›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Police Officers' Can Search Your iPhone Following Arrest For A Traffic Violation

TaselTasel
edited January 2008 in Politics
Since we have a bunch of lawyer type people here, and many pseudo legal people, I'd figure I'd get peoples reaction to this:
Police Officers' Can Search Your iPhone Following Arrest For A Traffic Violation
I understand the concept, but it seems to me that this is another case of technology outpacing the law. Should technological devices be considered containers? The article singles out iPhones (for the obvious reason of page views) but it applies to any smart phone or electronic device.

Also, while reading down through the comments someone suggested password protecting the iPhone or other devices. They state this would mean that the police would need to receive a warrant before searching the contents. Is this correct or would this just end up with you being arrested. If the original purpose to is to allow the police to find information freely, would this not be in direct conflict with the law?

Comments

  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    There was that story about the guy not having to give his password up as it would incriminate him. But for that you need to encrypt your iphone. Who knows, maybe drive encryption could become standard in all devices eventually.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    Or just keep your iPhone inside a locked case when not in use. No key, no access.
  • kenjurakenjura
    edited January 2008
    It's not particularly easy to read the content of an iPhone with a passcode lock. They would have to jailbreak it without your consent, which is tantamount to taking an actual brick and bashing the thing to pieces. I'm not sure, in this world of moron judges, but I don't know if that would fly.

    That, and you can't really put much on there. I mean, you could have incriminating videos or photos, but...the only thing I can think of there, you'd be really stupid to put on your iPhone. (Do you really need...that...on the go?)

    Again, can't really store a lot of files on a non-jailbroken iPhone. E-mail, sure, but as we all know from Digg, the law's already broken into that one.
    Post edited by kenjura on
  • ZeehatZeehat
    but...the only thing I can think of there, you'd be really stupid to put on your iPhone. (Do you really need...that...on the go?)
    I know people who have bought a PSP solely for this reason.
  • Li_AkahiLi_Akahi
    edited January 2008
    I know people who have bought a PSP solely for this reason.
    Same, they have even shown off some of the questionable stuff they have at my school, much to the chagrin of the principal
    Post edited by Li_Akahi on
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited January 2008
    The real reason for the rule is so that the cops can check for contraband in exigent circumtances without going through the trouble of getting a warrant that might allow for the circumstances to vanish. The safety valve is the reasonable suspicion requirement. The only reason I can think for a cop to be interested in an iPhone during a Terry Stop situation is if he could enunciate a reasonable suspicion that the Defendant had criminal's phone numbers on the device, but that's a real stretch and would more likely require a warrant. The problem of access then raises its ugly head.

    If the cop has to take the time to ask for a tech person to do some sort of shenanigans to get to data stored on the phone, he'd lose his "exigent circumstances" argument. Then I think he'd need a warrant. I think a person would be safe in a stop unless the cop was adept at retrieving information from iPhones very quickly, and there aren't many cops like that.

    I don't expect that such a search would stand up to real scrutiny. There's the loss of exigent circumstances, the problem with reasonable suspicion, the Defendant's reasonable expectations of privacy . . . that even if someone actually upheld a search like this at the trial level, it'll be set right on appeal.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • George PatchesGeorge Patches
    Or just keep your iPhone inside a locked case when not in use. No key, no access.
    Besides the obvious silliness that you wouldn't be able to use your iPhone, this isn't a safety measure. If a cop says open something and has reasonable suspicion, guess what, he's opening it one way or the other. He'll get crowbar if he has to.
  • am_dragonam_dragon
    edited January 2008
    #a. if you are going to do illegal business with a phone you shouldn't be using an iPhone, why do you think they make pre-paid.

    Two. You've got to be doing some pretty bad shit to get the police interested in what's on your phone.

    I'm all for personal privacy, but I don't think the next time I get pulled over for speeding anyone's going to ask me for my phone. I've been searched at a traffic stop before, and I've had my car searched. It's a huge waste of time, I don't know why they would bother unless they really suspect you of something. If they do suspect you of something, the search can be as much about watching your reaction as it is to find something.

