Cops can read phone texts, set text traps [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Cops can read phone texts, set text traps


TBO
07-05-2012, 19:14
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57467281-83/court-cops-can-read-suspects-texts-spring-text-trap/

Sent from my mind using Tapatalk 2

Gun Shark
07-05-2012, 19:23
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.

DOC44
07-05-2012, 19:44
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.

and who knows which way that loose cannon will fire:rofl::upeyes:

Doc44

G17Jake
07-05-2012, 20:21
OMG..... 2 bad 4 us

Syclone538
07-05-2012, 21:08
...
Roden appealed on the basis that the text messages should have been suppressed as evidence because they were protected under the Washington Privacy Act, which requires that police get consent before intercepting a private communication transmitted by telephone.
...

Pretty clear to me.

...
But the Washington Court of Appeals disagreed and said that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy with text messages just as there isn't with voice messages left on an answering machine that could be overheard by anyone.
...

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

G17Jake
07-05-2012, 21:14
What does the privacy policy say?

CAcop
07-05-2012, 23:21
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.

Stubudd
07-06-2012, 00:25
and who knows which way that loose cannon will fire:rofl::upeyes:

Doc44

:supergrin:

Brucev
07-06-2012, 06:24
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.

Goaltender66
07-06-2012, 06:35
Before everyone gets all bent out of shape over privacy concerns and invoking the COTUS, let's look at the actual fact situation:

Police had arrested Daniel Lee on drug charges and one officer searched through the text messages on Lee's iPhone, found some suspicious messages from a "Z-Jon" and texted from Lee's phone to ask if Z-Jon "needed more." Then, according to court papers, Z-Jon followed up with a message using drug slang and agreed to meet up with the police officer posing as Lee. That led to the arrest of Jonathan Roden, aka Z-Jon, and his subsequent conviction for attempted possession of heroin


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?

series1811
07-06-2012, 07:26
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.

That's not the only thing that is predictable.

71Commander
07-06-2012, 07:38
Cops can read phone texts

Sent from my mind using Tapatalk 2

I love the irony.:tongueout:

DOC44
07-06-2012, 07:38
That's not the only thing that is predictable.

I see what you did:rofl:

Doc44

Brucev
07-06-2012, 09:56
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.

Goaltender66
07-06-2012, 10:19
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.

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?

CAcop
07-06-2012, 10:43
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.

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

RWBlue
07-06-2012, 10:44
If you can't explain it then perhaps it's not as clear cut as you're presenting.

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?

RWBlue
07-06-2012, 10:56
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

Are you claiming that the digital information in a phone or computer is in plain sight?

Sam Spade
07-06-2012, 11:02
Are you claiming that the digital information in a phone or computer is in plain sight?

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.

Blankshooter
07-06-2012, 11:17
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

TBO
07-06-2012, 11:40
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.
Are you guilty of ID theft because you use a name not your own on an Internet forum?


Sent from my mind using Tapatalk 2

CAcop
07-06-2012, 11:42
Are you claiming that the digital information in a phone or computer is in plain sight?

There are many exceptions to the search warrant requirement. Read the link below and think about how hard it would be to get a warrant for officers on the streets without a judge being physically present.

http://caselaw4cops.net/articles/exceptions.html

Judges went to law school to avoid having to work nights, weekends, and holidays.

oldman11
07-06-2012, 11:44
It sure seems like the lawyers and judges and the courts are doing everything they can to protect the criminals.

Sam Spade
07-06-2012, 11:51
It sure seems like the lawyers and judges and the courts are doing everything they can to protect the criminals.

Well, that's the micro application of it. The bigger picture is that the slime serve as crash test dummies for the framework that protects actual taxpayers.

In spite of the interwebz rhetoric, there just aren't that many good people getting violated to make the rules we need. So, we use rapists like Miranda, robbers like Terry and so on to set the framework for the rest of us.

Blankshooter
07-06-2012, 12:28
Are you guilty of ID theft because you use a name not your own on an Internet forum?


Sent from my mind using Tapatalk 2

Possibly, that's the difficulty of regulating many forms of technology, is that it is very difficult to know where to draw the line. You aren't violating anything by using another name online, but you are committing indentity theft by using someone else's name with the intention to deceive.

