Slashdot Mirror
What To Do If Police Try To Search Your Phone Without a Warrant
blottsie writes: The Supreme Court ruled this week that it is illegal for police to search your phone without a warrant. But just because that's the new rule doesn't mean all 7.5 million law enforcement officers in the U.S. will abide by it. This guide, put together with the help of the EFF and ACLU, explains what to do if a police officer tries to search your phone without a warrant. Of course, that doesn't mean they don't have other ways of getting your data.
Don't piss them off. Just say "I do not consent to this search. Repeatedly.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Treat it as any other home invasion.
--- and be carried out in a body bag.
How about, "don't have evidence of crimes on your phone," because "you aren't a criminal." /. groupthink is, as usual, that all cops are dishonest and looking to railroad everyone, because there was a bad cop once, and since he wasn't instantly outed by co-workers, that all cops are part of his nefarious plan to subvert your rights at all junctions.
Want to have a bad time at a traffic stop? Start your traffic stop by doing the crack-the-window and repeating the "am I free to go" mantra. I don't like driving to San Diego from Phoenix and having to get inspected along I-8. It angers me. ...but the solution isn't to be a dick to the guy out there in the papers-please guard hut. Keep voting against the idiots who make these things possible.
In the meantime, just keep your phone locked.
My attorney is the lead partner of probably the most succesful firm in Portland, OR and he disagrees with you. Under no circumstances should you trust a cop, EVEN if you are innocent, words directly from him to me. That means no talking, etc. That doesn't mean you have to be a complete arse, but you're being disingenious by suggesting most cops are decent folks, they are not, and even the ones that are are institutionalized into sticking up for the scumbags.
If a cop hates you he WILL find a reason to arrest you, you can't stop that, what you can do is make sure the DA's office has crap-all to work with in court and set yourself up for a wrongful arrest civil action (free college for your kids).
How about, "don't have evidence of crimes on your phone," because "you aren't a criminal." /. groupthink is, as usual, that all cops are dishonest and looking to railroad everyone, because there was a bad cop once, and since he wasn't instantly outed by co-workers, that all cops are part of his nefarious plan to subvert your rights at all junctions.
You aretrolling, right? It's well-known that it's harder to convict a cop of a crime than any other citizen (they are not military, they're just citizens with badges) and yet they are convicted of crimes about as often (per capita) as anyone else. Except rape. They're convicted of rape four times as often.
Now I know you are trolling, since the median citizen commits an average of three felonies a day.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."
So, are you suggesting we should all consent to illegal (and unconstitutional) searches on the assumption that since we're innocent it's OK for the police to break the law because the won't find anything??
Sorry, but no. When the police start abusing their power, the solution isn't to allow it to happen.
You may be willing to accept fascism, but we're not.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
You do understand that parallel construction is basically perjury, right? And that police have outright lied about the circumstances of arrest on many occasions?
So if they illegally look, and then radio to one of their buddies to call in an 'anonymous' tip, you're pretty much screwed.
Or like when the police officer tries to delete pictures off your phone, and you tell him no, and he arrests you for resisting arrest ... which is absurd since you weren't in the process of being arrested in the first place.
If you're going to purely rely on the fruit of the poison tree or the integrity of a specific police officer you've just met ... you're doing it wrong.
Not all cops are dishonest. But enough of them are that you should more or less not trust that any given one is.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Hi there. Typical Slashdotter here. I don't think all cops are out to get me. In fact, I've been friends with a number of cops over the years (always socially, admittedly), and I'd trust any of them to act fairly and justly. Most of the cops I've interacted with on-duty have also been pretty swell folks who seemed interested in doing a good job and putting away the actual bad guys.
However, I also strongly believe that I have a right to privacy, which should be especially obvious when I'm innocent. I also believe that if we fail to exercise our rights, they will, over time, be lost. The fact that I'm not engaging in any crimes (other than the three felonies a day the average American engages in) means that they have no valid reason to go rooting around through my stuff, so I will make them work if they want to go through it. I'm polite and firm in my refusal to let them search anything, but at the same time, I hold off on the "am I free to go" stuff until they initiate the dickishness. After all, they're probably just trying to do their job, and I don't need to give them a hard time in going about the stuff that's perfectly legal and sound.
Judge: "And why, exactly, did you search this man's phone?"
Policeman: "Well, we found this dirty phone in an extended search on the ground a few hundred feet where we arrested Mr. Jones. We searched it to learn who it belonged to."
Judge: "And where did you find the incriminating information?"
Policeman: "Well, we turned the phone over to our investigative crimes unit. They ran the 'strings' command on all the information on the phone and gave us a printout. When we looked through the printout, we found there was more information on the phone than Mr. Jones name and address. That's when we discovered that Mr. Jones was a criminal."
Judge: "Okay, it's admissible. The police didn't intend to violate anyone's privacy."
The Supreme Court has such a respectful view of local police and courts...
The way this was phrased might make one disinclined to follow it, but the basic point is fairly sound. The important part is to clearly state that you do not consent to the search before they take it. It'll be up to your lawyer then, but if you say nothing then the prosecution might try to argue that you consented through your silence instead of raising an objection. If the officers choose to search despite your objection then what they find on the phone and everything found as a result of that initial finding could be thrown-out, and if an entire case is built on that initial phone evidence then the case could be dismissed entirely.
At least, that is how I understand it. I am not a lawyer though.
In all honesty, based on what lawyers have published on the Internet, many of the defendants that could have benefited by not consenting to a search in the various ways police do search have done themselves in through their own words. The best advice is to not speak to the police beyond the incidentals necessary by law (ie, states with ID laws, minimal discussion at traffic stops, etc).
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Want to have a bad time at a traffic stop? Start your traffic stop by doing the crack-the-window and repeating the "am I free to go" mantra.
Perhaps, but what do you say when they ask you where you are going? I would suggest that you NOT answer. Yes, it may raise suspicion when you say "Respectfully officer, I'm not required to answer that question." but not knowing why you have been pulled over what choice do you have? Now if it's obvious why you've been pulled over I suppose it serves no purpose to start the "may I go" bush beating, but it's also not in your interest to start confessing or feeding the officer any information he might not already have.
So at at traffic stop what do you do? Start by asking "Is there a problem officer?" or "How can I help you officer?" Put the car in park and turn it off. Get your license, registration and insurance card ready. Keep your hands in plain view (on the steering wheel) and your window open no more than half way (at night turn on the inside lights in the car). Go from there. If you don't want to go full press "Respectfully officer I don't have to answer that question." then go with non-answers like "Where are you going?" => "I'm out for a drive." Why are you a long way from home? => "Taking a vacation/Visiting some people I know" or whatever says nothing specific. "Do you know how fast you where going?" => "I was keeping pace with other traffic." Why do you think I pulled you over? => "I don't know for sure officer, why did you?" If it's obvious he's not letting you go, don't ask. But if he hands you back your paperwork, THEN you ask if you are free to go.
The whole idea here is to be non-threatening, respectful and cooperative, but not giving any definitive answers, agreeing to any claims the officer may make or consenting to any searches and then ending the interaction with the police as quickly as possible.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101