Get pull over and get your cell phone data scanned

[Acid Trip]

How would you feel if you the police officer stopping you for speeding downloaded all the pictures/data/texts/emails/google map history off your phone? It's possible in Michigan.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/34/3458.asp

Michigan: Police Search Cell Phones During Traffic Stops
ACLU seeks information on Michigan program that allows cops to download information from smart phones belonging to stopped motorists.

CelleBrite- The Michigan State Police have a high-tech mobile forensics device that can be used to extract information from cell phones belonging to motorists stopped for minor traffic violations. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan last Wednesday demanded that state officials stop stonewalling freedom of information requests for information on the program.

ACLU learned that the police had acquired the cell phone scanning devices and in August 2008 filed an official request for records on the program, including logs of how the devices were used. The state police responded by saying they would provide the information only in return for a payment of $544,680. The ACLU found the charge outrageous.

"Law enforcement officers are known, on occasion, to encourage citizens to cooperate if they have nothing to hide," ACLU staff attorney Mark P. Fancher wrote. "No less should be expected of law enforcement, and the Michigan State Police should be willing to assuage concerns that these powerful extraction devices are being used illegally by honoring our requests for cooperation and disclosure."

A US Department of Justice test of the CelleBrite UFED used by Michigan police found the device could grab all of the photos and video off of an iPhone within one-and-a-half minutes. The device works with 3000 different phone models and can even defeat password protections.

"Complete extraction of existing, hidden, and deleted phone data, including call history, text messages, contacts, images, and geotags," a CelleBrite brochure explains regarding the device's capabilities. "The Physical Analyzer allows visualization of both existing and deleted locations on Google Earth. In addition, location information from GPS devices and image geotags can be mapped on Google Maps."

The ACLU is concerned that these powerful capabilities are being quietly used to bypass Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches.

"With certain exceptions that do not apply here, a search cannot occur without a warrant in which a judicial officer determines that there is probable cause to believe that the search will yield evidence of criminal activity," Fancher wrote. "A device that allows immediate, surreptitious intrusion into private data creates enormous risks that troopers will ignore these requirements to the detriment of the constitutional rights of persons whose cell phones are searched."

The national ACLU is currently suing the Department of Homeland Security for its policy of warrantless electronic searches of laptops and cell phones belonging to people entering the country who are not suspected of committing any crime.

[FBD]

ffs!!! *crams handwritten copies of 4th amendment up the "lawmaker's" asses who wrote this*

[PorkChopSandwiches]

How is this even remotely justified?

[MrsM]

I don't understand - why if I get pulled over for speeding - do they need to see my cell phone?

[PorkChopSandwiches]

exactly, they don't. and you didnt even commit a crime, so they have no need to do anything but give you a ticket.

They should probably grab a finger print and a DNA swab while they have you stopped as well.

[Loser]

Yet another reason i have a copper lined lock box bolted to the floor under my car seat.

Wanna see whats inside? Get probable cause and a warrant, otherwise its illegal search and seizure. In other words, FUCK OFF!

Know your rights people, this is HIGHLY illegal under the computer fraud and abuse act.

[Muddy]

Yet another reason i have a copper lined lock box bolted to the floor under my car seat.



You ever get any stress for that?

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Yet another reason i have a copper lined lock box bolted to the floor under my car seat.

Wanna see whats inside? Get probable cause and a warrant, otherwise its illegal search and seizure. In other words, FUCK OFF!

Know your rights people, this is HIGHLY illegal under the computer fraud and abuse act.
They aren't allowed to search your car without a warrant

[Teh One Who Knocks]

They aren't allowed to search your car without a warrant

They can with probable cause

[Teh One Who Knocks]

When the 4th Amendment Doesn't Protect You

The Fourth Amendment applies to a search only if a person has a "legitimate expectation of privacy" in the place or thing searched. If not, the Fourth Amendment offers no protection because there are, by definition, no privacy issues.

Courts use a two-part test (fashioned by the U.S. Supreme Court) to determine whether, at the time of the search, a defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place or things searched:

Did the person actually expect some degree of privacy?
Is the person's expectation objectively reasonable -- that is, one that society is willing to recognize?

For example, a person who uses a public restroom expects not to be spied upon (the person has an expectation of privacy) and most people -- including judges and juries -- would consider that expectation to be reasonable (there is an objective expectation of privacy as well). Therefore, the installation of a hidden video camera by the police in a public restroom will be considered a "search" and would be subject to the Fourth Amendment's requirement of reasonableness.

On the other hand, when the police look for and find a weapon on the front seat of a car, it is not considered a search under the Fourth Amendment because it is very unlikely that the person would think that the front seat of the car is a private place (an expectation of privacy is unlikely), and even if the person did, society is not willing to extend the protections of privacy to that particular location (no objective expectation of privacy).

A good example of how this works comes from a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court held that a bus passenger had a legitimate expectation of privacy in an opaque carry-on bag positioned in a luggage rack above the passenger's head, and that the physical probing by the police of the bag's exterior for evidence of contraband constituted a search subject to 4th Amendment limitations. (Bond v. U.S., 529 U.S. 334 (2000).)

[Teh One Who Knocks]

So in Loser's case, the lock box would require a warrant, anything else in the vehicle would be fair game is how I understand 4th Amendment rights....same would go for your cell phone, that should require a warrant

[PorkChopSandwiches]

They can with probable cause


When the 4th Amendment Doesn't Protect You

The Fourth Amendment applies to a search only if a person has a "legitimate expectation of privacy" in the place or thing searched. If not, the Fourth Amendment offers no protection because there are, by definition, no privacy issues.

Courts use a two-part test (fashioned by the U.S. Supreme Court) to determine whether, at the time of the search, a defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place or things searched:

Did the person actually expect some degree of privacy?
Is the person's expectation objectively reasonable -- that is, one that society is willing to recognize?

For example, a person who uses a public restroom expects not to be spied upon (the person has an expectation of privacy) and most people -- including judges and juries -- would consider that expectation to be reasonable (there is an objective expectation of privacy as well). Therefore, the installation of a hidden video camera by the police in a public restroom will be considered a "search" and would be subject to the Fourth Amendment's requirement of reasonableness.

On the other hand, when the police look for and find a weapon on the front seat of a car, it is not considered a search under the Fourth Amendment because it is very unlikely that the person would think that the front seat of the car is a private place (an expectation of privacy is unlikely), and even if the person did, society is not willing to extend the protections of privacy to that particular location (no objective expectation of privacy).

A good example of how this works comes from a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court held that a bus passenger had a legitimate expectation of privacy in an opaque carry-on bag positioned in a luggage rack above the passenger's head, and that the physical probing by the police of the bag's exterior for evidence of contraband constituted a search subject to 4th Amendment limitations. (Bond v. U.S., 529 U.S. 334 (2000).)


They can look in your window and if they see a gun, then thats on you. They can't open your trunk and find your gun without a warrant. Especially for a traffic stop.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

They can look in your window and if they see a gun, then thats on you. They can't open your trunk and find your gun without a warrant. Especially for a traffic stop.

Yes, I would say it depends on the type of stop. If it's a traffic violation stop, then they should have no probable cause to search your vehicle. If they are stopping you because say you and your vehicle match the description of something used in a robbery or something, then they would have probable cause to search you and your vehicle.

:-k

[Muddy]

A cop can make up anything on the spot for probable cause.. It's your word against theirs...

[Teh One Who Knocks]

A cop can make up anything on the spot for probable cause.. It's your word against theirs...

That's the other problem everyone has....but with cops using dash cams now, it's a lot harder for them to make things up.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Seems like it a big gray area, this says both ways are right

http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/privacy/when-can-police-search


The Supreme Court ruled in Knowles v. Iowa that police cannot search a driver or passengers after ticketing them for routine traffic violations. In its decision, the Court said that a traffic violation is not an "arrest." Police officers' ability to conduct searches is limited so you would not be in their custody. The probable cause argument is also diluted in this case. Ticketing you for turning right at a red light does not give an officer probable cause to search you or your car. Traffic violations are not inherently connected to any other criminal activity. This voids a claim of "reasonable suspicion" on the officer's part.

Another point on law enforcement's side is that cars are generally excepted from the advance warrant requirement because of their mobile nature. This gives them license to conduct warrantless searches of cars. An officer only has to meet the probable cause standard in most instances. This is relatively easy to do. Proving that an officer did not have probable cause is much more difficult and has only succeeded in a few cases. Most of those cases have involved racial profiling of some type, lack of consent, or a small exception in the public's favor...traffic violations.

[Muddy]

That's the other problem everyone has....but with cops using dash cams now, it's a lot harder for them to make things up.


good point.. I forget about technology sometimes.

