[T�nis]

I don't mind the peace officers (the ones who are actually out helping people by keeping the peace), but unfortunately it seems they are few and far between. Most appear to be revenue agents and mindless "law enforcers." But okay, "attitude" or not, I'll still wipe the device, provide the wrong password if a password is demanded, or "forget' the password and "testilie" that I've forgotten it.

[Pilot Prop]

I wouldn't dare willingly allow any officer to go through my BlackBerry...i'd hand him/or her my BB and say "here you go! You got three tries"

[JJisGoofy]

Agreed. Conspiracy theorists worry me. I've never been hassled by the police. Unless I deserved it, like when I was speeding. It's funny how some people are *always being hassled. It's never their fault according to them. I know someone like that. And it *is their fault. But they're one of those "I hate all authority" people. I have always had pleasant encounters with police, and they've been helpful.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

I have been hassled by multiple cops and my only crime was I was sitting at a bus stop waiting for the bus. And when I was searched without probable cause the first thing the cop reached for was my phone.

[the_sandman_454]

Sorry, but the police are not your friends. Their job is to arrest people. There are so many laws on the books no ordinary citizen is going to know even 1/4 of them. Basically if they feel like hassling you, there is some obscure thing they can pull from an orifice and hit you with that.

No offense to any police around here, but the idea they're your friends is naive and ridiculous.

[TheScionicMan]

And the presumption that they are your enemy is even more naive and ridiculous and will probably get the hassling you claim you didn't deserve...

Anyway, its ridiculous to keep discussing the topic when PEOPLE AREN'T EVEN READING THE DETAILS. A cop is not going to approach you and ask you to see your phone, you will be sitting in the back of the squad car in cuffs and all your personal belongings will have been stripped from your person. They will then look through everything. How many more ways do I have to explain it????

If you get arrested in California, better hope there are no incriminating texts or e-mails or sensitive data stored on your phone.

On Monday, the California Supreme Court ruled that police in that state can search the contents of an arrested person's cell phone.

Citing U.S. Supreme Court precedents, the ruling contends that "The loss of privacy upon arrest extends beyond the arrestee's body to include 'personal property ... immediately associated with the person of the arrestee' at the time of arrest."

[belfastdispatcher]

So nobody ever got arrested wrongly, nobody ever went to jail even though they were innocent, no "evidence" was ever planted on "criminals" just to make them informers, no excessive force was ever used, no people ever died in police custody etc etc etc

Please, in an ideal world maybe but in the real world.......

This is coming from an ex cop in romania, possibly the most corrupt police in the world at one time.

Point is, you give one cop the right to look into your phone, even if just for traffic offences, you give ALL of them the same right. Password lock it, if they really need the info they can get it from the carrier or Rim

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[T�nis]

And the presumption that they are your enemy is even more naive and ridiculous and will probably get the hassling you claim you didn't deserve...

Anyway, its ridiculous to keep discussing the topic when PEOPLE AREN'T EVEN READING THE DETAILS. A cop is not going to approach you and ask you to see your phone, you will be sitting in the back of the squad car in cuffs and all your personal belongings will have been stripped from your person. They will then look through everything. How many more ways do I have to explain it????

Look, I don't think anyone doesn't get what you're trying to say. The points you seem to lack patience for are these: (a) even the accused have rights; and (b) even the ARRESTED have rights. These rights include (among others) the right to remain silent and the right to be free from involuntary servitude (i.e. slavery). What that means is this: (a) an American does not have to give the police his password (verbally or otherwise); and (b) the police still can't lawfully beat it out of him (though I realize you think they probably should be allowed to). If those people who are acting in the name of California's government authorize the police to do so (even if it's the judges), they are guilty of sedition.

I'm sure you've seen on television how the police break down someone's door. Sometimes they announce themselves, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they have a warrant, sometimes they don't. It makes no difference until the matter is hashed out in court, and it's determined whether the evidence they gathered as a result of their actions is admissible or not. They may even ask the person inside to open the door. If he doesn't (and he really does not have to help them), they'll just break it down anyway. Now, you should re-read the title of the article. It's "One more reason to stay with BlackBerry." Then imagine a door that's so strong the police can't break it down. Imagine me laughing, knowing they can't break down that metaphorical door. I'll imagine you crying, because RIM hasn't made it easy for the government of Saudi Arabia and the People's Republic of California to spy.

[the_sandman_454]

And the presumption that they are your enemy is even more naive and ridiculous and will probably get the hassling you claim you didn't deserve...

