Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   The 9 people deciding whether cops need to get a warrant before thumbing trough your smartphone or whether they can just search it whenever they feel like it, are all too old to even know what a "selfie" is   (washingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: Scary, troughs, Supreme Court, smartphones, oral arguments  
•       •       •

2097 clicks; posted to Geek » on 29 Apr 2014 at 5:46 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



74 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-04-29 10:31:54 PM  

CruiserTwelve: wingnut396: I'm sorry, but the police only keep the recordings for 10 days so the officers can refresh their memory when they write their official. The true record anyway is what the officer writes in his report, and that states the defendant said "Look at whatever you want pigs, I don't care!" Now my good jurors, who do believe, a decorated office with 12 years of experience or our accused drug dealer? It pretty clear who has more reason to hide the truth to me...

Cops can't keep a recording for only 10 days. If they record something, it becomes evidence and has to be retained until the court case is resolved. By the way, what would be the point of using the recording when they write their report if they're just going to lie anyway?

If you're that concerned about being unlawfully searched by the cops, maybe you should carry your own recording device at all times. Or maybe wire your car with a hidden recording device.


Did the "wingnut" part of his username not suggest something?
 
2014-04-29 10:38:17 PM  
It's a self-portrait. It's not some crazy novel concept that those wild youngsters invented.
 
2014-04-29 10:53:14 PM  

moothemagiccow: It's a self-portrait. It's not some crazy novel concept that those wild youngsters invented.


How do you paint a portrait of oneself sir? If you use one of those reflecting devil glasses then you deserve to be burned as a witch!
 
2014-04-29 10:56:04 PM  

Prophet of Loss: moothemagiccow: It's a self-portrait. It's not some crazy novel concept that those wild youngsters invented.

How do you paint a portrait of oneself sir? If you use one of those reflecting devil glasses then you deserve to be burned as a witch!


It helps if you cut off an ear first, so I've heard.
 
2014-04-29 11:01:10 PM  

Reverend Monkeypants: Are there any phones out there that can be content encrypted?


Any newish android phone has an option you can enable to encrypt the contents of the phone so that you have to put in a passcode on starting it up.

fark'emfeed'emfish: Also pretty sure they don't generally peruse your contacts and history by sight. they plug that baby in and turn on the vacuum. None of that passcode nonsense.


Also, you can't connect to an android phone while it's locked.

These aren't like OMG I'm Edward Snowden levels of protection, but they're enough to protect you from the police.
 
2014-04-29 11:06:56 PM  

That Guy Jeff: R.A.Danny: Ennuipoet: Another reason, as if you needed one, to put a damn lock code on your phone.  And don't give it to the cops when they ask, idiots.

And encrypt it. If they need what is on there they can go ahead and get a warrant. Otherwise "No sir, I do not want to show you what is on my phone"

No, you don't say a goddamned thing without your lawyer present.


I was thinking that there was a recent court case that said you are not required to give the key/password up for computer files because doing so is self incrimination which is the 5th.  So refusing to give the password is the equivalent of pleading the 5th.  Presumably this would extend to cell phones.
 
2014-04-29 11:35:39 PM  
If you are going to encounter "Cops", why take your phone at all?
 
2014-04-29 11:41:51 PM  

Reverend Monkeypants: Are there any phones out there that can be content encrypted?
I'm sure the Ubuntu phone could have done it.
Theoretically an Android phone could as well.
iOS I doubt is, that's just an access password.
Right?

I bet Linux_Yes knows.  Summon technogeek!


Turns out all modern smart phones (yep, even Apple) can, to varying degrees, encrypt your data.  RIM is generally considered the most secure option for general consumers.  The security provided by whatever encryption system is available to a specific phone and OS version can range from slightly better than ROT13 to annoying the NSA, so if you're looking to encrypt your phone, spend the time to do the research.  Older phones will usually have less effective encryption schemes, but that's not a hard and fast rule.
 
2014-04-29 11:48:06 PM  

CruiserTwelve: Even two: You have a right to record in public and the cops can't take your phone. Lots of lawsuits have been filed over that practice and have been won by the plaintiffs. Every cop should know about that by now.


Unfortunately apparently a lot don't, as evidenced by almost daily updates over at  http://photographyisnotacrime.com/ .
 
2014-04-30 12:24:12 AM  
Some of the insurance companies out there seem to want to help the cops out by advertising a feature where you can have some sort of app that stores an insurance card on your phone so you don't have to keep a copy in your glove box.

Cop:"I'm Trooper Smith. I stopped you because you were doing 75 in a 70 zone back there. License, registration and proof of insurance please."

Motorist: "Here you go! I have that app that has my insurance card on my smartphone screen"

Cop: "Great! I'll just take that back to my car with me"

There's your voluntary search.
 
2014-04-30 12:27:37 AM  

CruiserTwelve: Without consent the cop needs probable cause. Once probable cause is established, the cop needs either exigency (meaning there's no time to get a warrant) OR a warrant. As stated above, motor vehicles, due to their mobility, usually provide their own exigency.


That would be great, if "not giving consent to a search" wasn't probable cause for a search...
 
2014-04-30 12:34:34 AM  

buzzcut73: There's your voluntary search.


Motorist: "I'll just show it to you. No need to take it back to your car."
 
2014-04-30 12:41:12 AM  

CruiserTwelve: buzzcut73: There's your voluntary search.

Motorist: "I'll just show it to you. No need to take it back to your car."


