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.

[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.