RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Police Given Direct Line To Cell Phone Searches

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
vanyogan



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 9673



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/07/12 11:28 am    ::: Police Given Direct Line To Cell Phone Searches Reply Reply with quote

Quote:
DALLAS (CBSDFW.COM) – Think about all the personal information we keep in our cell phones: It’s something to consider after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit ruled it is now legal for police to search cell phones without a warrant.

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/03/06/police-given-direct-line-to-cell-phone-searches/



TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 3687
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/07/12 12:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

So, if you're ever picked up in a drug bust and have your cell phone with you, the police may search it for additional evidence? Is that an "unwarranted" (pun intended) invasion of privacy?



_________________
This I command you, love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.
bballjunkee212



Joined: 07 Nov 2004
Posts: 1879



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/07/12 7:26 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

It's a search incident to arrest. That has long been an exception to the rule of no search without warrant.

But it's also the next step in warrantless searches based on suspicion.



_________________
~Bill
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 44223
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/07/12 7:48 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

TonyL222 wrote:
So, if you're ever picked up in a drug bust and have your cell phone with you, the police may search it for additional evidence? Is that an "unwarranted" (pun intended) invasion of privacy?


The "war on drugs" itself is an invasion of privacy



_________________
Drum on your drums, batter on your banjos, sob on the long cool winding saxophones. Go to it, O jazzmen.
TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 3687
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/07/12 7:53 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
TonyL222 wrote:
So, if you're ever picked up in a drug bust and have your cell phone with you, the police may search it for additional evidence? Is that an "unwarranted" (pun intended) invasion of privacy?


The "war on drugs" itself is an invasion of privacy


Meaning what? Seriously, I don't follow. How is it an invasion of privacy and how does that relate to this story?



_________________
This I command you, love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 44223
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/07/12 7:59 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

TonyL222 wrote:
pilight wrote:
TonyL222 wrote:
So, if you're ever picked up in a drug bust and have your cell phone with you, the police may search it for additional evidence? Is that an "unwarranted" (pun intended) invasion of privacy?


The "war on drugs" itself is an invasion of privacy


Meaning what? Seriously, I don't follow. How is it an invasion of privacy and how does that relate to this story?


People should have the right to do what they want with their own bodies. The "war on drugs" violates that right.



_________________
Drum on your drums, batter on your banjos, sob on the long cool winding saxophones. Go to it, O jazzmen.
vanyogan



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 9673



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/07/12 7:59 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Shocking, I know, but I don't actually have an opinion on this one. I'm thinking that the Supreme Court oral arguments might suffice to put me to sleep, oh, 3 months at least!

On the one hand, I don't really see how probable cause for a stop and a pat down should inhibit the obvious with a cell phone. Suppose it's a murder case where someone calls 911, and statistically that someone is a familiar. They may not have the time to wax a phone record. (probably not applicable here but thinking out loud)

On the other hand, imagine a politically motivated investigation. Just to state the obvious.

Interesting indeed, I think anyway.


TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 3687
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/07/12 8:28 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
TonyL222 wrote:
pilight wrote:
TonyL222 wrote:
So, if you're ever picked up in a drug bust and have your cell phone with you, the police may search it for additional evidence? Is that an "unwarranted" (pun intended) invasion of privacy?


The "war on drugs" itself is an invasion of privacy


Meaning what? Seriously, I don't follow. How is it an invasion of privacy and how does that relate to this story?


People should have the right to do what they want with their own bodies. The "war on drugs" violates that right.


This is where the Libertarian view loses me - the right of the individual over the right of society.



_________________
This I command you, love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.
Luuuc



Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 13882



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/07/12 9:29 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

TonyL222 wrote:
pilight wrote:
TonyL222 wrote:
pilight wrote:
TonyL222 wrote:
So, if you're ever picked up in a drug bust and have your cell phone with you, the police may search it for additional evidence? Is that an "unwarranted" (pun intended) invasion of privacy?


