by minimus 71 Replies latest jw friends
the guy was arrested for using a phony name and other things. The cop checked his IPhone out (I believe) and looked at all of his personal info.
I'm not an expert, but if he was already arrested, then I think he is liable to search and seizure... They can't just search without a warrant or reasonable suspicion (reasonable suspicion is tricky and probably worthy of its own discussion) or permission.
In the words of every law professor I know, dear Mini (and peace to you!)... "it depends". If it is a search "incident to arrest," yes. If there is probable cause (and an arrest raises probable cause)... yes.
You indicate there was only a stop. There must have been some probable cause for the police to search anything, including the contents of the car. Otherwise, it's an illegal search. Trying to get some kind of justice for that (i.e., acknowledgement, restitution, apology, etc.), however, is another matter altogether.
I hope this helps.
Peace!
SA, on her own
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The folks sworn to protect and defend the Constitution couldn't care less. . .
The Obama administration fell in line with the Bush administration Thursday when it urged a federal judge to set aside a ruling in a closely watched spy case weighing whether a U.S. president may bypass Congress and establish a program of eavesdropping on Americans without warrants.
In a filing in San Francisco federal court, President Barack Obama adopted the same position as his predecessor. With just hours left in office, President George W. Bush late Monday asked U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker to stay enforcement of an important Jan. 5 ruling admitting key evidence into the case.
Thursday’s filing by the Obama administration marked the first time it officially lodged a court document in the lawsuit asking the courts to rule on the constitutionality of the Bush administration’s warrantless-eavesdropping program. The former president approved the wiretaps in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
Read More http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/01/obama-sides-wit/#ixzz0fvm9hEoA
If the 4th Amendment is no longer relevant, it should be repealed through the appropriate procedure.
I think there's something called probable cause? like if he smells marrigiwanna or akohol on yer breath... I dont see how looking through your cell phone could possibly qualify. Of course all this is thrown out the windows with the Patriot Act....
In these parts, it's a known fact that the Game Warden can search your place with no warrant. So. . . if a cop is good friends with a Game Warden and they're out to get you, you're screwed -- if you've got something to hide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_warden#Search_with_or_without_Warrant
When someone gets into an avoidable accident, the cops routinely check out the phone for texting.
Hey it doesn't bother me about being pulled, what bothers me are the arseholes who go on about civil liberties all the time.
So, I take it then that you would have no problem if a cop sees you and without suspecting you of any unlawful behaviour whatsoever, decides to publicly detain you and make you empty all your pockets and frisk you, in full view of your neighbors and when you have an important appointment that you are late for. In fact, the cop simply does it because he doesn't like the color of your hair, or your ethnicity, or the cologne you're wearing, or your gender, or your dress, or any irrelevant thing. You also would not have a problem with cops entering your home without permission and ransacking your place. You would have no problem with being held at gunpoint and not allowed to leave until you've answered invasive and personal questions. Furthermore, you would have a problem with people who speak out against this. After all, privacy is not important if you have nothing to hide, right?
What planet are you from?
No. And in case you missed it, No again.
BTS
Isn't there a law in effect that you can be searched without warrant within so many miles of a border?
:If the 4th Amendment is no longer relevant, it should be repealed through the appropriate procedure.
It is still relevant and no, it should never be repealed.
No. No. No. And double No. That and confiscation of weapons from law-abiding citizens are the tools of totalitarian governments.
If one has nothing to hide, the Government has no business searching in the first place. If one has something to hide, the Government should be able to get a warrant to prove it.
Can anyone seriously argue that the 4th and 5th Amendments were written and enacted for the sole purpose of protecting only criminals? I'd like to see someone argue THAT one.
NO!
Farkel, NO to Tyranny CLASS