[Loser]

Actually a cop can NOT search your vehicle without a warrant or your consent.

They will however tow that motherfucker until they get that warrant, and they only need probable cause to tow ya.

As for a cop fabricating probable cause, they do NOT have access to the dash cam tape that is standard on 99% of all police vehicles, and stored in a firebox in the trunk.

Only commanding officers and I.A has access to that box.

[Muddy]

they do NOT have access to the dash cam tape that is standard on 99% of all police vehicles, and stored in a firebox in the trunk.

Only commanding officers and I.A has access to that box.

I don't think every cop car is outfitted with those though.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Out here I see then on all the cars.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Seems like it a big gray area, this says both ways are right

http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/privacy/when-can-police-search

And that's what sucks because there is no clear cut law on it

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Out here I see then on all the cars.

Same here

[Joebob034]

I don't understand - why if I get pulled over for speeding - do they need to see my cell phone?

they wanna see those pics you took ;)

[PorkChopSandwiches]

And that's what sucks because there is no clear cut law on it

Yeah, its bullshit. But, I can say I haven't ever had this happen during a traffic stop in my adult life.



http://www.theworldsbestever.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/rich-whitey.jpg

[MrsM]

they wanna see those pics you took :winks:

*Deletes pics* just incase :)

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Yeah, its bullshit. But, I can say I haven't ever had this happen during a traffic stop in my adult life.



http://www.theworldsbestever.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/rich-whitey.jpg

Me neither :banana:





Watch, now I'll get stopped on the way home from work and be roughed up by the cops :lol:

[Joebob034]

*Deletes pics* just incase :)

:( I souldn't have said anything

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Me neither :banana:

Watch, now I'll get stopped on the way home from work and be roughed up by the cops :lol:
Hahaha me too, and on 4:20 :lol:

[Muddy]

I have a 50 cal. machine gun for a leg... It's a bitch to drive with..

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Here is a pic of my leg

http://www.ugo.com/images/galleries/topmovieweapons_filmtv/machine-gun-leg.jpg

[Acid Trip]

So in Loser's case, the lock box would require a warrant, anything else in the vehicle would be fair game is how I understand 4th Amendment rights....same would go for your cell phone, that should require a warrant

Glove compartment is locked and so is the trunk in the back. I'm sorry officer but you'll need a warrant for that...

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Glove compartment is locked and so is the trunk in the back. I'm sorry officer but you'll need a warrant for that...

Then you will either be detained and/or arrested for obstruction and then they'll tow your car ;)

[FBD]

yeah, bottom line, a cop can make up any bullshit he wants and that's an "acceptable" usage of "probable cause."

[Teh One Who Knocks]

yeah, bottom line, a cop can make up any bullshit he wants and that's an "acceptable" usage of "probable cause."

Exactly....if you have nothing to hide, then it's just easier to cooperate with them on the minor things.

Now if they wanted my smart phone so they could d/l the data off it, then there would be an issue...but if they wanted to look in my trunk I'd let them....especially considering that I drive a pick-up :dance:

[Hal-9000]

If I'm reading the story correctly, I support this.

If the cops can determine that a driver was texting, calling, downloading at the time of a traffic infraction...I say let them do it.
We've had a few stories here where the driver was texting and killed other people in an accident.

If they're digging into your phone for other purposes, then yes they're violating the user's rights.

[Muddy]

If I'm reading the story correctly, I support this.

If the cops can determine that a driver was texting, calling, downloading at the time of a traffic infraction...I say let them do it.
We've had a few stories here where the driver was texting and killed other people in an accident.

If they're digging into your phone for other purposes, then yes they're violating the user's rights.

Man I hear texters are killing more peeps than drunk drivers these days...

[Pony]

If I'm reading the story correctly, I support this.

If the cops can determine that a driver was texting, calling, downloading at the time of a traffic infraction...I say let them do it.
We've had a few stories here where the driver was texting and killed other people in an accident.

If they're digging into your phone for other purposes, then yes they're violating the user's rights.

Unfortunately there is a big flip side to that, they won't just look at the info at the time of the accident, they are downloading everything on the phone. Not that I have anything to hide but I don't want a third party looking at my personal conversations, pics, contacts etc. Stuff will very easily find it's way to the internet for one...
Also I believe currently they can't look at anything on a phone that's locked, this is bypassing that.

