It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Get Pulled Over-Get Your Phones Content Checked!!!! NO WARRANT

page: 4
19
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:58 AM
link   


Can't believe I have to say this but, hide your phone.

Then when they ask you questions, say no comment. You have a Right to remain silent.

Now what, are they going to arrest you for hiding your phone? Let's see how that turns out.

I'm sorry for laughing but this craps getting over the top ludicrous.




posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by mileslong54
reply to post by AllUrChips
 


Don't put anything important on your phone, problem solved.


Don't put anything on your phones, don't drive in the dark, don't meet up with more than 3 people, don't interact in public..just move along.

DON'T LEAVE YOUR HOUSE, DON'T QUESTION MY AUTHORITY, DON'T SHOP THERE, DON'T INVESTIGATE, DON'T REPORT, DON'T FIGHT IT.

DON'T
JUST DON'T!

OH, turn on your tv and sit.


i dunno where this is going...haha



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by dannotz
Don't put anything on your phones, don't drive in the dark, don't meet up with more than 3 people, don't interact in public..just move along.

DON'T LEAVE YOUR HOUSE, DON'T QUESTION MY AUTHORITY, DON'T SHOP THERE, DON'T INVESTIGATE, DON'T REPORT, DON'T FIGHT IT.

DON'T
JUST DON'T!

OH, turn on your tv and sit.

i dunno where this is going...haha


You don't? Seems pretty obvious.

Either tyranny or revolution. Our choice.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 05:29 AM
link   
No big deal.

If you are undercover for any reason, use a disposable phone.

If you have any questionable info on a phone, don't travel with that phone.

I don't think that there's a difference between an illegal search and an illegal phone-data grab.... which means that they've been doing this to us since civilization began.

You all should wise up... the police state is here. It's been here for a long time. You all are the ones that need to adapt to the way the world has always been.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by AllUrChips
 


Uh, it sounds like they did a little more than remove some stoner gun owners. 15k in cash, marijuana and a cache of guns does not indicate a normal gun owner with an innocent drug habit.


Sure it does. Can't trust the banks. Owning a bunch of guns is legal. and the dope may be legal also. But these swat cops have to justify their expensive existence somehow, so they make a mountain out of a mole hill. If this wasn't the case, why bother with this guy when there are much more dangerous thugs to chase.

Making this guy appear bad based on this information is plain wrong. Give the guy his money, dope and guns back in the name of the law.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


Someone that grows a plant is a criminal? Are you insane?



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Well, the Bush administration is who we can thank for this little intrusion of our privacy. They are getting exactly what they wanted...control over the masses, and saying they are trying to weed out terrorists



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by AllUrChips
 


you are a liar



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Cops in calif are ****.

By the way you can be arrested for legally having a unloaded legal gun in the trunk of your car in calif.

during a traffic stop if a cop ask if you have any guns in the car WITH you (you hear this as meaning in the passenger compartment)and you say no and the cop does a search and find a gun in the trunk that the cops claim is a concealed weapon.

What the cops claim is that you concealed the fact that there was a gun in the car. even though the gun was not IN THE CAR WITH YOU but in the trunk where you could not reach it.

How do i know this its because it happened to me. I did beat the charge but with a lot of time and money only because the cops had a camera and voice recording if what happened and it matched my version and someone on the jury was likely a gun owner(jury nullification)



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 




if tomorrow, california decides that police officers can kill anyone they want without reason with no repercussions, it would be completely legal, would it not? after all, some of those they kill will be criminals.

Well, your comparison holds absolutely no water because it has already been determined by the Supreme Court that a police officer killing someone constitutes a seizure under the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment in the bill of rights already protects citizens from unwarranted and unreasonable searches and seizures. So any law, that was attempted to be passed, that would allow for such rediculousness would be found completely unconstitiutional.

At this point, your suggestion is simply fear mongering.


would you still support this completely "legal" law? hell no.

Again, there is nothing "legal" about a law such as this. It is unconstitutional making the law "illegal."


legality does not determine the morality of an action. the action here is the invasion of privacy without a search warrant and probable cause. that is wrong and illegal.

Laws that pertain to the basic rights protected by the constitution absolutely do pertain to morality. They are one and the same.

The supreme court has upheld that when a person is arrested, they no longer have any right to privacy when it comes to the belongings they have on their persons. The justification is that the officer's safety is guaranteed when they are searched for weapons. Also, any evidence on their persons can be seized because it would be unreasonable to apply for a search warrant when that would prolong someone's detention and allow for the prisoner to simply destroy the evidence while the officer is applying for the warrant to search them.

