U.S Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit: It Is OK To For Police To Search Cell Phones Without A Warrant.
|
|
|||||
|
4 votes
|
|
67% | ||
|
0 votes
|
|
0% | ||
|
2 votes
|
|
33% | ||
Police Given Direct Line To Cell Phone Searches
Reporting Jay Gormley
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.
Former Dallas FBI Agent Danny Defenbaugh said the ruling gives law enforcement a leg up. “I think not only will it help them, but it could be life saving,” said the former Special Agent, who was based in Dallas.
The decision stems from an Indiana case where police arrested a man for dealing drugs. An officer searched the suspect’s cell phone without warrant.
The judge in the appeal case, Judge Richard Posner, agreed that the officer had to search the phone immediately or risk losing valuable evidence. Judge Posner ruled it was a matter of urgency, arguing it was possible for an accomplice to wipe the phone clean using a computer or other remote device.
Defenbaugh says the ruling takes into account exigent or time-sensitive circumstances that could be life saving in more urgent cases, such as child abduction. ”If the child is alive and you’re only minutes behind, that could be critical to recovering that child alive,” added Defenbaugh.
Judge Posner ruled that the search was legal because the officer conducted a limited search and only looked for phone numbers associated with the alleged drug deal. The judge argued it was similar to flipping through a diary to search for basic information such as addresses and phone numbers.
Paul Coggins is the former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas. Coggins says the court’s ruling pushes the envelope on privacy issues and wonders if it opens the door to more extensive searches down the road. “Does that mean officers now have the right to search through your phone, search through your search history, your photographs, your e-mails and the rest, because it could all be wiped clean,” Coggins asked.
Many critics are asking the same question. They call the ruling an invasion of privacy that far outweighs the needs of law enforcement.
Both Defenbaugh and Coggins agree that the case is likely to go to the U.S. Supreme court.
Read More: http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/03/06/police-given-di...
Listening in to conversations & obtaining other phone data via covert means isn't new either...but to get a conviction the law needs overt powers that allow the 'evidence' to be used in court. In cases of abduction etc by all means but policing the lawful application phone data acquisition is beyond the scope of the Government...exposing the public to corrupt 'peeping toms'.
That demand does not mean the battery needs to be inside it.
Here is the context.
I was just getting on the interstate, I was sinking my blue tooth so I had the phone in my hand to press the appropriate buttons. Needless to say I passed a cop on the ramp and he thought I was texting since he saw me looking at my phone while driving.
He pulled me over.
I asked "what the problem was"
He said "your getting a ticket for texting while driving"
I explained I was sinking my blue tooth.
He said "give me your phone,"
I said "no"
He said "I can get a court order for your phone, it would be much easier if you just give me the phone so I can see if you were texting"
I laughed and said "get your court order"
To my surprise he reached in and grabbed for my phone
He didn't get it, and said "let me see your phone"
I said sure and held it up for him to see.
That angered him and he called another officer.
The other officer tried to say that "they could arrest me for not complying"
I laughed and said "if that is what you would like to waste your time with, go ahead"
They both questioned why I wouldn't let them see my phone, and I explained the right to privacy, They pleaded to see my phone so they could get this cleared up. I on...
That demand does not mean the battery needs to be inside it.
Here is the context.
I was just getting on the interstate, I was sinking my blue tooth so I had the phone in my hand to press the appropriate buttons. Needless to say I passed a cop on the ramp and he thought I was texting since he saw me looking at my phone while driving.
He pulled me over.
I asked "what the problem was"
He said "your getting a ticket for texting while driving"
I explained I was sinking my blue tooth.
He said "give me your phone,"
I said "no"
He said "I can get a court order for your phone, it would be much easier if you just give me the phone so I can see if you were texting"
I laughed and said "get your court order"
To my surprise he reached in and grabbed for my phone
He didn't get it, and said "let me see your phone"
I said sure and held it up for him to see.
That angered him and he called another officer.
The other officer tried to say that "they could arrest me for not complying"
I laughed and said "if that is what you would like to waste your time with, go ahead"
They both questioned why I wouldn't let them see my phone, and I explained the right to privacy, They pleaded to see my phone so they could get this cleared up. I once again said no.
The officer was getting frustrated and I was getting board playing with the dullards so I said here, and handed him my phone. He got really mad when he realized I took the battery out of it. Wrote me a ticket for texting while driving. At Court the judge laughed and threw the case out reminding me that I have the right to sue the officer in small claims court for wasting my time.
The rulings of judges is far from consistent, in this case common sense prevailed, not always the case.