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.
If they feel you may be about to wipe your phone for some reason the police an search it under exigent circumstances.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Don't piss them off. Just say "I do not consent to this search. Repeatedly.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Since the summary links you to a stupid news article and not the guides themselves, here is the ACLU Guide and EFF Guides here.
Have phone encrypted, and wipe phone from the bootloader?
What if they search your phone, find what they are looking for, then pretend they didn't search your phone?
10: PRINT "Everything old is new again."
20: GOTO 10
Treat it as any other home invasion.
--- and be carried out in a body bag.
That's what the saying "freedom isn't free" really means, you know.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
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).
Google: police cell phone extraction device
There were a bunch of stories about gadgets that could scoop up everything from your cell in about 2 seconds.
So I wonder if those devices will still be used - at the side of the road.
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.'"
Don't resist arrest? Don't plan on it, but that won't stop the cop from "narrating" what he wants others to believe what is happening. Case in point, cop pulls over a guy and walks up to the car knowing he's being recorded by his dashcam and has on a wireless mic. You hear the cop say "stop reaching for my gun" and see him lean in the car window. It looks like the guy has tried to take the cop's gun. The truth is that there is a 2nd cop car with a dash cam recording from an angle that allows you to see the driver's hands clearly on the steering wheel, even as the cop leans in his car to unbuckle his seat belt. The cop drags him out the car and throws him on the ground. The guy tries to break his fall and the cop starts shouting "stop resisting". This really happened... google Marcus Jeter New Jersey. The cops and the DA conspired to conceal the 2nd dashcam that showed the driver's hands /not/ reaching for the cops gun.
The article has some good advice, and what I would consider some bad advice:
"Lock your phone"
- GOOD ADVICE! A simple passcode is your first line of defense against any physical intrusion, just like the lock on your front door.
"Repeat 'I do not consent to this search'"
- GOOD ADVICE! Not only does it establish that you deny consent, it shows the cop that you know (at least some of) your rights, which will get most of them to think twice before doing anything that might violate your rights (especially if you're taping the encounter).
Don't get physical/let them do as they please, then lawyer up."
I consider that bad advice, because it discourages people from exercising their right to defend themselves against unlawful arrest, a right that has been repeatedly verified and upheld in court.
Of course, as with any exercising any right, you do so at your own peril.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Now I know you are trolling, since the median citizen commits an average of three felonies a day.
Do you have a source for this? I'd love to know what felonies I commit daily.
Most people involved in a pre-textual motor vehicle stop and issued a warning for a trivial non-offense won't know to say the magic words that begin their legal defense: "Am I free to go? Why am I being detained?" and when the polite officer says, "Well, I'm sure you've got nothing to hide, let me search your vehicle, and no matter what I'll make sure you're on your way quickly," many quickly hope compliance is their best option in the short-term.
So they say, "Yeah, go ahead," instead of the alternative, "I do not consent to search and invoke all protections afforded me by the Constitution; while I am cooperating within those constraints, please advise me promptly when I am free to go."
You'll get searched anyway, whether it's your phone or your car. You might get arrested anyway. But having invoked your rights instead of freely waiving your rights gives the defendant ample opportunity to assert their innocence in court without having already accidentally proven their guilt without the benefit of counsel.
I expect most people, despite the Supreme Court ruling, will find their phones searched anyway; consider stop-and-frisk in New York City. Please set a passcode on your device, preferably alphanumeric instead of a simple PIN, and avoid interacting with law enforcement, they have better things to do than read a neckbeard hacker's text messages to his mom about picking up more Mountain Dew at the store.
(Nevermind Border Patrol checkpoints in the US or Customs/Immigration interviews...)
(IANAL.)
Don't have evidence of crimes on my phone? How about perfect legal but very private photos of my wife that I don't want J. Random Officer looking at?
Now I know you are trolling, since the median citizen commits an average of three felonies a day.
I heard that before, and it seems to be a quote from some book, but I have never ever heard any evidence of that. So tell me three things that an average citizen with no intent of breaking the law might do that would be felonies.
"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.
This has worked very well for me in the past:
"My lawyer has advised me that rights are like muscles. If they are not exercised, they become weak. Therefor I do not and cannot consent to this search."
