could be applied for most of the drugs. Because when you start punishing people that BUY drugs, instead of letting them be (I bet rich people take whatever they want and have 1/9999 the problems normal people have. Well, In fact, I know it, as I tend to work with high-society people) you are getting in the middle of somebodies private life. Of course, selling is a different thing, and so is taking drugs on the streets...but I couldn't care less If somebody likes to powder his nose once in a while, as long as he does what he is supposed to do...why not?
And look: in California they are talking (maybe the law passed, dunno) about making weed legal. Guess its not that hazardous after all
PS: a cop should have the authority to stop anybody whenever he things fit, and ask for ID. I don't see a problem with a cop stopping me and searching me because he things it fit. The same should be applied for ones car: if they think I have drugs in my car, and they bring a dog, I have no problem whatsoever. But hey, my house is my house, and into it I can do whatever I want unless Im disturbing my neighbours.
Zoson
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2001
- Messages
- 6,113
This issue needs to be stripped down to its core:
1. This law does not allow police to just stop you and search your shit.
2. This law allows police to search your electronic devices after you have been arrested. (problem)
3. It allows them to use anything they find to prosecute you for NEW issues, not just the reason why you were arrested. (bigger problem)
Anyway. @prava: your car is your car and your body is your body. Why can't you do whatever you want with those unless you're disturbing your neighbors?
1. This law does not allow police to just stop you and search your shit.
2. This law allows police to search your electronic devices after you have been arrested. (problem)
3. It allows them to use anything they find to prosecute you for NEW issues, not just the reason why you were arrested. (bigger problem)
Anyway. @prava: your car is your car and your body is your body. Why can't you do whatever you want with those unless you're disturbing your neighbors?