01-19-11 04:47 PM
85 1234
tools
  1. Daniel Ratcliffe's Avatar
    It's admissible if a judge determines after the fact that there was probable cause for the warrantless arrest.
    Care to explain?

    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.
    Seriously, that outrages me. Police should be allowed to get access to the phone if they need to search it, and if the person in question doesn't co-operate, make it take whatever torture it requires to make them co-operate. My idea for that, couple of billion tazers in the nuts if it's a male, in the breasts if it's a female.
    01-09-11 04:44 PM
  2. belfastdispatcher's Avatar
    Care to explain?



    Seriously, that outrages me. Police should be allowed to get access to the phone if they need to search it, and if the person in question doesn't co-operate, make it take whatever torture it requires to make them co-operate. My idea for that, couple of billion tazers in the nuts if it's a male, in the breasts if it's a female.
    Try growing up in a communist dictatorship and then come back.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    01-09-11 05:13 PM
  3. Daniel Ratcliffe's Avatar
    Try growing up in a communist dictatorship and then come back.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    Well given you also live in the UK, I'm sure you know how much stick police get, and they're powerless to respond. It's like they've got to take a punch to the face and just act as if nothing happened. I'm sick of seeing people walk all over the police. They're meant to protect the innocent and prevent people from getting hurt, but stupid health and safety laws (ok, not all are stupid, but some are, read the magazines, I see stupid health and safety restrictions all them, especially that Metro) every which way prevent them from being able to do their job effectively.

    I don't need to grow up in a communist dictatorship to understand that our justice system is messed up so much, it favours the criminal over the victim.
    01-09-11 05:31 PM
  4. tmelon's Avatar
    Blackberry password wipe.

    Ruling lets California police search your phone without a warrant - CNN.com

    I'll set my phone to wipe after three attempts if I travel to California. (Hopefully I won't.)

    If confronted with a demand to unlock my phone (even by a judge), I would also raise other constitutional issues [like the right to be free from involuntary servitude (i.e. slavery)] in addition to the usual Fourth amendment search and seizure issues. No citizen can be compelled to enter keystrokes for the police! I don't work for them, therefore I won't enter keystrokes!
    You will then be forced to unlock your phone or be arrested for insubordination. And that warrant isn't just in California. It's going to be nationwide soon.
    01-10-11 05:47 PM
  5. T
    Arrested for insubordination? What's that? Do you mean "contempt of court"? And what's the penalty for that, death? But that's why it would be ideal to wipe the phone with incorrect password attempts before contact with the thugs-with-badges escalates to an unlawful arrest that ends up in front of a seditious lawyer in a black dress.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    Last edited by Tnis; 01-10-11 at 06:00 PM.
    01-10-11 05:56 PM
  6. tmelon's Avatar
    Arrested for insubordination? What's that? Do you mean "contempt of court"? And what's penalty for that, death? But that's why it would be ideal to wipe the phone with incorrect password attempts before contact with the thugs-with-badges escalates to an unlawful arrest that ends up in front of a seditious lawyer in a black dress.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    Refusing a search warrant to your phone is the same as refusing a search warrant to your house. They will assume that you're hiding something incriminating. If you had nothing to hide then you would be willing for people to see. It's not like you have top secret government information hidden on your BlackBerry.
    01-10-11 06:01 PM
  7. T
    So, if I flush, it must have been drugs that went down the toilet?

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    01-10-11 06:04 PM
  8. tmelon's Avatar
    So, if I flush, it must have been drugs that went down the toilet?

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    If the cop specifically asked you to step away from the toilet and avoid flushing he would assume you had something to hide.
    01-10-11 06:07 PM
  9. T
    Let him assume what he wants. He can even "assume" I'm reaching for a gun and shoot me. I'll wipe my phone. You hand over your not-so-secret information for "people to see."

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    01-10-11 06:13 PM
  10. tmelon's Avatar
    Let him assume what he wants. He can even "assume" I'm reaching for a gun and shoot me. I'll wipe my phone. You hand over your not-so-secret information for "people to see."

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    I'm just stating the law. Refusing to unlock your phone is refusing a search warrant. That never turns out well. Just look at the Watergate Scandal.
    01-10-11 06:17 PM
  11. TheScionicMan's Avatar
    Refusing a search warrant to your phone is the same as refusing a search warrant to your house. They will assume that you're hiding something incriminating. If you had nothing to hide then you would be willing for people to see. It's not like you have top secret government information hidden on your BlackBerry.
    When they serve a search warrant on your house, they don't force you to unlock all the doors for them. I don't think you can be forced to give a password, unless you're in Gitmo. They can serve a warrant for your phone or PC, but its on them to access what's there.
    01-10-11 06:20 PM
  12. tmelon's Avatar
    When they serve a search warrant on your house, they don't force you to unlock all the doors for them. I don't think you can be forced to give a password, unless you're in Gitmo. They can serve a warrant for your phone or PC, but its on them to access what's there.
    But a phone would be different. A warrant to a phone would state that they have legal permission to view everything on it that was stated in the warrant. It's not like this is the first time phones have had passwords. The warrant will probably say something about unlocking it and if it doesn't they will just go back and get another warrant that does. There's not much of a way to avoid it.
    01-10-11 06:23 PM
  13. Mister Xiado's Avatar
    It's not like it's hard to plant fake messages on a BlackBerry. Just restore a backup file that has a bunch of incriminating trash in it, and bingo, to the average luddite judge, it looks like you engineered the assassination of JFK twenty years before your birth.