It conveys, very directly:
your refusal of the search request
you are a constitution, and rights advocate... meaning you will a big headache for the cop if he continues
you have a lawyer that's also into that sort of thing and would love to sue the department
You should refuse EVERY search. EVERY time. With absolutely no exceptions.
The majority of arrests start with a consensual search by police of someone that legitimately thought they had nothing to hide. Everything is illegal. If a cop searches your home and he wants you to go to jail, you're going to jail. It's as simple as that.
People get into these situations where someone backs into their car in a parking lot and the cop that arrives casually asks "Mind if I check your car for open alcohol?" and they think "LOL that's funny! Of course I don't have that." But the cop isn't just looking for alcohol is he? He starts lifting your floor mats... does he think there's a beer bottle under there? In once instance a man bought a car from the local police impound. A few days later he got pulled over, consented to a search and low and behold the car had a secret compartment for smuggling drugs. They arrested him and he spent a month in jail before they finally realized it had the drugs when it went into impound. ALWAYS refuse search requests. ALWAYS.
Oh uhm. Hmm ldet me see.
That's a tough one.
> Under no circumstances should you trust a cop, EVEN if you are innocent
That is only true for things worth hiring a lawyer over. As long as your confident your being hassled over a minor violation not worth a lawyers time, you might as well try the cheapest easiest time to present your case. Talk the cop out of the ticket, you don't have to try and talk the judge out of it, or get a lawyer involved. Anything under a few hundred dollars, no jail...
This does mean you have to recognize, and shut your mouth when being talked into something. Hard to recognize signs like, anytime a cops asks the same question twice... And even then, it can be very helpful to get on the record what other people did, to the officer right then. Don't answer questions at the scene of a accident... about what you did, they can't be used to help you in court. But it is very helpful if you can get a cop asking the right questions of other people. IE bashed a mugger, or saw a mugger bashed, you don't just claim the fifth and sit in the car while him and his buddies walk away, you tell the police I saw a knife in his pocket, and he ran after me... When the cop asks what you did, that's where you change the subject to what they did, and refuse to talk about that.
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.
Wouldn't matter. The police search to produce evidence that is admissible in court. If they were to search a cell phone illegally, they could not use any of the evidence obtained from it in court, thus making the search useless in the first place.
Yes, it's not as if there's any recent evidence that US governmental entities sometimes obtain information by one method! then pretend they got it a different way.
#DeleteChrome
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...
Never ever EVER speak to American cops:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The first thing you should do is avoid eye contact, slowly back away, making calm reassuring noises. You should also keep your arms wide; it makes you look bigger and less like prey. Finally, you should lie on the ground, and play dead. They will quickly lose interest and move on. Do not run, as it will trigger their hunter/prey instincts.
If however they start to eat you, you should start to fight back vigorously.
Or if you are really worried about it, encrypt your phone and lock it...
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.
I prefer to let some other guy die for our freedom, and then celebrate his memory.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
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
My phone is always listening for voice commands, which is great for things like making calls, sending messages, starting navigation etc., but I want a new command specifically for situations like this: "OK Google Now: Lock and Record". It should lock my phone and start a continuous video and audio recording which is streamed to a server somewhere. Even better if it's a separate hotword so I don't have to say "OK Google Now" first to warn the officer I'm about to screw with his plans to screw with me.
If I can activate it by voice, it won't matter whether the phone is locked when it's taken from my pocket. And with the recording, I'll have proof that I did not consent to the search. Streaming will ensure that proof can't be accidentally destroyed by, say, dropping my phone just before a cruiser happens to roll past.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Sad but true, if police want to do something illegal, and you argue with them, they *will* do it anyway, and you *will* be in further trouble for attempting to resist.
That's why you DON'T resist. You respectfully make it clear that you did not consent to a search of your phone. If they ask "May I look at your phone?" you say "No, not without a warrant", if they do it anyway, you might want to say "I didn't give you permission to look at my phone, please put it down" Keep trying until they tell you to shut up.