    So this is something that has been possible for years. It's just that the iPhone has been attached to it... Is a day planner a container? Is a notebook full of phone numbers? Should I be using ROT13 to write down all phone number? If the police find a trunk full of stolen car stereos or drugs, I think they are going to search everything anyway.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • ......
    Should I be using ROT13 towritedown all phone number?
    ROT5 would be smarter. There are only 10 digits. Use ROT13 to encrypt the names.
  • imptacimptac

    Besides the obvious silliness that you wouldn't be able to use your iPhone, this isn't a safety measure. If a cop says open something and has reasonable suspicion, guess what, he's opening it one way or the other. He'll get crowbar if he has to.
    You need a warrant to open a locked container in a vehicle. Going through the rest of your stuff is not part of a car search, and can be useful if you want to get away with something.
  • am_dragonam_dragon
    Should I be using ROT13 towritedown all phone number?
    ROT5 would be smarter. There are only 10 digits. Use ROT13 to encrypt the names.
    lol I'm slow like that...
  • George PatchesGeorge Patches

    Besides the obvious silliness that you wouldn't be able to use your iPhone, this isn't a safety measure. If a cop says open something and has reasonable suspicion, guess what, he's opening it one way or the other. He'll get crowbar if he has to.
    You need a warrant to open a locked container in a vehicle. Going through the rest of your stuff is not part of a car search, and can be useful if you want to get away with something.
    And they'll get that warrant if they want to see what's inside that locked container, it's not hard to get one. It's like the catch22 of a cop asking to search your vehicle. Technically you can say no, but if you do they'll just detain you until they get the warrant and then search your car.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve

    Besides the obvious silliness that you wouldn't be able to use your iPhone, this isn't a safety measure. If a cop says open something and has reasonable suspicion, guess what, he's opening it one way or the other. He'll get crowbar if he has to.
    You need a warrant to open a locked container in a vehicle. Going through the rest of your stuff is not part of a car search, and can be useful if you want to get away with something.
    And they'll get that warrant if they want to see what's inside that locked container, it's not hard to get one. It's like the catch22 of a cop asking to search your vehicle. Technically you can say no, but if you do they'll just detain you until they get the warrant and then search your car.
    Or, you could just leave a dildo in your back seat next to a box of condoms and some Kay-Y jelly. If he can see it with the flashlight and you look nervous you might be able to get away without having your car searched as the cop might think you just don't want him to find your sex toys.

    Or, it might back fire if the cop really wants to see your sex toys!
  • Sir_XanderSir_Xander


    Or, you could just leave a dildo in your back seat next to a box of condoms and some Kay-Y jelly. If he can see it with the flashlight and you look nervous you might be able to get away without having your car searched as the cop might think you just don't want him to find your sex toys.

    Or, it might back fire if the cop really wants to see your sex toys!

    I can just see it now... " sir, I'm going to have to confiscate theses..."
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited January 2008
    And they'll get that warrant if they want to see what's inside that locked container, it's not hard to get one. It's like the catch22 of a cop asking to search your vehicle. Technically you can say no, but if you do they'll just detain you until they get the warrant and then search your car.
    That's kind of the point of the "exigent circumstances" argument. They don't have a reason to detain you and if they take the time to get a warrant, you'll simply drive away. That's one of the biggest, if not the biggest reason, that the cops have so much leeway in searching vehicles.

    Through experience, I've found that the bigger problem to your "technically you can say no, but there's a catch . . . " argument is that the cop will simply lie and say you consented to the search. I had many, many defendants whose citation said "Defendant consented to officer's search of vehicle." I would always ask if this was so, and the defendants would always say it was not. It's easy to discount just one or two defendants saying this, but when you hear many, mnay defendants saying this over a period of many years, you begin to think, "Hmm, maybe it's the cop that's lying, and not my defendant." It makes sense. After all, who's gonna believe your scum-sucking defendant instead of the pretty cop with the nifty uniform and shiny badge?