The "war on drugs" itself is an invasion of privacy


Meaning what? Seriously, I don't follow. How is it an invasion of privacy and how does that relate to this story?


People should have the right to do what they want with their own bodies. The "war on drugs" violates that right.


This is where the Libertarian view loses me - the right of the individual over the right of society.


I've probably got a foot on either side of the fence when it comes to the topic of drugs, but in this case what aspect of it do you feel is violating the right of society?



_________________
Seems rike no one takes me serirousreee
TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 3687
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/08/12 6:03 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

First, there are lots of details about this case that have been hard to determine from the few news stories. I'm also responding to a very brief post by pilight, and maybe don't get exactly what he means.

That said, it may be a crazy idea of mine, Luuuc, but I think the public's right to protect itself from drug dealers, their suppliers, and the people that use their services sort of trumps the dealers' rights to do he wants with his own body (and the bodies of others).

The preamble of the US Constitution:
Quote:
We the People of the United States,in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


This is a "union" not a collection of indivuals who just happen to be in close proximity.



_________________
This I command you, love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.
Luuuc



Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 13882



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/08/12 6:16 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I can understand that right now, Tony, but it seems like that point of view hinges largely around the fact that dealing drugs is illegal.
What if you could get them legally at Walgreens though?



_________________
Seems rike no one takes me serirousreee
TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 3687
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/08/12 8:11 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Luuuc wrote:
I can understand that right now, Tony, but it seems like that point of view hinges largely around the fact that dealing drugs is illegal.
What if you could get them legally at Walgreens though?


Which drugs are you referring too, Luuc. Marijuana? Meth? Cocaine? Heroin? My POV hinges around the view that some drugs are harmful to society in and of themselves, and thus are illegal.



_________________
This I command you, love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.
Luuuc



Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 13882



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/08/12 8:30 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

TonyL222 wrote:
Luuuc wrote:
I can understand that right now, Tony, but it seems like that point of view hinges largely around the fact that dealing drugs is illegal.
What if you could get them legally at Walgreens though?


Which drugs are you referring too, Luuc. Marijuana? Meth? Cocaine? Heroin? My POV hinges around the view that some drugs are harmful to society in and of themselves, and thus are illegal.

Do you think that marijuana is more harmful to society than alcohol?
What about McDonald's? Would you say it is inherently harmful, but ok to consume occasionally? If so then I think it is comparable with some drugs.



_________________
Seems rike no one takes me serirousreee
TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 3687
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/08/12 9:43 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Luuuc wrote:
TonyL222 wrote:
Luuuc wrote:
I can understand that right now, Tony, but it seems like that point of view hinges largely around the fact that dealing drugs is illegal.
What if you could get them legally at Walgreens though?


Which drugs are you referring too, Luuc. Marijuana? Meth? Cocaine? Heroin? My POV hinges around the view that some drugs are harmful to society in and of themselves, and thus are illegal.


Do you think that marijuana is more harmful to society than alcohol?
What about McDonald's? Would you say it is inherently harmful, but ok to consume occasionally?


No (to the marijana question) and no to McDonalds being inhereantly harmful. ANYTHING can be harmful in excess (vitamins, for example).

Do you think ANY and all drugs should be legal to sell, purchase, and consume as a matter of indivudual choice? Should "controlled" substances be uncontrolled? Should Michael Jackson have been allowed to consume propofol as often and as much as he desired?



_________________
This I command you, love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.
Luuuc



Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 13882



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/08/12 9:53 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

TonyL222 wrote:
Luuuc wrote:
TonyL222 wrote:
Luuuc wrote:
I can understand that right now, Tony, but it seems like that point of view hinges largely around the fact that dealing drugs is illegal.
What if you could get them legally at Walgreens though?


Which drugs are you referring too, Luuc. Marijuana? Meth? Cocaine? Heroin? My POV hinges around the view that some drugs are harmful to society in and of themselves, and thus are illegal.