    Or they could just toss you a drop pistol and hope your first instinct is to catch it.
    01-10-11 06:37 PM
  14. T
    When they serve a search warrant on your house, they don't force you to unlock all the doors for them. I don't think you can be forced to give a password, unless you're in Gitmo. They can serve a warrant for your phone or PC, but its on them to access what's there.
    That's right. They open the doors themselves. And you're right: you can't be lawfully (i.e. under the Constitution) forced to speak your password. Will a seditious judge lock you up for refusing? I don't know, but these days I wouldn't be surprised if he handed down a death penalty.
    01-10-11 06:44 PM
  15. tmelon's Avatar
    That's right. They open the doors themselves. And you're right: you can't be lawfully (i.e. under the Constitution) forced to speak your password. Will a seditious judge lock you up for refusing? I don't know, but these days I wouldn't be surprised if he handed down a death penalty.
    If the warrant states that they can go into your garage then you have to unlock the door for them. It's no different for a phone.
    01-10-11 06:46 PM
  16. T
    But a phone would be different. A warrant to a phone would state that they have legal permission to view everything on it that was stated in the warrant. It's not like this is the first time phones have had passwords. The warrant will probably say something about unlocking it and if it doesn't they will just go back and get another warrant that does. There's not much of a way to avoid it.
    They may have legal permission to view it, but they can't force you to help them.
    01-10-11 06:47 PM
  17. T
    If the warrant states that they can go into your garage then you have to unlock the door for them. It's no different for a phone.
    No you don't. With the warrant they are authorized to break in by themselves, not to compel you to help them or otherwise enslave you.
    01-10-11 06:48 PM
  18. TheScionicMan's Avatar
    But a phone would be different. A warrant to a phone would state that they have legal permission to view everything on it that was stated in the warrant. It's not like this is the first time phones have had passwords. The warrant will probably say something about unlocking it and if it doesn't they will just go back and get another warrant that does. There's not much of a way to avoid it.
    If that were true, then law enforcement wouldn't need a Computer Forensics team, just tell the perp he HAS to give up his right to remain silent? But for some reason, they have departments that focus on tech devices. Other than adding a charge of contempt of court to whatever you were arrested for, what are they going to do to compel someone?

    All this is speculation anyway because it wasn't part of the scope of this case.
    01-10-11 06:49 PM
  19. T
    If that were true, then law enforcement wouldn't need a Computer Forensics team, just tell the perp he HAS to give up his right to remain silent? But for some reason, they have departments that focus on tech devices. Other than adding a charge of contempt of court to whatever you were arrested for, what are they going to do to compel someone?
    +1 on that
    01-10-11 06:52 PM
  20. tmelon's Avatar
    No you don't. With the warrant they are authorized to break in by themselves, not to compel you to help them or otherwise enslave you.
    It's not worth arguing over. The bill in California most likely mentions phones with a password seeing that many people have password locks.
    01-10-11 06:52 PM
  21. T
    It's not worth arguing over. The bill in California most likely mentions phones with a password seeing that many people have password locks.
    Okay, lol. Just pass any bill authorizing anything then. Move along ... Nothing to see here!
    tmelon likes this.
    01-10-11 07:02 PM
  22. the_sandman_454's Avatar
    Okay, lol. Just pass any bill authorizing anything then. Move along ... Nothing to see here!
    I agree, they can't do whatever they want (theoretically). It must pass Constitutional muster, and forcing someone to incriminate him/herself is a clear violation of the 5th Amendment.

    Whether the high courts will do the right thing/rule in favor of the Constitution isn't a guarantee these days though, and sadly it has never been a guarantee. Seems everyone has an agenda, and some judges/justices like to rule from the bench.
    01-10-11 10:02 PM
  23. TheScionicMan's Avatar
    It's not worth arguing over. The bill in California most likely mentions phones with a password seeing that many people have password locks.
    It wasn't a bill, it was based on a court case that had nothing to do with a password protected phone and the court will not bring up issues that are not before it.
    01-11-11 12:23 AM
  24. JRZLocal's Avatar
    Truthfully I'm more worried about my girlfriend going thru my phone than any police officer. Pretty soon I think more platforms than just blackberry will have some sort of remote wipe feature but it is nice to know my bold is secure.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    01-11-11 12:44 AM
  25. n8ter#AC's Avatar
    Truthfully I'm more worried about my girlfriend going thru my phone than any police officer. Pretty soon I think more platforms than just blackberry will have some sort of remote wipe feature but it is nice to know my bold is secure.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    Any phone that supports the proper exchange policies can be remote wiped.

    But it's not like the Police will let you log into a computer to remote wipe you phone. Password wipe is nice and all, though.

    Google phones make you log in with your Google credentials if you fail the pin code/swipe lock too many times and they cannot force you to give them you User Name and Password.

    This only matters to people who don't use lockscreens on their phones (most people do). If you do, you have nothing to worry about because they cannot force you to give them your login information (Code, Pin, UN/PW, etc.) without a supoena.
    01-11-11 05:01 AM
85 1234
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD