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
Since the summary links you to a stupid news article and not the guides themselves, here is the ACLU Guide and EFF Guides here.
Treat it as any other home invasion.
--- and be carried out in a body bag.
Welcome to the fun world of anticipatory obstruction of justice.
Yes... you can be charged & convicted of obstruction by way of destroying evidence that is not yet being sought but that you think might be.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
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.'"
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.
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.)
"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.
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 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.
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.