Do you think that marijuana is more harmful to society than alcohol?
What about McDonald's? Would you say it is inherently harmful, but ok to consume occasionally?


No (to the marijana question) and no to McDonalds being inhereantly harmful. ANYTHING can be harmful in excess (vitamins, for example).

Do you think ANY and all drugs should be legal to sell, purchase, and consume as a matter of indivudual choice?

I don't know the answer to that one. Essentially yes, I guess I do. I mean if you can buy a gun then why not a gram of cocaine? The problem for me is how do you allow someone the freedom to do what they want, and also limit the negatives. Perhaps some kind of education & licensing system? I don't really know.
It just bugs me that they have found a way to keep alcohol quite legal and socially acceptable despite the fact that it directly results in so much death, destruction and abuse, while at the same time they will drive other stuff underground, which creates all sorts of dangers in terms of what is in the product itself as well as the obvious criminal networks it creates that would instantly disappear if the illegality and the $$ were removed from the equation.



_________________
Seems rike no one takes me serirousreee
TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 3687
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/08/12 10:40 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

There's always some grey areas, and all laws don't always make sense. Eveything should always be under review and refinement.



_________________
This I command you, love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 44223
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/08/12 10:42 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

TonyL222 wrote:
pilight wrote:
TonyL222 wrote:
pilight wrote:
TonyL222 wrote:
So, if you're ever picked up in a drug bust and have your cell phone with you, the police may search it for additional evidence? Is that an "unwarranted" (pun intended) invasion of privacy?


The "war on drugs" itself is an invasion of privacy


Meaning what? Seriously, I don't follow. How is it an invasion of privacy and how does that relate to this story?


People should have the right to do what they want with their own bodies. The "war on drugs" violates that right.


This is where the Libertarian view loses me - the right of the individual over the right of society.


Militarized police with overly broad authority are a much greater threat to society than a few addicts.



_________________
Drum on your drums, batter on your banjos, sob on the long cool winding saxophones. Go to it, O jazzmen.
jaye



Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 6723
Location: Georgia


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/08/12 10:58 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

herman cain.... is that you??



_________________
sammy can ball....
TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 3687
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/08/12 11:13 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:

Militarized police with overly broad authority are a much greater threat to society than a few addicts.


Are you talking about the incident in your link - or just a general statement? If the police had probable cause and a warrant to make the bust, and then searched the cell phones found with the suspects, do you consider that overly broad (honestly, I'm a little conflicted on that one)?



_________________
This I command you, love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 44223
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/08/12 7:22 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

TonyL222 wrote:
pilight wrote:

Militarized police with overly broad authority are a much greater threat to society than a few addicts.


Are you talking about the incident in your link - or just a general statement? If the police had probable cause and a warrant to make the bust, and then searched the cell phones found with the suspects, do you consider that overly broad (honestly, I'm a little conflicted on that one)?


If they had a warrant we wouldn't be having this discussion. The point of the case was that they rummaged through someone's phone without one.



_________________
Drum on your drums, batter on your banjos, sob on the long cool winding saxophones. Go to it, O jazzmen.
TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 3687
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/08/12 9:45 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:

If they had a warrant we wouldn't be having this discussion. The point of the case was that they rummaged through someone's phone without one.


Okay, so it was a search incident to an arrest. I'll repeat an earlier question - "So, if you're ever picked up in a drug bust and have your cell phone with you, the police may search it for additional evidence? Is that an "unwarranted" (pun intended) invasion of privacy?"

I'm actually torn on this one. I'd be curious to see how any appeals turn out.



_________________
This I command you, love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.
TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 3687
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/25/14 10:49 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Supreme Court: Police need warrant to search cell phones
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/25/justice/supreme-court-cell-phones/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Well, now we have a definitive ruling on this issue. Wonder if it means a retrial for those convicted?


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin