Cops can search cell phones on arrest. No warrant needed

[Smallc]

A hypothetical scenario.

[On Guard for Thee]

How hard would it be for the phone manufacturers to build in some sort of one touch instant "dump" button if you were worried about all those ISIS propaganda photos you had or whatever?

[WWWTT]

Password protect your phone. You have a right to remain silent. Cops cannot force you to provide.

Sounds like the way to go!

WWWTT

[TimG]

How hard would it be for the phone manufacturers to build in some sort of one touch instant "dump" button if you were worried about all those ISIS propaganda photos you had or whatever?

Blackberries and any other phone with enterprise class s/w can be remotely wiped in case of theft. Edited December 11, 2014 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Blackberries and any other phone with enterprise class s/w can be remotely wiped in case of theft.

You will also be charged with tampering with or destroying evidence. But good luck with that.

[Smallc]

An iPhone can as well. But yes that would be problematic.

[Topaz]

As one person said on the news, that BAD guys will just use a "throw away" cell phone and there won't be nothing on it. I suppose one could have two phones, one for the road and one for the home but they have to have reason for doing it.

[Hal 9000]

I don't like this at all!

[eyeball]

If the police are doing something wrong, they would want to delete vids or that kind of information from the phone. A phone/camera is the best weapon against police state actions.

The solution will be wearable recorders that are streaming everything live, never stray away from the safety of a crowd and keep an eye out for one another's safety. Maybe an app that allows fellow citizens to recognize if the digital signal of one of their own has suddenly gone dark allowing any who are close enough to converge on their last known location.

It's us vs them right?

[bush_cheney2004]

...It's us vs them right?

No...cell phones are a rich source of evidence against perps engaged in criminal behaviour. They can also corroborate or disprove a witness report.

Frankly, I'm amazed at the number of people who have and use the damn things...even in the john..and are stupid enough to use them to document criminal acts and communications.

[eyeball]

Yeah, I even notice people using their phones to post inflammatory rhetoric that disses the state on internet forums and Tweeter and such. Hopefully these new measures will give law enforcement the tools the need to keep our communities and children safe from these terrorists.

[Wilber]

The solution will be wearable recorders that are streaming everything live, never stray away from the safety of a crowd and keep an eye out for one another's safety. Maybe an app that allows fellow citizens to recognize if the digital signal of one of their own has suddenly gone dark allowing any who are close enough to converge on their last known location.

It's us vs them right?

Why is it us vs them? Seems to me that some of the same people who want wearable cameras everywhere are the same who rant against CCTV because it is a violation of privacy.

Edited December 12, 2014 by Wilber

[bush_cheney2004]

Why is it us vs them? Seems to me that some of the same people who want wearable cameras everywhere are the same who rant against CCTV because it is a violation of privacy.

Yep...I was thinking the same thing today. Fickle bunch......

[eyeball]

Why is it us vs them?

They're attacking our freedom, we need to defend it. Just whose side are you on anyway?

Seems to me that some of the same people who want wearable cameras everywhere are the same who rant against CCTV because it is a violation of privacy.

Why is that such a surprise? It seems perfectly natural to me that if the state insists on violating society's privacy that society will retaliate in similar fashion and seek ways to violate the state's.

Edited December 12, 2014 by eyeball

[dre]

How hard would it be for the phone manufacturers to build in some sort of one touch instant "dump" button if you were worried about all those ISIS propaganda photos you had or whatever?

Its already out there. You can do a remote wipe of most cell phones.... Meaning that after its siezed by the police you can still erase all the data as long as its still within range of towers.

Iv pointed this out before, but this is the really stupid thing about all these intrusions into privacy. They simply create markets in the privacy sector for government/snoop/police proof devices, and secure communications, resulting in things like E2EE etc.

I guarantee you... that within a few years law enforcement will not be able to get a single thing off any cell phone, even if they do sieze it.

[Wilber]

They're attacking our freedom, we need to defend it. Just whose side are you on anyway?

Actually they are trying to protect you from society's scum by putting them somewhere they can't cause you harm.

Why is that such a surprise? It seems perfectly natural to me that if the state insists on violating society's privacy that society will retaliate in similar fashion and seek ways to violate the state's.

Got news for you eyeball, you are the state whether you like it or not. Cameras can violate anyone's privacy, no matter who is using them. You seem to think private citizens using cameras for any reason they chose are saints while law enforcement using them to catch criminals are oppressors. Scumbags with cell phone cameras have caused innocent people a lot more grief than the police ever have or ever will.

[eyeball]

Actually they are trying to protect you from society's scum by putting them somewhere they can't cause you harm.

And they should continue to do so using the tools they've been using like warrants, which must be working because crime is down not up.

Got news for you eyeball, you are the state whether you like it or not. Cameras can violate anyone's privacy, no matter who is using them. You seem to think private citizens using cameras for any reason they chose are saints while law enforcement using them to catch criminals are oppressors. Scumbags with cell phone cameras have caused innocent people a lot more grief than the police ever have or ever will.

I just think private citizens need to protect themselves from the state. Why is that wrong?

[GostHacked]

Actually they are trying to protect you from society's scum by putting them somewhere they can't cause you harm.

Got news for you eyeball, you are the state whether you like it or not. Cameras can violate anyone's privacy, no matter who is using them. You seem to think private citizens using cameras for any reason they chose are saints while law enforcement using them to catch criminals are oppressors. Scumbags with cell phone cameras have caused innocent people a lot more grief than the police ever have or ever will.

Scumbags will be scumbags, no matter what. Go after those scumbags and not the phone.

[dre]

Actually they are trying to protect you from society's scum by putting them somewhere they can't cause you harm.

Sure but you can make that argument from utility to circumvent just about EVERY civil right in the name of safety and security. But if you want to make that argument from utility, why stop at cellphones? It would be easier for the police to "protect us from scumbags" if they could listen to the conversations you have in your living room, or your bedroom as well.

And throughout history this argument has been used to completely strip people of their liberty and their rights... which is why we have a constitutional framework in which the authorities are supposed to operate.

And Im wondering... if siezing communications that not only predate the "incident" and the investigation in question, but cover all kinds of topics and individuals outside the scope of that investigation does not not violation the contitutional protection we have against overly broad search and siezure... then exactly what does?

And the police can already search your phone if they have a good reason... They just need to get a warrant which allows for judicial oversight that makes sure our legal rights are not violated and that our rights are protected.

[Wilber]

And they should continue to do so using the tools they've been using like warrants, which must be working because crime is down not up.

Crime is always evolving. Crime involving social media and the technology it uses didn't exist a couple of decades ago.

I just think private citizens need to protect themselves from the state. Why is that wrong?

What has the state done to you that makes you need protection? The protocols laid down by the court as to how and why the evidence can be obtained are pretty specific. If they don't follow them the courts will not be amused.

[Wilber]

Scumbags will be scumbags, no matter what. Go after those scumbags and not the phone.

And if the scumbags are using their phones to be scumbags, what then?

[GostHacked]

I would also add to that dre, that we see a continual process of removing checks and balances from the system to protect people's rights. A slippery slope/boiling frog, scenario. At what point do the majority stand and say 'ok we stop here'. A line in the sand can be redrawn at any time. No evidence of the other line ever existing. We need lines set in stone/concrete.

And sure if they have a warrant, they can get my phone. Wonder what is so bad about the current process in place? Just cause? Judge signed off on it? Good to go!! Right, terrorists. Or some bull reason.

Put this in the same lines of the C-30 bill Harper tried to ram through Parliament, and the 4 other variations that the SCC said NO. But the SCC said yes here? That does not reconcile in my view.

[GostHacked]

And if the scumbags are using their phones to be scumbags, what then?

Get a warrant.

[Wilber]

Sure but you can make that argument from utility to circumvent just about EVERY civil right in the name of safety and security. But if you want to make that argument from utility, why stop at cellphones? It would be easier for the police to "protect us from scumbags" if they could listen to the conversations you have in your living room, or your bedroom as well.

And throughout history this argument has been used to completely strip people of their liberty and their rights... which is why we have a constitutional framework in which the authorities are supposed to operate.

And Im wondering... if siezing communications that not only predate the "incident" and the investigation in question, but cover all kinds of topics and individuals outside the scope of that investigation does not not violation the contitutional protection we have against overly broad search and siezure... then exactly what does?

Sure but you can make that argument from utility to circumvent just about EVERY civil right in the name of safety and security. But if you want to make that argument from utility, why stop at cellphones? It would be easier for the police to "protect us from scumbags" if they could listen to the conversations you have in your living room, or your bedroom as well.

And throughout history this argument has been used to completely strip people of their liberty and their rights... which is why we have a constitutional framework in which the authorities are supposed to operate.

And Im wondering... if siezing communications that not only predate the "incident" and the investigation in question, but cover all kinds of topics and individuals outside the scope of that investigation does not not violation the contitutional protection we have against overly broad search and siezure... then exactly what does?

And the police can already search your phone if they have a good reason... They just need to get a warrant which allows for judicial oversight that makes sure our legal rights are not violated and that our rights are protected.

And the police can already search your phone if they have a good reason... They just need to get a warrant which allows for judicial oversight that makes sure our legal rights are not violated and that our rights are protected.

We have a Charter of Rights and a Supreme Court to interpret those rights. The SC has ruled on when and how the police can search phones. The police also have an obligation to ensure that evidence is not destroyed before it can be used.

This is a contentious issue and the courts will have to be very careful when it comes to preventing abuse.

[GostHacked]

To clarify, to get the warrant you must have done some of the following :

Investigate what is going on.

Provide evidence that justifies a warrant.

Get a warrant.

Make the arrest.

Now they say the phone can only be searched related to the suspected crime. Drunk driving is an arrestable offense, but would it allow the police to search through his phone? What would the search provide that the drunk driver breathalyzer/blood-alcohol test has not already provided?

All they would need is a suspicion or make up something in order to search the phone. I am sure every cop out there is smartphone savvy enough to know where to look and not to look anywhere else.