The supreme court has also upheld the legality of an inventory search for the reasons I have already stated. Please go back and review.


not everyone is a criminal, and just because i like privacy doesn't mean i've committed any illegal actions. innocent until proven guilty is so pesky, don't you think?

Innocent until proven guilty is a term which you have shortened. The full term is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This statement pertains to the neccessity of the COURTS to remain unbiased until all of the evidence is weighed. It is impossible for police officers to assume someone is innocent until proven guilty. The mere mission that police officers are charged with, to investigate and identify those responsible for committing crimes, causes them to make appraisals on if someone is guilty or not. To establish probable cause, a police officer and magistrate must think there is at least a 51% chance the person is guilty. If a police officer automatically assumed everyone was innocent then no one would ever be charged with a crime.

I never said that anyone who enjoys privacy is a criminal. Please stop trying to make it appear I am arguing against the protection of privacy. When the bill of rights was drafted, a person could not carry a massive amount of private documents and photographs around in their pocket. Most private documents and photographs would be kept in a safe place in the home or office where a police officer would require a search warrant to gain access. With the advent of technology, this is now possible.

If the man in the original article was not engaging in criminal action, there would have been absolutely no evidence of such in his phone. It is not the fault of the officer that during the course of a legal search he found evidence of a crime. That would be the fault of the criminal. There was a clear and articulated chain of events that lead to the search and discovery of the evidence. This chain of events is reviewed by the courts and was upheld.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by AllUrChips
 




I think its about the principle, not being clear. WHERES YOU WARRANT?

So you are arguing that the principle is criminals should not to put any evidence of their crimes on their cell phone so that the police cannot discover said evidence and charge them with a crime?

That is a very backwards principle.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 




Actually if you read my post correctly I stated "I wonder" if he was a MMJ user being that he lived in Cali but I never said it was a fact. I did however post the facts below from other website about his case.

The mere fact that he was charged with possession of marijuana sheds some light on if it was medicinal or not. Meaning if he had a perscription, he could not be charged with the possession of the marijuana.


Wait, so if he had legal firearms but was in possession of illegal drugs, those legal firearms become illegal because of the illegal drugs? What? I'm no lawyer nor am I a drug dealing, firearm touting dealer, but either way, if that's the case I never knew that.

Yes, in most states possession of illegal drugs and guns is a crime. This is also prohibited under federal laws.


So from the illegal search of the phone (depending) SWAT raided his house because of a picutre and that's when they discovered the drugs, grow equipment, money, and cache of firearms. So a picture can get you raided. The article states it is legal to own those weapons if you owned them prior to Cali's assault weapons ban, or they picture could have been taken in another state, or he could have found it on the web, liked it, and kept it on his phone. Basically a picture allowed SWAT to raid his house because the officer searched his phone.

Again, there was nothing illegal about the search. It was an inventory search of the vehicle which has been upheld by the Supreme Court.

It did not go right from the discovery of the picture to raiding his house. The officer would have had to write a probable cause and affidavit in the form of a search warrant. That probable cause would then have to be taken to a judge who would review it and if probable cause was established then the search warrant would be signed. Then the search warrant would have been executed.

What you are not taking into consideration is that what you are reading is not the probable cause for the search warrant. All of the facts are not contained in the article. What you are also not taking into consideration is that once someone is convicted of certain crimes, they become federally prohibited from ever possessing a firearm ever again. So, when we take into consideration the guy's lengthy criminal record, which was established in the original article, and the fact that pictures on cell phones have a date and time stamp, we can reasonably see how a police officer could determine when the picture was taken and if the person, at that exact time, was federally prohibited from possession of a firearm. This can then build probable cause to allow for the search and seizure of said weapons.

The same applies to gun ranges. If a federally prohibited person goes to a gun range, rents a gun, shoots with it and then returns it to the range, they can be charged with prohibited person in possession of a firearm.


That's bull#, through and through. And now the young man is dead, from what I cannot find because they won't release the details, but from this case they're gonna user the appeal to allow all Cali cops to be allowed to search cell phones from a simple traffic stop? More bull#.

Once again, no cops cannot search cell phones from a simple traffic stop. The person has to either be arrested or their phone must be subject to an inventory search if it is towed. If the person is not arrested, or their vehicle not towed, then no search of anything will occur without consent or a warrant.


edit on 6-10-2011 by areyouserious2010 because: edit to add

edit on 6-10-2011 by areyouserious2010 because: edit to add



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by tomten
reply to post by AllUrChips
 


Hmm.. That's nasty.
I know there are device that extract the data from cell phones.
Like this one.


Equipment like this is the reason that they don't need your password to gain access to your 'locked' mobile device.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join