[TBO]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-574...ing-text-trap/

Sent from my mind using Tapatalk 2

[Gun Shark]

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]

Originally Posted by Gun Shark

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

Doc44

[G17Jake]

OMG..... 2 bad 4 us

[Syclone538]

...
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]

What does the privacy policy say?

[CAcop]

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]

Originally Posted by DOC44

and who knows which way that loose cannon will fire

Doc44

[Brucev]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Brucev

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]

Cops can read phone texts

Sent from my mind using Tapatalk 2

I love the irony.

[DOC44]

Originally Posted by series1811

That's not the only thing that is predictable.

I see what you did

Doc44

[Brucev]

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]

Originally Posted by Brucev

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]

Originally Posted by Brucev

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]

Originally Posted by Goaltender66

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]

Originally Posted by CAcop

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]

Originally Posted by RWBlue

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Blankshooter

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]

Originally Posted by RWBlue

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]

It sure seems like the lawyers and judges and the courts are doing everything they can to protect the criminals.

[Sam Spade]

Originally Posted by oldman11

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]

Originally Posted by TBO

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