- Sep 13, 2002
- 99,054
- 207,665
- 113
Personally, I think it’s bullshit - unless there is a search warrant.
How do you feel about this?
- Thread starter torbee
- Start date
Hmmm...interesting. But I agree, unless you consent to a search, a search warrant should be required.
Against it, but not enough for me to turn off my own biometric sign in on my phone, so...
This isn't the case in Iowa and I don't see anything changing.
hawkeyetraveler
HB Heisman
Yeah I think you should require a warrant first. But for me personally the worst digital stuff I do is:
- Like and respond to wouldja posts on GIAOT, and
- Routinely card a bogey or worse on Wordle
I'm totally against this. Even with a warrant. It is the lazy way out for LEO. They have people that are smart enough to get in there with a warrant. Forcing a Defendant to incriminate themselves is over the top.
In Iowa we can't force anyone to give us their code/finger/face The only thing we tell them is that they will get their phone back much quicker if they provide their code. If we have to crack it, they will be without their phone for a while.
So fvcking what? It’s a federal court. This is more nanny state bullshit.
iPhone tip. If you hit the power button 5 times it turns off biometrics and you can only get into the phone with a code.
I can brick my phone from any of my other apple devices. I’m guessing Android has a similar capability.
Honestly, I could care less as long as they stay away from my pornhub search history.
Sigh, it’s not even fun anymore, BUT IM GONNA DO IT ANYWAY OUTTA PRINCIPLE!!!!!
How much less COULD you care?!?!
#GOTEMS
Yep. Sometimes it is worth it to not comply. Whatever they are investigating may not be true, but they could find other stuff on there that could implicate criminal offenses that LEO was not even considering
We immediately put it in airplane mode to prevent anyone from doing that
That's an interesting point. When we write search warrants for phones obviously we are specific about what we are looking for. I assume if we would find another crime on there, we would have to apply for a second search warrant once we discovered it. I've never had that happen before.
I've seen it happen several times. The D might not be a perfect person, but they are not found guilty for what LEO was looking for, but discoverable when they consented to the search/and/or there was an original warrant. It is one gigantic grey area out there. Fruits of the poisonous tree?
Guess you got all the little tricks figured out to invade the privacy of the citizens you’ve sworn to protect.
That's not the zinger you thought you had, because I would care if they looked at my pornhub history. So it's fluid at the moment.
Man, you just don't get it do you? We don't do search warrants on people that don't break the law. So someone with kid porn on their phone we should serve and protect by not gathering evidence to convict said kid porn guy? What about someone that was texting and caused an accident that killed someone? We shouldn't do a search warrant to gather the evidence to convict the person that killed someone? What you fail to understand is that by doing our job we are serving and protecting the innocent, not the criminal. People like you are part of the problem with society. You're just set in your ways and make general statements about shit you have no idea about.
Somewhat surprising out of the 9th Circuit, but I suspect his status as a parolee had a big impact on the outcome. Lessened expectation of privacy when your still technically under sentence post-conviction.
I bet the SCOTUS would grant cert on this one. Gorsuch has been friendly to protections for criminal defendants. Could see him, the three Dem appointees, and maybe the chief joining to reverse.
I bet the SCOTUS would grant cert on this one. Gorsuch has been friendly to protections for criminal defendants. Could see him, the three Dem appointees, and maybe the chief joining to reverse.
Yeah, we’re never gonna see eye to eye. I’m sure this type of power won’t be abused by law enforcement lol.
You realize an independent judge has to sign the search warrant that shows we have probable cause to search it right? Not sure how we could abuse anything when a judge has to sign off on it.
Hey Jimmy, are you still serving as a magistrate? I'm mostly in the 6th district but get around to other districts occasionally.
Nope, not anymore. Working for the state as a staff attorney now.
Because sometimes judges arent given accurate information and allow searches based on incomplete information. See the FISA warrant case as an example. Sure its rare, but mistakes are made.
This is just like the movies where they steal someone's eye or hand to open some high clearance area in a building. I don't support it.
Doesn't mean I won't be out in your area. I cover the state for my position
Nice. Appreciate your service, that can be thankless work and the pay ain't much, but it is vital to the operation of our judicial system. Maybe our paths will cross sometime at a conference. I'll start yelling Jimmy and HORT during the happy hour to see if you're there.
Sure, but get a search warrant. The OP post is about the authorities being able to force you to allow them to search your phone on demand. For whatever they want, in the heat of the moment. That shouldn’t be happening.
Noah Shannon would like to have a talk with you about your belief that “we are serving and protecting the innocent, not the criminal.” Your belief that you have authority over citizens is backwards…you have been granted authority by the citizens. We SHOULD have a reasonable expectation that our rights aren’t violated by our civil servants, but all to often that isn’t the case.