Using a screen name is assumed to be just that, a nickname. But using any symbol, image, name, email, text, watermark, whatever you want to call it with the intent to be acknowledged as someone else, yes. That is identity theft

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

TBO
07-06-2012, 12:32
Possibly, that's the difficulty of regulating many forms of technology, is that it is very difficult to know where to draw the line. You aren't violating anything by using another name online, but you are committing indentity theft by using someone else's name with the intention to deceive.

Using a screen name is assumed to be just that, a nickname. But using any symbol, image, name, email, text, watermark, whatever you want to call it with the intent to be acknowledged as someone else, yes. That is identity theft

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engineInstead of going off your personal opinion, why not look at what the law (statute) actually says is Identity Theft?

Gun Shark
07-06-2012, 12:39
and who knows which way that loose cannon will fire:rofl::upeyes:

Doc44

Who knows, but given the last Ruling from them. I doubt it's going to be one we like or agree with.

RWBlue
07-06-2012, 12:51
Are you guilty of ID theft because you use a name not your own on an Internet forum?


Sent from my mind using Tapatalk 2

If I hack in and use your name, yes (IMHO).

Sam Spade
07-06-2012, 13:01
If I hack in and use your name, yes (IMHO).

Until phones are a bionic attachment to your skull, doesn't matter. Caller ID attaches to a number, not a person, and that number can be handed off.

Blankshooter
07-06-2012, 13:02
Instead of going off your personal opinion, why not look at what the law (statute) actually says is Identity Theft?


You're so right. I forgot online forums were for accredited legal discourse only. Next time I'll be sure to leave out the opinions.

Sam Spade
07-06-2012, 13:08
You're so right. I forgot online forums were for accredited legal discourse only. Next time I'll be sure to leave out the opinions.

Hey, your Ford-Chevy, chocolate-vanilla opinion is great.

But as soon as you want to accuse someone of a crime, or go into any other technical discussion, you move out of the "I have a right to mine" world. In that new land, you gotta deal with how things are, not how you want them to be.

Blankshooter
07-06-2012, 13:12
Until phones are a bionic attachment to your skull, doesn't matter. Caller ID attaches to a number, not a person, and that number can be handed off.


True about the caller ID number, but if you had received a test from, say . . . a close family member, girlfriend, best friend, whoever, I don't know, maybe thousands of thousands of times and no one else had ever texted you from that phone then you received a text saying, "hey, call me" or "meet me here" (or whatever a common text from that person would be) would you think twice about who was sending it?

That is the question to me, which I agree is borderline . . . is it fraud, entrapment, posing, deception whatever you want to call it? Is it crossing the line of personal rights?

brickboy240
07-06-2012, 13:18
Just another reason to NOT do anything stupid and watch what you type on the phone or computer.

- brickboy240

Blankshooter
07-06-2012, 13:22
Hey, your Ford-Chevy, chocolate-vanilla opinion is great.

But as soon as you want to accuse someone of a crime, or go into any other technical discussion, you move out of the "I have a right to mine" world. In that new land, you gotta deal with how things are, not how you want them to be.


You are lucky you listed Ford before Chevy, because that my friend has nothing to do with opinion . . . :whistling:

Plus, If I ever came across as an authority figure on the subject or was ever received as claiming to state anything other than my opinion in this blog or anywhere on this website for that matter, I do apologize to all who had the wool pulled over their eyes by my cleverness. (or lack thereof)

NDCent
07-06-2012, 13:25
That's it, no more drug deals by text message for me. :upeyes:

It's called dope for a reason. :dunno:

Goldendog Redux
07-06-2012, 13:39
In spite of the interwebz rhetoric, there just aren't that many good people getting violated to make the rules we need. So, we use rapists like Miranda, robbers like Terry and so on to set the framework for the rest of us.

Eloquently stated.

Sam Spade
07-06-2012, 13:45
That is the question to me, which I agree is borderline . . . is it fraud, entrapment, posing, deception whatever you want to call it? Is it crossing the line of personal rights?

Entrapment is when you induce a person to commit a crime that wouldn't have occurred otherwise. I don't see that being the case when a user gets dope offered to him by his (presumed) dealer, the one he bought from in the past.

Absolutely it's deception, but that's no big deal.

I can't think of a right that's in play once there's a legal authority to look in the phone.


And BTW, a case like this will surely head to SCOTUS soon. Phones have outstripped law on what they can do. Most court cases I've seen are of the mind that they're just another container subject to search, and since they're subject to remote wiping, there's some exigency. Others say you need a warrant, because it's too much like a computer. But it's due for a unifying ruling soon.

RWBlue
07-06-2012, 14:19
There are many exceptions to the search warrant requirement. Read the link below and think about how hard it would be to get a warrant for officers on the streets without a judge being physically present.

http://caselaw4cops.net/articles/exceptions.html

Judges went to law school to avoid having to work nights, weekends, and holidays.

I read the article and agree that there are 13 exceptions, but I don't see where my digital data on a phone is applicable.

Please explain how it would be.

This may be able to give me more power and research capability than I thought I had.

series1811
07-06-2012, 14:25
True about the caller ID number, but if you had received a test from, say . . . a close family member, girlfriend, best friend, whoever, I don't know, maybe thousands of thousands of times and no one else had ever texted you from that phone then you received a text saying, "hey, call me" or "meet me here" (or whatever a common text from that person would be) would you think twice about who was sending it?

That is the question to me, which I agree is borderline . . . is it fraud, entrapment, posing, deception whatever you want to call it? Is it crossing the line of personal rights?

Deception, fraud entrapment, posing, whatever, like when a drug dealers says, "Are you a cop?" And, the undercover agent tells a bold faced low down lie, and says, "No, I'm a doper, just like you."

CAcop
07-06-2012, 15:05
I read the article and agree that there are 13 exceptions, but I don't see where my digital data on a phone is applicable.

Please explain how it would be.

This may be able to give me more power and research capability than I thought I had.

Already stated. Search incident to arrest.

The courts look at it like a little black book in your back pocket. Or an expense account book.

Mister_Beefy
07-07-2012, 02:32
Entrapment is when you induce a person to commit a crime that wouldn't have occurred otherwise.



by your definition bait cars are entrapment.

Sam Spade
07-07-2012, 09:22
by your definition bait cars are entrapment.

I don't think that's what I put out. But if I was unclear, I'll try again: Providing the opportunity to commit a crime isn't entrapment. LE has to induce someone who isn't otherwise predisposed to the crime to act.

steveksux
07-07-2012, 11:42
Instead of going off your personal opinion, why not look at what the law (statute) actually says is Identity Theft?Why would that relevant? :whistling::tongueout::supergrin:

Randy

G29Reload
07-07-2012, 12:11
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?

Yep. While you can get in trouble for lying to police, they can lie all day long and spew nothing but falsehoods and that is perfectly legal (though wrong, as far as I'm concerned, they should be held to the same standards as anyone else) This includes the cited false-flag approach thru a captured cell phone.

I don't engage in this type of behavior, but I'm gonna start locking my phone. I don't have to give up s#$%.

Mister_Beefy
07-07-2012, 18:01
I don't think that's what I put out. But if I was unclear, I'll try again: Providing the opportunity to commit a crime isn't entrapment. LE has to induce someone who isn't otherwise predisposed to the crime to act.

ah, your edited opinion fits much better.

QNman
07-07-2012, 18:12
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?

Now most here know, I'm usually one decrying overstepping of Constitutional boundaries in the name of nabbing the bad guys, but... in THIS instance, one phone was a drug dealer duly arrested, and the other the recipient of a text message offering to sell drugs. This would be the same as, say, using his cell phone to call the buyer and set up a phony drug buy also.

I have no problem with this one.

series1811
07-08-2012, 11:31
by your definition bait cars are entrapment.
Not really. Unless you could convince a jury that the first time you decided to steal a car, was the time you got caught.

Maybe you could convince some jurors of that. OJ proved that jurors aren't always the hardest people in the world to fool.

jakebrake
07-08-2012, 11:34
local police would read my texts, and realize how boring my life is.

Cavalry Doc
07-08-2012, 12:27
local police would read my texts, and realize how boring my life is.

This....... boring is good. Trust me.

QNman
07-08-2012, 14:23
local police would read my texts, and realize how boring my life is.

Unless I am mistaken, at least in this instance, they're only reading your texts if you get arrested or if you text someone who has been arrested. I have zero problem with this.

While reading my texts would be.. Well, let's say dull just because there is no stronger word I can think of right now... I'd still fight police randomly reading people's texts who weren't either currently under arrest or communicating with someone currently under arrest unless they have a warrant.