1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Supreme Court to consider whether warrant is needed to seize and search cell phones

Discussion in 'The Dungeon' started by Lawn Dart, Jan 17, 2014.

  1. Lawn Dart

    Lawn Dart Difficult. With a big D.

    Surprise, Surprise, Surprise.


    This is that moment when you expect Judge Camacho to come out with his big ass medallion and a powdered wig to explain why cell phone searches are bad. And it'll have nothing to do with the 4th Amendment.

    I mean, I'm glad the cops were able to bust gangbangers, I guess, but they couldn't formulate a case without getting a warrant for the cell phone? Really?
  2. rk97

    rk97 Well-Known Member

    just password-protect your phone, and they don't have much of a choice...

    They'll either need to get a warrant ordering/requiring that you provide the password, or they'll ask you to sign a form consenting to the search of the phone.

    You'd be surprised how many people will agree, thinking they're smarter than the police.
  3. MadManx

    MadManx Retired for 2013-2014

    I encrypt the txt messages and cell calls that I think need to be encrypted. They can access my phone all they want. lol Also secure wipe the "empty" space on my phone.
  4. Lawn Dart

    Lawn Dart Difficult. With a big D.

    Missing the point. Why does this even need to make it to the Supreme Court? That means its gone through a bunch of lower courts and people keep saying its okay to seize and search cell phones without a warrant.
  5. Lawn Dart

    Lawn Dart Difficult. With a big D.

    By this logic, if I lock my door, it doesn't matter whether they need a warrant to come into my home.

    Make no mistake, I'm doing nothing illegal with my cell phone, yet this is still a concern.
  6. panthercity

    panthercity Thread Killa

    IIRC, the appeals are based on an earlier decision that 'things' on one's person may be searched.

    i.e. pants pockets, cigarette packs, wallets, etc.
  7. Newsshooter

    Newsshooter Well-Known Member

    That's exactly right, and searching your phone can be more far reaching than what's in your pockets.
  8. Dave K

    Dave K DaveK über alles!

    "I'm sorry officer, I have nothing to hide but I can not and will not give you my password."

    Get a warrant, copper! :D
  9. ryoung57

    ryoung57 Off his meds

    Part of me wants to do this just to see how far it would go. I'll even "clench" while being interrogated. It's all part of my retirement plan:D
  10. Dave K

    Dave K DaveK über alles!

    Well, if a cop tries using the "Well, I smell alcohol" as a way to trip you up into a search of your car don't reply "The f@ck you do ya' lying sack of shit." :D
  11. kangasj

    kangasj Banned

    LMAO, now that's funny. Why can I see you standing along side the road, butt all clenched, teeth grinding, smashing your butt cheeks together with your hands screaming "NO, YOU ARE NOT LOOKING INTO MY ASSHOLE!!!"
  12. Dave K

    Dave K DaveK über alles!

    That's better than being butt naked, face down, ass up yelling "gimme $1.2 Million and you can stick a gopro up my butt!!!"
  13. kangasj

    kangasj Banned

    Why do I have a feeling that's his Plan "B"?
  14. Shyster d'Oil

    Shyster d'Oil Gerard Frommage

    This. Dave, I'm running out of Clorox wipes. Stop being sensible. :D

    But here's a question: can they hold your phone pending obtaining a warrant? I think not, but if it's evidence. . .

  15. Dave K

    Dave K DaveK über alles!

    No idea, I'm not a lawyer. :D

    An ice age is coming, I'm thinking like and agreeing with Che' Allred. :D
  16. Venom51

    Venom51 John Deere Equipment Expert - Not really

    If I haven't been charged with a crime...what is there evidence of?
  17. sheepofblue

    sheepofblue Well-Known Member

    :stupid: between this and the NSA it is obvious we are losing MAJOR chunks of freedom daily.
  18. TakeItApart

    TakeItApart Oops!

    No different than needed a warrant or order to access the pre-collision data stored in your vehicle's computer system after an accident. Well, except that I doubt my phone could cause severe bodily harm or death if used wrong. Then again, there is the whole drunk dialing dilemma.
  19. BR549

    BR549 Well-Known Member

    Kenny, evidence that a crime has occurred always comes before someone is charged with the crime. How could it be the other way around? Sometimes, there's lots of evidence that a crime occurred, but no one is charged with the crime because the evidence doesn't well enough indicate who committed it. Remember, evidence can be a lot of things. It can be physical evidence, like a smoking gun, or a bloody knife, or it can simply be what people say. Furthermore, if law enforcement has evidence that a crime has occurred and a good reason to believe that an object (car, house, cell phone) contains more evidence of the crime, then it can seize the object in an effort to preserve the potential evidence and petition a court for a warrant to search the object. That "good reason to believe" can be a lot of things, too, and whether, or not, it constitutes the probable cause necessary to make the search lawful is up to the judge. If law enforcement gets the warrant, then it can search the object for the evidence. If it doesn't get the warrant, then it must return the object to its owner unless there's a compelling reason not to. At least, that's the way it's supposed to be.
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2014
  20. Mongo

    Mongo Administrator

    Evidence before charging sure, but evidence before any indication of a crime? Not so much.

Share This Page