tk421;632486 wrote:Apparently not. The 4th Amendment no longer applies at the airports, within 100 miles of the borders, for cell phones, while in your car, etc. etc. And people still don't believe that the government is taking away their freedoms.

Well, I'm pretty confident while I say that if people are working for the government, law enforcement, somewhere in the judicial system... they're gonna be fine with this.
The people who are not in that category are going to be much more circumspect about it.

Just reading some of these threads here have made that very clear (to me, anyways).

Because they think the ends justify the means. The see criminals regularly and think "what's a little inconvenience or the loss of a few rights if we're getting rid of these types of people". The thing is that one, most of these methods don't work that well and two, I'd rather have my rights.

If the police can search the wallet they find in your pocket, why cant they search the phone they find in your pocket? what makes a phone more private than a wallet? or a woman's purse found in a car?

I Wear Pants;631834 wrote:But they don't have to fail parts of all of them for the officer to give the breathalyzer correct?

I mean, the officer can give the breathalyzer at any point but it will only be allowed if they followed the procedure. Is there a certain amount of SFST that you must fail to allow them to administer a breathalyzer?

no they dont have to fail all the parts. the more parts they fail, the stronger the case etc. i dont deal with many DUIs, normally the drunks i encounter arent driving. but normally showing half the clues for each test is a strong indicator for a breathalyzer.

Glory Days;633842 wrote:If the police can search the wallet they find in your pocket, why cant they search the phone they find in your pocket? what makes a phone more private than a wallet? or a woman's purse found in a car?

Just a quick quess, but they search wallets and purses because that's the most likely place to confirm identification (?)

Cell phones are not the most likely place to confirm identification and it's therefore none of any police officer's business.
IMO

Glory Days;633842 wrote:If the police can search the wallet they find in your pocket, why cant they search the phone they find in your pocket? what makes a phone more private than a wallet? or a woman's purse found in a car?

A phone does not = a wallet.

And the police can only search a car if they are given permission or have probable cause. What probable cause do you have to read my text messages or emails?

I Wear Pants;634263 wrote:A phone does not = a wallet.

And the police can only search a car if they are given permission or have probable cause. What probable cause do you have to read my text messages or emails?

Warrantless search does not = without probable cause.

If i stop someone with more than a personal use amount of drugs (ie. they are selling), i'd check their phone looking for dealers, buyers etc. maybe even text messages with buy locations considering they were probably on their way to sell. that's time sensitive information that can be acted on immediately, instead of hours later waiting for a warrant when its too late.

yes, phone doesnt equal wallet, but what makes it more private than anything else found on you?

My point is, this is new technology(for the most part in legal terms). I bet people thought the sky was falling when cops were allowed to search their Model T, because for the 100 years before that, that wasn’t even an issue. Just like 30 years ago, cell phones werent even an issue.

CenterBHSFan;633909 wrote:Just a quick quess, but they search wallets and purses because that's the most likely place to confirm identification (?)

Cell phones are not the most likely place to confirm identification and it's therefore none of any police officer's business.
IMO

Weapons can be in purses, and drugs can even fit in a wallet.

Just because doing something could be beneficial to police/government (searching your text messages/emails on your phone) doesn't mean it should be allowed. An example of where something was convenient for police/government but shouldn't be allowed is the warrantless GPS tracking of vehicals, especially when the device is planted while the car is on private property. The Supreme Court agreed that sort of thing shouldn't be allowed. http://www.eff.org/cases/us-v-maynard

What makes my phone something the police have a right to look at is the question you should be asking.

As for the weapons and drugs thing. They cannot be in phones.

I Wear Pants;635160 wrote:Just because doing something could be beneficial to police/government (searching your text messages/emails on your phone) doesn't mean it should be allowed. An example of where something was convenient for police/government but shouldn't be allowed is the warrantless GPS tracking of vehicals, especially when the device is planted while the car is on private property. The Supreme Court agreed that sort of thing shouldn't be allowed. http://www.eff.org/cases/us-v-maynard


What makes my phone something the police have a right to look at is the question you should be asking.

As for the weapons and drugs thing. They cannot be in phones.

I have given you a reason to look at your phone. Time sensitive information is a reason to be looking in your phone. Say I get a call that 3 men took a female inside an abandoned house. Police get there and 2 men are seen leaving. As they see the police, one is seen playing with his phone. You don’t think it might be relevant to get his phone and look at what he was doing with it without having to wait for a warrant? he could be alerting the 3rd man the police are there and to run, fight, or hide evidence etc.

The example you give with the GPS wasn’t really isnt relevant. Nothing they did needed to be done immediately to gain information or keep information from being lost.

So you're game for anything, GD? Is it your ideal that any(every)thing goes, no matter what?
Are you not seeing the points being made here or do you just not care about it for safety reasons?

Glory Days;635179 wrote:I have given you a reason to look at your phone. Time sensitive information is a reason to be looking in your phone. Say I get a call that 3 men took a female inside an abandoned house. Police get there and 2 men are seen leaving. As they see the police, one is seen playing with his phone. You don’t think it might be relevant to get his phone and look at what he was doing with it without having to wait for a warrant? he could be alerting the 3rd man the police are there and to run, fight, or hide evidence etc.

The example you give with the GPS wasn’t really isnt relevant. Nothing they did needed to be done immediately to gain information or keep information from being lost.

I don't care if it's relevant. I believe it is and should be illegal to search that without a warrant.

Just because something is convenient for an investigation does not make it legal or mean it should be legal for the authorities to do.

I Wear Pants;635160 wrote:Just because doing something could be beneficial to police/government (searching your text messages/emails on your phone) doesn't mean it should be allowed. An example of where something was convenient for police/government but shouldn't be allowed is the warrantless GPS tracking of vehicals, especially when the device is planted while the car is on private property. The Supreme Court agreed that sort of thing shouldn't be allowed. http://www.eff.org/cases/us-v-maynard

What makes my phone something the police have a right to look at is the question you should be asking.

As for the weapons and drugs thing. They cannot be in phones.

I Wear Pants;635453 wrote:I don't care if it's relevant. I believe it is and should be illegal to search that without a warrant.

Just because something is convenient for an investigation does not make it legal or mean it should be legal for the authorities to do.

I remember the debate about the GPS being placed on vehicles parked on private property and I remember GD being in favor of the placement. I'm glad the Supreme Court disagreed with that.

I Wear Pants;635453 wrote:I don't care if it's relevant. I believe it is and should be illegal to search that without a warrant.

Just because something is convenient for an investigation does not make it legal or mean it should be legal for the authorities to do.

Being relevant is the whole point. You know why cops can't search your car after you have been arrested? Because its not relevant anymore. You've been arrested and no longer have access to anything in that car that could jeopardize officer safety.

Do you think police should need warrants to search cars and people?

CenterBHSFan;635240 wrote:So you're game for anything, GD? Is it your ideal that any(every)thing goes, no matter what?
Are you not seeing the points being made here or do you just not care about it for safety reasons?

The only points being made are that people don't like it.

An no, I am not game for anything. I don't need to search a cell phone during a terry pat.

dwccrew;636618 wrote:I remember the debate about the GPS being placed on vehicles parked on private property and I remember GD being in favor of the placement. I'm glad the Supreme Court disagreed with that.

A few judges and courts agreed with me, so apparently I must not be that far out in leftfield.

Glory Days;636639 wrote:A few judges and courts agreed with me, so apparently I must not be that far out in leftfield.

I didn't say you were, you are entitled to your opinion; however, I am glad that the SC, in which has the final say, disagreed.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-07/homeland-security-dept-to-extend-body-scans-beyond-airports/?cid=bsa:moreauthor1

Yay! More scanners that don't do what they're supposed to do, are expensive, and are at best an inconvenience and at worst a wholesale infringement of our privacy. But it's in the name of safety so it's okay apparently.

Glory Days or really anyone else who's in favor of increases in police power and authority. Care to explain the following?



The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world. The U.S. incarceration rate on June 30, 2009 was 748 inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents, or 0.75%. The USA also has the highest total documented prison and jail population in the world.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics 7,225,800 people at years end 2009 were on probation, in jail or prison, or on parole — about 3.1% of adults in the U.S. resident population, or 1 in every 32 adults.

http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_newfigures.pdf

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/law/research/icps/downloads/wppl-8th_41.pdf

This is an interesting read: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/28cnd-prison.html?_r=1

Haha what about it? Could be any number of thing and most likely unrelated to anything we are even discussing. Could even be the fact that back in the day the cops would just kick your ass and dump you at the county line when you committed a crime and it never went reported.

IWP - The graph is disurbing and I'm certain there are several factors involved. One among them is the fact that government has usurped the patriarchal role in millions of families and lack of discipline became an unwanted bi-product of government becoming "daddy". This is also a drum that Bill Cosby has been beating for a couple decades now.

However, the single largest contributor to skyrocketing incarceration rates is George W. Bush.

I was mostly talking about the part that we have both the highest prison population in the world and the highest rate of incarceration in the world.

We throw more people in jail than countries like Russia and China which seems weird/bad to me.

And it wasn't directly related to anything we were really talking about, I just didn't think it merited a new thread.


I lol'd at the G.W. thing.

I Wear Pants;639132 wrote:I was mostly talking about the part that we have both the highest prison population in the world and the highest rate of incarceration in the world.

We throw more people in jail than countries like Russia and China which seems weird/bad to me.

And it wasn't directly related to anything we were really talking about, I just didn't think it merited a new thread.


I lol'd at the G.W. thing.

And my point is that a lack of discipline at home during the past few decades has led to more criminals being generated.

I had to blame Bush...Cbus4life wouldn't have it any other way!!

I don't think that's the reason.

I Wear Pants;639154 wrote:I don't think that's the reason.

Yes, I hit "post" too quickly. There are a myriad of reasons, and I focused on just one, although I think it is a significant one. It is an interesting discussion topic and maybe it needs to be its own thread. There will always be crime, just at there will always be poor. No matter what utopian society progressives dream up, there will always be those that are poor. What I'm intrigued about is the fact the above graph is basically flat until the 70's and then it's on a completely different plane. What changed? Why are more incarcerated now as compared to then? Is it something that can be fixed?

George Bush, video games, and Britney Spears.