    The "plain view" doctrine is something else that is abused a lot. I've heard cops say that really ridculous things, such as sawed off shotguns, were in plain view. Yeah, it's in plain view if you look under the seat . . .
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • AprecheApreche
    Through experience, I've found that the bigger problem to your "technically you can say no, but there's a catch . . . " argument is that the cop will simply lie and say you consented to the search. I had many, many defendants whose citation said "Defendant consented to officer's search of vehicle." I would always ask if this was so, and the defendants would always say it was not. It's easy to discount just one or two defendants saying this, but when you hear many, mnay defendants saying this over a period of many years, you begin to think, "Hmm, maybe it's thecopthat's lying, and not my defendant." It makes sense. After all, who's gonna believe your scum-sucking defendant instead of the pretty cop with the nifty uniform and shiny badge?
    Isn't this why we have video/audio recorders in the police cars? If you loudly and clearly say you do not consent to the search, it will be in the evidence.
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    Don't think I haven't asked. Those things are on pretty selectively.
  • AprecheApreche
    Don't think I haven't asked. Those things are on pretty selectively.
    That's very interesting. I was under the impression they were always on. If the officer has the ability to turn it on and off, then it is effectively useless.
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    Here is an article discussing how the cops were saying that this one particular car had an automatic recording device that was slaved to the emergency lights. Instead, it was an older system that had to be turned on manually.

    I mostly had experience with the old system. The cops would turn them on for DUIs and chases and stuff, bu they wouldn't necessarily turn it on for a regular traffic stop. It doesn't surprise me at all that the people in the article said the car had the automatic device when it didn't.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    What if the person being pulled over has a camcorder with them? Are they allowed to film the encounter?
  • spiritfiendspiritfiend
    Don't think I haven't asked. Those things are on pretty selectively.
    That's very interesting. I was under the impression they were always on. If the officer has the ability to turn it on and off, then it is effectively useless.
    They're always on in New Jersey by state mandate.
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited January 2008
    What if the person being pulled over has a camcorder with them? Are they allowed to film the encounter?
    They can film what they want - at the risk of angering the cop. Camcorders are usually not very high on the average cop's favorite consumer electronic items list.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • AprecheApreche
    They can film what they want - at the risk of angering the cop. Camcorders are usually not very high on the average cop's favorite consumer electronic items list.
    True, but my understanding is that it is perfectly legal to film on-duty officers, see Rodney King.
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    They can film what they want - at the risk of angering the cop. Camcorders are usually not very high on the average cop's favorite consumer electronic items list.
    True, but my understanding is that it is perfectly legal to film on-duty officers, see Rodney King.
    You're right. However, you could also call the cop a scumsucking asshole. That would be perfectly legal as well, but just as unwise as pulling out the JVC. You don't want to do anything to anger the cop in his natural habitat.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    They can film what they want - at the risk of angering the cop. Camcorders are usually not very high on the average cop's favorite consumer electronic items list.
    True, but my understanding is that it is perfectly legal to film on-duty officers, see Rodney King.
    You're right. However, you could also call the cop a scumsucking asshole. That would be perfectly legal as well, but just as unwise as pulling out the JVC. You don't want to do anything to anger the cop in his natural habitat.
    What about a hidden camera in your glasses? Or some other hidden recording device? Do you have to tell the cop that they are being recorded? What about calling your home answering machine with your cell phone and letting it record what happens? Is all of this admissible in court or would it be considered some sort of illegal wiretapping if you do not tell the cop about it ahead of time?
  • AprecheApreche
    What about a hidden camera in your glasses? Or some other hidden recording device? Do you have to tell the cop that they are being recorded? What about calling your home answering machine with your cell phone and letting it record what happens? Is all of this admissible in court or would it be considered some sort of illegal wiretapping if you do not tell the cop about it ahead of time?
    It is my understanding that all of that is perfectly acceptable. The cop doesn't have to know he's being recorded.
Sign In or Register to comment.