Anyway, its ridiculous to keep discussing the topic when PEOPLE AREN'T EVEN READING THE DETAILS. A cop is not going to approach you and ask you to see your phone, you will be sitting in the back of the squad car in cuffs and all your personal belongings will have been stripped from your person. They will then look through everything. How many more ways do I have to explain it????

I know the details. I still feel the 4th Amendment has been eroded too far as it stands. The police have no reason to see what is in my phone and should be required to get a warrant if they're going to want to see what is on it. Warrants must specifically list what they are looking for, etc.

Just because I don't have anything criminal or incriminating on my device doesn't mean I want people rummaging through it, seeing what pictures I may have, conversations, etc.

I never said to be disrespectul to the police or any such thing. Just don't pretend they're your friends. These days there's no more "officer friendly". Just don't want to volunteer any information and be cautious what you do say or next thing you know, they could be investigating you.

[TheScionicMan]

Look, I don't think anyone doesn't get what you're trying to say. The points you seem to lack patience for are these: (a) even the accused have rights; and (b) even the ARRESTED have rights. These rights include (among others) the right to remain silent and the right to be free from involuntary servitude (i.e. slavery). What that means is this: (a) an American does not have to give the police his password (verbally or otherwise); and (b) the police still can't lawfully beat it out of him (though I realize you think they probably should be allowed to). If those people who are acting in the name of California's government authorize the police to do so (even if it's the judges), they are guilty of sedition.

If everyone is getting it, what's with all the "It's about texting while driving..." and "If an officer ASKS me for my phone..."? Also, please use your "slavery" argument if you're ever pulled over for DUI and asked to take a field sobriety test. LOL

And please show me where ANY of my comments said I agreed with or approved this decision?

[avt123]

There's nothing in my phone that I would be afraid to let an officer/judge see.
What scares me are the paranoid conspiracy theorists who think cops are corrupt and out to get them.
Up here in Canada, the police are your friends.

I wish I can say that by me. I get pulled over at least once a month. I don't know if it is because I am young or what, but it is ****in annoying. I do not speed, I know how to drive, I do not drink and drive. I was pulled over a few weeks ago because a cop said I blew through a stop sign. I told him no I didn't, he asked me who the car was registered to, asked for my license, went to his car for 30 seconds came back and said have a good night. Cool. 2 years ago I had a cop tell me I was doing over 100mph on my way home from college. A car was right behind me and in front of me, plus there was traffic.

Let's not mention the random searches because I have a blacked out car and they think I am holding drugs or weapons or something. I know my rights, and they have no business going into my stuff without a reason.

I don't think cops are out to just get you, but many of them do abuse there power.

I will not allow police to search through my phone. There are pictures on there and other things that are personal. I'll boot into recovery and wipe my device before one gets their hands on my device. I don't even let other people touch my phone without my supervision.

My PBA card has been flashed more times than I can remember.

[T�nis]

If everyone is getting it, what's with all the "It's about texting while driving..." and "If an officer ASKS me for my phone..."? Also, please use your "slavery" argument if you're ever pulled over for DUI and asked to take a field sobriety test. LOL

It would appear that the comments about texting are mere speculation as to one of the underlying motives behind the California b-s. And your field sobriety test example falls flat on its face, as those tests usually fall under the various states' licensing schemes. For example, in Massachusetts, if one refuses the "Breathalyzer" test, he automatically loses his license for a mandatory period (I think it's 90 days), but I think he also avoids a drunk driving conviction. But the point is, the licensee agreed to these terms in his license application. In any case, what will the police do if he refuses field sobriety tests under the slavery grounds? They probably will refuse to let him continue to drive if they think he's been drinking. But they won't hold him at gunpoint and say, "Walk heel-to-toe!" "Say the alphabet backwards!" So, field sobriety tests have nothing to do with being expected to help the police investigate oneself while suspected of dealing drugs or any other crime. If you love the police, it's okay ... By all means consent to every search they demand of you. It's my policy not to consent to searches.

[TheScionicMan]

That's my policy too. If you really want to get outraged, check this out:

New Strategy Being Used in Florida for DUI Evidence | Firstcoastnews.com | Local News

Try password-protecting your veins...

[the_sandman_454]

That's my policy too. If you really want to get outraged, check this out:

New Strategy Being Used in Florida for DUI Evidence | Firstcoastnews.com | Local News

Try password-protecting your veins...

Can't password protect against that, but at least there is a judge involved in this case, even if it might not end up passing state constitutional muster. They should at least have to get a warrant to search your person or property.

[Rootbrian]

Privacy invasion is bad.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[TheScionicMan]

If someone dealing drugs had a paper list of transactions in his pocket at the time of arrest, do you think the police should be able to use that as evidence?

[rizzzzoooo]

That's my policy too. If you really want to get outraged, check this out:

New Strategy Being Used in Florida for DUI Evidence | Firstcoastnews.com | Local News

Try password-protecting your veins...

Outraged???? No....I think that is great. If that takes DB's off the road that drink and drive then go for it!!!!! Why should I have to be subjected to the possibility of being hit by some drunk? What, to protect their rights? Forget that!! Lets hope you don't ever have to feel the pain of having a close family member killed by a drunk driver. I bet those that are angered by this article will quickly change their tune!

[rizzzzoooo]

If someone dealing drugs had a paper list of transactions in his pocket at the time of arrest, do you think the police should be able to use that as evidence?

Yup....If someone is that dumb hey should also be charged with a separate count of stupidity if they do that.

[TheScionicMan]

Outraged???? No....I think that is great. If that takes DB's off the road that drink and drive then go for it!!!!! Why should I have to be subjected to the possibility of being hit by some drunk? What, to protect their rights? Forget that!! Lets hope you don't ever have to feel the pain of having a close family member killed by a drunk driver. I bet those that are angered by this article will quickly change their tune!

Well, at the point of a DUI Checkpoint, you haven't done anything to create probable cause or even reasonable suspicion. They haven't killed your family or any other dramatic scenario you can imagine. At that point, its a misdemeanor charge. The same as fishing without a license, but they are going to force you to give blood for one misdemeanor. If they can force you to give blood, what's the next step? Sodium Pentothol if they think you're lying?

Please don't misconstrue my questioning of rights with condoning drunk driving.

[TheScionicMan]

Yup....If someone is that dumb hey should also be charged with a separate count of stupidity if they do that.

And if they keep that list on their phone. how is it different?

[lssanjose]

will fine some dandy photos... I just had to!

[rizzzzoooo]

Ummmm....no. So wait till they hurt or kill someone on the road? Ok right..... Chances are that if you are at a DUI checkpoint and are sober, they are not going to draw your blood. The probable cause will be the odor you give off, slurred speech, or any other signs of intoxication someone displays. So yes....if you display those things then they should ask you to take a field sobriety test. I refuse then draw away. Sorry.

[the_sandman_454]

Outraged???? No....I think that is great. If that takes DB's off the road that drink and drive then go for it!!!!! Why should I have to be subjected to the possibility of being hit by some drunk? What, to protect their rights? Forget that!! Lets hope you don't ever have to feel the pain of having a close family member killed by a drunk driver. I bet those that are angered by this article will quickly change their tune!

I bet not. The sad truth is that few people take the time and can be bothered to properly drive. Doesn't matter if they're drunk, texting, reading, seeing what their kid is crying about or any number of other things that are just as dangerous as drunk driving.

The scarier thing to me is someone with an agenda that is going to lead to further 4th Amendment infringements being accepted.

[Daniel Ratcliffe]

Well if you refuse the breathalyser, then you shouldn't have this blood test, you should be treated as guilty of 2.5 BILLION charges of causing death by dangerous driving, WITHOUT a court case. Just bang, guilty of 2.5 billion charges of causing death by dangerous driving, even though you might not have killed anybody. I can't WAIT for the day this comes into the UK! Although I'd prefer my system to come in.

[T�nis]

If someone dealing drugs had a paper list of transactions in his pocket at the time of arrest, do you think the police should be able to use that as evidence?

It's admissible if a judge determines after the fact that there was probable cause for the warrantless arrest.

And if they keep that list on their phone. how is it different?

It's not different. The question goes to whether the arrested person can be compelled to help the police gather evidence against him or otherwise witness against himself. The answer is no. In the case of the paper list, he could write it in Estonian (a language I speak) or in some code. He doesn't have to translate what's written on the paper for the police. Sure, they could get their own translator (if they can find one), or try to crack the code, but the arrested person certainly doesn't have to help them with it. Same with the phone. They could try to break into it and defeat the encryption, but the accused doesn't have to help them with it by giving them his password (or unlocking it for them). He can remain silent and not even speak his name.

[belfastdispatcher]

Absolutely. I feel the same about people who text while driving. I lost my mother nine years ago this month to a sixteen year old girl texting while driving on a learner's permit, no less. I now hate the end of January, considering she would have been 65 on the first of February the year she was killed.

No hijack intended, but drunk driving and distracted driving (texting) should be treated equally in offense.

That little sixteen year old girl had an immense impact on my life. I hope she understands that.

16 is way too young to drive in my opinion.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com