LOL. Right.

In that scenerio:

Cop: I need to take it back to my car with your license and registration. I'll be right back.
Motorist: No, you can't
Cop: Well then, I'll have to cite you for no proof of insurance
 
2014-04-30 03:56:59 AM  
Don't have incriminating evidence on your phone. Is it possible there are people with smart phones who still haven't learned that everything you put online is retrievable for, um, ever? How many FARK articles have involved dumb asses who'd photographed themselves doing something incredibly illegal?
 
2014-04-30 04:11:48 AM  

LoneVVolf: That would be great, if "not giving consent to a search" wasn't probable cause for a search...


It's not.
 
2014-04-30 04:14:33 AM  

buzzcut73: Cop: I need to take it back to my car with your license and registration. I'll be right back.Motorist: No, you can'tCop: Well then, I'll have to cite you for no proof of insurance


Motorist: "Fine. I'd like to speak to your supervisor please."

Actually, you've created a scenario that just wouldn't happen. No cop in the friggin' world cares what's on your cell phone during a traffic stop.
 
2014-04-30 07:30:23 AM  

CruiserTwelve: buzzcut73: Cop: I need to take it back to my car with your license and registration. I'll be right back.Motorist: No, you can'tCop: Well then, I'll have to cite you for no proof of insurance

Motorist: "Fine. I'd like to speak to your supervisor please."

Actually, you've created a scenario that just wouldn't happen. No cop in the friggin' world cares what's on your cell phone during a traffic stop.




Assuming the traffic stop was really about traffic related issues.

Its the motorists presumption that they were one of the unfortunate few pulled aside at random. But you don't know if your plate might have been randomly chosen from a list of people suspected of boinking an officers wife or donating to the wrong political party.
As technology gets better at tracking and managing information, it gets a lot easier to arrange a coincidence.
 
2014-04-30 09:18:33 AM  

CruiserTwelve: buzzcut73: Cop: I need to take it back to my car with your license and registration. I'll be right back.Motorist: No, you can'tCop: Well then, I'll have to cite you for no proof of insurance

Motorist: "Fine. I'd like to speak to your supervisor please."

Actually, you've created a scenario that just wouldn't happen. No cop in the friggin' world cares what's on your cell phone during a traffic stop.


Wasnt a traffic stop the basis for this case?  Pulled over for a tail light.
 
2014-04-30 09:45:37 AM  

Saiga410: Wasnt a traffic stop the basis for this case? Pulled over for a tail light.


One of the two cases in question:  Riley v. California had the person pulled over for expired plates.  The cops searched the person's phone (completely derailing CruiserTwelve's statement).  The phone had photo evidence of someone they had killed in a drive-by.  The initial prosecution compared items in the phone to items in a wallet (searchable).  The defense compared it to items in a drawer at their house (not searchable without a warrant).  The original court agreed with the prosecution.
 
2014-04-30 10:12:57 AM  
So glad these liberal states are pushing to expand the police state and nullify the BOR.

// because they're the party of "liberty" and "privacy".
 
2014-04-30 01:23:38 PM  
www.distractify.netdna-cdn.com

Oldest known selfie - 1839
 
2014-04-30 02:43:05 PM  

way south: But you don't know if your plate might have been randomly chosen from a list of people suspected of boinking an officers wife or donating to the wrong political party.


You have a strange imagination.
 
2014-04-30 02:53:46 PM  

mjbok: Riley v. California had the person pulled over for expired plates. The cops searched the person's phone (completely derailing CruiserTwelve's statement).


http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/D059840.PDF

Here's the Riley case. He had expired plates, but he was also a suspect in a recent drive by shooting and the guns used in the shooting were found concealed in his car. It wasn't just a routine traffic stop.
 
2014-04-30 04:32:26 PM  

CruiserTwelve: cefm: The reasonableness of "seizure" is clearly accepted, when it is resulting from arrest.  When you are arrested (not detained, questioned, etc. but straight up arrested) the police seize your person and the stuff you have on/with you.  The reasonableness of "search" is what we're looking at.  If you had a diary in your pocket, or a personal organizer, they could reasonably read through that along with checking your pocket or wallet for receipts, business cards, etc.  The reasonableness of looking through the contents of an unlocked mobile phone is under current law pretty much the same.  You'd have to specifically call out mobile phones/cameras/ipods etc.as a special type of protected item in a change to your state's laws if you wanted to change that.  That leaves us only with the reasonableness of searching through a locked device.  Either by demanding that the arrestee unlock it or by using a bypass tool of some kind.

That's my understanding of the current law too.

Experience tells me that most cops don't really care to look at your cell phone unless they expect to find something incriminating. In fact, most cops will try to hand off cell phones to a friend at the time of arrest so they don't have to inventory them at the jail. The times a cop will want to look at your cell phone is if it's involved in the crime you are being arrested for. Example: You're arrested for making threats against your ex-girlfriend by text message. The ex has already shown the cop her phone with the receiving end of the texts. The cop will want to look at your cell phone to confirm they were sent from there. If your phone is locked, they'll usually apply for a warrant and then bypass whatever security measures you have on the phone. And yes, cops know how to bypass pretty much any security your cell phone might have.


I think you explained that well. but if they have enough cause to get a bother getting a warrant than I think bypassing the lock on your phone is the least of your worries (depending of course on whats on it) I would think that a lock on your phone and not giving consent would help against a fishing expedition.
 
Displayed 24 of 74 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report