Warrantless cell searches

[byteusa]

So I could drop my illegals into a "foot-locker" and the cop would have to get a judge to sign a search warrant... interesting. Lol

[TheTeledon]

georhe bush says : bring it on

[phfrankh]

Do the Corporations of Communications systems have the exclusive rights & ownership to monitor and intercept intellectual property, personal e-mails and other private communications and to use that information at their own discretion?Also, are the Corporations exempt from informing,"Party(s)" who use the communication devices due to property rights? It is my understanding that " Party(s)" must be informed prior to searching "personal" internet communications & must be warranted by Court Order.

[PigMine]

Illegal. Period. Wiretapping is illegal without a warrant based on an oath or affirmation, signed by a judge, describing the place(s) to be search, and the object(s) or person(s) to be seized.

That is from Magna Carta.

God's body is sovereign. Period.

[Xabesroth]

They don't need Warrants...They bypassed warrants.They only need to turn to IBM who's always found different ways to get information from people..*Lifelock**,,,*Cell phones*,,,*Tracking systems in new cars(Gps systems)*

[infectedvector]

(see below) from talking to someone to observing something and getting the reasonable suspicion to search and eventually make the arrest. It's all perfectly legal and happens a thousand times a day.

[infectedvector]

"Reasonableness" is determined by whether the court feels that another police officer with similar training and experience, would also find the same set of circumstances support the detention and investigation. The arresting officers will testify and be questioned by the defense as to their background and qualifications as expert witnesses (called voir dire in Calif.). Thats why so many arrest are generated from traffic stops where observant cops develop their case

[infectedvector]

The "street" is a different place with diff restrictions placed on the police. If they can articulate specific facts which combined with their training & experience lead them to believe a crime is, has, or is about to be committed, they can stop you to detain and investigate (search). The court will decide if the seizure is constitutional and if any (or all) evidence will be suppressed. The litmus test is the Constitution, case law, and "reasonableness" of the search.

[infectedvector]

The TSA doesn't need a warrant to search at the airport because it's not mandatory that you enter the airport. You can take another mode of travel to avoid the search so in fact by choosing to fly you are also authorizing the search. The Supreme Court long ago ruled that this is w/in the restrictions placed by the 4th Amendment and case law. These searches are restricted to the screening station-not to the street, ticket counter, or the parking lot, etc. "a reasonable expectation to privacy".

[jansley13]

no they could not force you to unlock your phone without violation of your 5th amendment!!!

[freesk8]

Why don't Americans demand to see the warrant when the TSA searches us at airports for domestic flights?

They claim they do not need one, but there is no Constitutional justification for that.

And the searches do not make us any safer anyway.

It's a very bad precedent that has been set.

[dezldummi]

@freesk8 because by using a commercial airline you are basically waiving your rights when you do... the choice being, you are free not to travel.... believe me when I say I'm the last person on the face of the earth that likes it, but that's how it's rationalized... I think it would be better if everyone in the terminal had to be buck ass naked... TSA, police, ticket agents, vendors... everyone

[freesk8]

Sorry, dude. I am not waving my rights by flying.

Do I waive my rights when I go in to a bank just because some people who go in to banks rob them?

No.

Do I waive my rights when I walk down a public street just because some people mug others?

No.

You are right that it is merely a rationalization.

And you are free to waive your own rights and allow them to strip search you, but you aren't free to take away MY rights to privacy.

Ben Franklin wrote about those who'd give up esstl liberty...

[Plum369]

we are free to not drive cars too...so can they search your car without your consent? no. that rationale does not hold up.

[dezldummi]

OMG... I hope no one here gets the idea I'm in favor of this in any shape or form... this has gone past the point of some kind of joke, to old soviet bloc tyranny.... this administration, and yes the former are out of control and are an enemy of this United States, and should be treated as such whenever and whereever the opportunity presents itself.....

[phantomcharger]

ALL cell phones can be tracked.

You have to pull the battery to have real privacy

[lorenzo8500]

GPS sytstems also. When I'm speeding I shut that shit off.

[hefeltbad]

even if you pull the battery,gps is still active,irrespective of whether the battery is in or not.

[phantomcharger]

@hefeltbad

Wrong, without a batter/power, it is in inanimate object, it cant respond, giving your location away

[fenix611]

technology does not have to slow, society has to catch up and grow WITH it.

[KagarBeardtooth]

Soon the police will be able to track our locations through our cell phones without a warrant.

[psilocyberspaceman]

Wanna stay safer? Use mobil phones that are from 1999!

[kuriokazuki]

No one has any right to look through your property except by your consent or by a fully authored and signed "Writ of Warrant".

Establish your unalienable rights at common law by Notice and Claim of Right to protect your already-existing un-a-lien-able rights.

Check out Robert Arthur Menard's presentations on your rights...

- "Bursting Bubbles of Government Deception"

- "The Magnificent Deception"

Stand free and sovereign as one of the People - a free man on the land.