Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Kagan's thoughts on this are vapid as there is nothing indicating her thoughts regarding probable cause. I'd like to know her thoughts on search and seizure of electronic devises as it relates to probable cause.
Here's a possible scenario where searching a phone might be helpful:
Person runs a stop sign and get pulled over. A normal search leads to discovery of a large sum of cash.
Law enforcement searches the phone and see a text that says 'I have the drugs. Meet me at 5PM - 5th and Main.'
Law enforcement assembles a team in vicinity of the purchase point to nab the supplier.
So unless the subject when asked volunteers all the information to the officer, not handing over the phone is arguably obstruction of justice.
So really what is better for the community at large? A traffic violation followed by a successful illegal transaction? or a traffic violation followed by an arrest - possession with intent to sell illegal substances?
So in your opinion Kagan got it right according to the ACLU. Maybe we're better off with her working there..
What is a "normal search" that discovers cash? Unless it is in plain site then there should have been no search at all for a traffic stop.
Regardless of the value of a drug arrest, the greater harm to society is to place too much power in the police (and the government). Our founders were clearly concerned about that - hence the protections in the Constitution against illegal search and seizure. They didn't anticipate smartphones. The SCOTUS needs to rule on this.
A key question in two cases argued Tuesday is whether Americans’ cell phones, with vast quantities of sensitive records, photographs and communications, are a private realm much like their homes.
“People carry their entire lives on their cell phones,” Justice Elena Kagan said.
If a cop pulls you over for no seat belts, or talking on the cell phone while driving, they shouldn't have the right to go through your cell phone! That's a breach of the right to privacy!
According to the ACLU: WHAT IS THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY?
The right to privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has said that several of the amendments create this right. One of the amendments is the Fourth Amendment, which stops the police and other government agents from searching us or our property without "probable cause" to believe that we have committed a crime. Other amendments protect our freedom to make certain decisions about our bodies and our private lives without interference from the government - which includes the public schools
Cell phones have become our modern version of a private document. Without probable cause no agent should be able to search through our personal computers... our phones
Cell phones use the PUBLIC airwaves. If you want to keep your stuff private, don't use public airways.
Land lines and computers use public infrastructure. Once you get onto the public infrastructure you relinquish a certain amount of privacy.
Cell phones use the PUBLIC airwaves. If you want to keep your stuff private, don't use public airways.
Land lines and computers use public infrastructure. Once you get onto the public infrastructure you relinquish a certain amount of privacy.
The airwaves are only relevant as a method for data to get on the cell phone. Some of the data is entered using the keyboard and never touched a public airwave.
Chances are pretty good that the time and date recorded on a cellphone for a call or text was generated by the hardware on the phone - again not via the airwaves.
As for land lines - it takes a search warrant to monitor your phone (NSA encroachment may be an exception).
What is a "normal search" that discovers cash? Unless it is in plain site then there should have been no search at all for a traffic stop.
Regardless of the value of a drug arrest, the greater harm to society is to place too much power in the police (and the government). Our founders were clearly concerned about that - hence the protections in the Constitution against illegal search and seizure. They didn't anticipate smartphones. The SCOTUS needs to rule on this.
Probably a poor choice of words on my part with normal search. I was referring a visual inspection of the vehicle's interior as the officer is engaged in ticketing the driver. So plain sight or 'what's in the bag?' followed by the driver showing the contents.
Don't want to give anyone the impression that I'm biased toward illegal search and seizure.
Agreed that too much power is a dangerous thing. I think our founders in defining legal/ illegal searches of... they are referring to private property and any contents concealed or not visible from a boundary outside of said property. A smartphone would fall into that category so with regard to legal search, this should be a slam dunk.
Cell phones use the PUBLIC airwaves. If you want to keep your stuff private, don't use public airways.
Land lines and computers use public infrastructure. Once you get onto the public infrastructure you relinquish a certain amount of privacy.
Cell phones doesnt use public airways to store the information..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