If the police insist on doing something illegal, like searching your phone without a warrant or permission, it's going to be a matter for the courts to figure out.... Just make sure you make enough of a fuss so people around will remember that you obviously objected so you will have witnesses Nobody else there? Sorry dude, they are going to do what they want and that includes shooting you, so choose carefully.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Penalties include up to ten years in prison, or a fine of up to $1,000 and two and a half years in jail.
If you're going to bother at all, don't just quote the penalty, quote the whole statute. It clearly states that intent to use the tools for a criminal purpose is required for prosecution. This is the case in many states, and what it means is that you're free to carry around locksmithing tools as long as you aren't engaged in any criminal activity that would be aided by using those tools.
In other words, you'll incur an additional count if you possess lockpicks (or a sledge hammer, for that matter) while breaking into a house, and you might get charged if you have lockpicks while walking around wearing a ski mask and carrying a canvas sack with dollar signs on it, but other than that you're good to go.
"Can I look at your phone." ..."
"Sure here. Nice isn't got two cameras..."
"Can you unlock the phone for me
"Oh. You mean look at the contents of my phone. Well you see my wife is a legal student, and if I let you see them without a warrant, then I will never get laid again."
But how can you be sure that you have nothing to hide?
How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
that's why the greatest generation was the greatest generation... oh wait.
I agree with most of what you suggest, but I thought the conventional wisdom was to *not* go for identification until asked. If you are rummaging around in the glove box, the police officer has no idea if you are going for a gun. Granted they have no idea anyway in that moment, but the correct steps are everything else you suggested - interior light, hands on wheel, etc., then wait. They can see your hands as they approach from the rear and have less cause to suspect you are arming yourself. Then when they ask for your papers, they can track your hands the whole times and are thus less surprised at any moment.
I've worked with police officers several times and have a great deal of respect for what they have to endure, but a reasonable traffic stop attitude works for all parties.
I'm thinking about it, therefore I might be.
My brother in law is a local cop where I live, and he says the same thing. Do not trust cops. They are just people, some of them are nice, but some of them are not and will enjoy slapping cuffs on you for next to nothing. His advice was along the lines of be respectful, don't talk back, don't ever physically resist them, and don't tell them anything unless you called them. They will get annoyed, but if you're not being outright disrespectful they will generally let it go. Most of the time, they'd rather be getting real criminals off the streets, anyway.
The “three felonies a day” is really a figure of speech, hardly an exact count. People who are very active in certain fields likely commit more than three arguable federal felonies a day. People who are less active in life and in commerce probably commit fewer. I would imagine that lawyers, accountants, and securities dealers commit more, while fruit-stand vendors commit fewer. But my point was that an active member of our society goes about his or her busy workday not realizing the potential for committing arguable federal felonies in a wide variety of business and personal endeavors on a typical day.
So no, we don't really commit three felonies a day. I'm sure the book explains this, but apparently nobody has time to read a whole book anymore so the title became a "fact" that pops up on the internet from time to time.
My phone is encrypted. They could never access anything in it unless I were to hand over the rather lengthy password.
The best thing to do in any situation where cops are trying to search and/or arrest you is to say "I don't consent to any searches and I want to speak with my attorney", then shut the fuck up and stay quiet. Cops love it when people talk to them, just remember you are under absolutely no obligations to say a single work to a cop. I ignore them all of the time and they fear people who know when to keep quiet and when to walk away (if you are not under arrest and you ask if you are free to leave and get any response other than "no", then you can legally walk away and there is nothing they can do about it).
Under the English common law we inherited, a crime requires intent.
No, it never required "intent" in the manner people use the word. You don't need to have the "intent" to commit the crime. Remenber, "ignorance of the law is no excuse" exists, so you don't even have to know whatever it is is illegal.
You must have intended to have done the action that resulted in a crime. Even if you didn't intend malice, and had no idea it would result in a crime or any harm at all, it's still legally "intent". Even if a reasonable person would have presumed no harm would come, the "eggshell skull" doctrine indicates that a person who performs an action is responsible for the consequences, even if they are greater than intended, or greater than anyone could have guessed.
"Intent" is the intent to perform the action that ended with a crime, not the intent to cause a crime or harm of any kind.
Learn to love Alaska