Might as well give insurance companies all the records from your cars computer to evaluate your driving habits too and set your rates accordingly. Or have all your medical records available to anyone that requests them. (employers, insurance, etc)

Sorry but privacy is a big issue for me, there's already too much info leaking out.

[Hal-9000]

I really believe in the checking for texting/phone activity at the time of a violation.

I see so many people texting/surfing on my commute to work it kinda scares me.

[Pony]

I really believe in the checking for texting/phone activity at the time of a violation.

I see so many people texting/surfing on my commute to work it kinda scares me.

I totally see where you're coming from and I don't have a problem with them asking for permission to see it. Or if they saw someone texting, write the ticket and request phone records before the court date.
Even in the case of an accident with injury, they can call and often get a warrant on the spot these days. I'm more concerned with daily abuse of the device by the police in the instances they have no reason to look at your phone.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

I totally see where you're coming from and I don't have a problem with them asking for permission to see it. Or if they saw someone texting, write the ticket and request phone records before the court date.
Even in the case of an accident with injury, they can call and often get a warrant on the spot these days. I'm more concerned with daily abuse of the device by the police in the instances they have no reason to look at your phone.

Exactly...if they suspect you of texting while driving, all they need to do is take a quick check of your texts, not download the entire contents of your phone.

[Muddy]

In Virginia I don't think texting while driving is illegal, yet..

[Teh One Who Knocks]

It is here, they passed it at the start of this year. Plus if you have to have your cell phone set up as hands free if you want to talk on it. Talking on your cell phone while holding it and driving is against the law here too.

[Muddy]

It is here, they passed it at the start of this year. Plus if you have to have your cell phone set up as hands free if you want to talk on it. Talking on your cell phone while holding it and driving is against the law here too.

I think that's a fine law, and I would embrace it's passage here in the Commonwealth.

[MrsM]

I think that's a fine law, and I would embrace it's passage here in the Commonwealth.

we have it here in Ontario

[Muddy]

I think it's been on the table a few times... But somehow it has been defeated.. It's bound to be a matter of time though once the concrete numbers start hammering them (general assembly)...

[Acid Trip]

we have it here in Ontario

Kansas passed a state wide ban on texting while driving either either this year or last. I would welcome that same law in Texas.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

I think it's been on the table a few times... But somehow it has been defeated.. It's bound to be a matter of time though once the concrete numbers start hammering them (general assembly)...

Yup, almost every study that I have seen now say that texting/talking on your cell phone while driving is at least as dangerous as drinking and driving. Some studies say it's even more dangerous.

[Muddy]

With these new phones and the touch screens even dialing a number to talk on the phone is texting IMO...

[Deepsepia]

Exactly...if they suspect you of texting while driving, all they need to do is take a quick check of your texts, not download the entire contents of your phone.

They don't even need to do that. The carrier can tell them exactly what activity occurred, when, without revealing the contents.

That is, they could ask Verizon "when was the last text sent by this person?" and Verizon can say 10:32 AM, April 19th, without revealing what was in the text, or anything else on the phone.

For the authorities to grab the contents of a phone on the pretext of a traffic stop is way out of bounds. Cops can examine the contents of a car during a traffic stop to assure themselves that there are no readily accessible weapons (that's why they have to ask you to open the trunk or the glove compartment) without a warrant-- but how does that permit a search of a cell phone?

It doesn't.

[redred]

Yet another reason i have a copper lined lock box bolted to the floor under my car seat.

bet thats good for slugs and snails as well :lol:

[Jezter]

Man...this aint right. :(

[Hal-9000]

my cell is all voice and nothing but voice, no data....so they can kiss my ass :lol:


except that one wallpaper - jezs_oiled_balls :oops:

[Jezter]

my cell is all voice and nothing but voice, no data....so they can kiss my ass :lol:


except that one wallpaper - jezs_oiled_balls :oops:
Babyoil + smooth Jez baws = Bliss.

[Godfather]

Sorry officer, I'm not sure if my cell-phone is in the car.

Do you have a warrant or probable cause to search my vehicle because I was speeding? No?... uhh... kindly fuck off.

[Godfather]

Kansas passed a state wide ban on texting while driving either either this year or last. I would welcome that same law in Texas.

Be have that in BC. I'm very happy about it... too many people getting needlessly killed for distracted driving. At very least it causes accidents that make everyone's insurance rates through the roof.

Sure it's not 100% effective but what is. At least it's ticket-able and if you get in an accident doing it you're much more readily placed at fault. :thumbsup: