Forgot your password?

typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Common sense (Score 2) 55

by icebike (#43764445) Attached to: Fed. Appeals Court Says Police Need Warrant to Search Phone

The officers were investigating a domestic disturbance, which qualifies as an exigent circumstance under California law..

Had they merely walks out an met the officers on their porch nothing would have happened.

Yet the prevented the officers from doing what the law required them to do.

Don't like that law, then get the law changed, and watch more monsters beat their wives while forbidding the police to enter.

The people you elected voted for that law, principally to protect women. If a vote were held today on that issue
it would pass again, easily, because women voters outnumber men, and Ariel Castro has taught us all a lesson
of what an unrestricted right to privacy in your home can bring.

Comment: Re:The real enemy is the war on drugs (Score 0) 55

by icebike (#43763519) Attached to: Fed. Appeals Court Says Police Need Warrant to Search Phone

Oh, don't worry, there are a plenty of other reasons that will be pushed to the front even if every drug on the planet were legalized.

We have the war on terror (where mere possession of a piece of wire makes you guilty of possession of bomb making materials)
We have the war on child porn (where picks of your kids first bath makes you a child pornoghrapher)
We have the war on sex crimes (where taking a wiz in an alley after too many beers makes you a sexual predator)

Police were busting down doors without warrants long before there was a drug trade.

Comment: Re:Common sense (Score 1) 55

by icebike (#43763443) Attached to: Fed. Appeals Court Says Police Need Warrant to Search Phone

Does this work for the locks on my house? The dial on my safe?

You're asking this of guys who'll kick down your door if you don't open it fast enough and run in with weapons blazing?

Seriously?

Unless they are in hot pursuit, they will not kick down your door without a warrant.

With a warrant, they will use the City Key to open your door, especially if the warrant specifies flushable drugs.

Comment: Re:Easy Fix. (Score 4, Interesting) 55

by icebike (#43763397) Attached to: Fed. Appeals Court Says Police Need Warrant to Search Phone

They already had him on doing a drug sale, and the cell phone was searched after he was read his rights and his items were confiscated for booking.

But in most jurisdictions, if they had taken his car while making the arrest, they would have had to get a search warrant before they started digging around in the car.
It seems only proper that they get a warrant for the phone. If it makes as much sense as you seem to imply, they would have no problem getting the warrant.

Unless they suspect there evidence in the car, they don't automatically have a valid reason to search it. Even if they believe there may be a trunk full of drugs, most police agencies will get the warrant just to be sure it stands up in court, because "suspecting there is evidence" has been found to be just too big of a loop-hole and has been so often abused that it is routinely thrown out. In fact in some jurisdictions, if they seize the car/phone, all emergency situations cease at that point and there is no longer exigent circumstance to search for drugs. Bombs, maybe, but drugs or cell phone data, not so much.

See: http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform-immigrants-rights-racial-justice/know-your-rights-what-do-if-you

As for "having him on Drug sales", I fail to see why that makes a difference. They already had is phone too. He wasn't going to be given a chance to wipe it.

The difference between dogs and cats is that dogs come when they're called. Cats take a message and get back to you.

Working...