Police Illegally Search Phone THEN Obtain a Search Warrant

[@brettstarks1846]

I’ve grown increasingly disgusted with prosecutors. Rather than actually pursue justice, they just want to win at all costs.

[@jeremydale4548]

We need to squash that attitude out of them. If the consitution was actually upheld, a LOT more bad people would be in jail and a lot more good people would be out of jail

[@pchris6662]

Not only that they are so often acting only in their own self interests for political reasons!

[@brettstarks1846]

@@pchris6662 Apparently the US is the only country in the world that has elected prosecutors. Seemed like a good idea at the time, but like so many other American failings, it hasn’t worked out quite so well in practice.

[@jimlasswell4491]

My feeling about them exactly.

[@wschnabel1987]

Reminds me of the Klingons from Enterprise tbh....

[@thea.m.p.co.467]

Funny that I've been told by a cop, "Ignorance of the law doesn't excuse you from prosecution", yet qualified immunity is a thing, & I keep hearing more and more of these stories about incompetent or ignorant cops blatantly violating people's rights and breaking the law...

[@ianbattles7290]

Funny how spending a few months in police academy magically makes you LESS liable to know the law, compared to the average citizen...

[@totallyjonesin]

Like using dogs to go around the 4th amendment.

[@Inertia888]

Sound like that cop was being (somewhat) honest. Ignorance of the law doesn't excuse _you_ from prosecution. It does, however, happen to excuse that cop.

[@jasonbourne1596]

Yeah a judge told me that too, yet they don't themselves know or follow the law, especially cops.

[@gmailisaretard]

@@ianbattles7290 Months? Uhh I don't think they get that much skoolin.

[@MrTheDif]

Cops not following the law? Shocked! Shocked I tell you!

[@mjmeans7983]

Cops usually don't know the law. But would you actually want being a licensed lawyer to be a prerequisite to being a cop?

[@MrTheDif]

@@mjmeans7983 You don't have to be a licensed attorney to have a decent understanding of the law.

[@godsamongmen8003]

​@@mjmeans7983 I'm not a lawyer, but I know I'm not allowed to kill my neighbour and take his stuff. Some laws are so basic we all understand them; can you say with a straight face that most cops don't understand they need a search warrant for a search? I'd like to see not being a malicious sociopath as a pre-requisite for hiring police.

[@rodeowerewolf3004]

@@mjmeans7983 I think its more likely Cops see what they can get away with regardless of the law. With no repercussions why would they care what the law is.

[@roadcalm3303]

Cops not following the law?! I refuse to believe that!

[@micwclar]

So what Judge would sign off on a warrant like this? Doesn't that put a taint on the reputation of the Judge?

[@isaqkampp4044]

what do they care? The judges have immunity just like police. When the whole system has immunity it decays into tyrany. Can anyone argue the system is not these days? Imagine the same protections offered to another branch of government, like say the executive ie. the president not being able to be deposed (voted out of office) and that is the litteral definition of a dead democracy. I belive the executive(Government incl the police), the judicial and the legislative branches should be CO-EQUAL so none ought to have immunity or they should all have and if they all have that is the definition of a dictatorship...

[@mind_of_a_darkhorse]

You are supposing that the cops and lawyers did not mislead the Judge!

[@michaelsommers2356]

They probably lied on the warrant application.

[@freedomspromise8519]

That’s easy. They lied to the judge. It happens A LOT. Nothing ever comes of these lies. If I were that judge, I would be pissed. You can bet I would be having a harsh conversation with them.

[@SirNic4180]

​@@mind_of_a_darkhorse oh stop, they all know the game. Stop pretending they aren't all on the same page. You people need to do better.

[@crrodriguez]

The judge that granted an ex-post-facto warrant ... went unpunished ? crazy.

[@roberthodges3646]

They often use magistrates as the go to person and a warrant over the phone where the judge does not read a 50 page document. As a retired judge said you can get an indictment with a happy meal the way the court work.

[@suedenim9208]

People having opinions when they don't have a clue what the judge knew when he gave the cops a warrant they asked for? Happens every time Steve's audience hears about a warrant that's invalid for any reason.

[@kstricl]

My favourite Wizard of Id panel is still- King: "Remember the Golden Rule!" Peasant 1: "What's the Golden Rule?" Peasant 2: "Whoever has the gold, makes the rules." So much truth in three little lines.

[@banditoheat]

Maybe the "failure to follow the rules", when Constitutional rights are violated, should result in mandatory firing and prosecution, with an automatic maximum sentence if convicted. Let's see how many are willing to take shortcuts then.

[@michaelsommers2356]

Since these people don't believe in civil rights, why bother with the time and expense of a trial? Just automatically send them to jail.

[@MrFixItGa]

Don't forget loss of any taxpayer funded pensions and benefits as well.

[@maxsdad538]

@@michaelsommers2356 That makes you just as crooked as they are.

[@redblue9478]

@@maxsdad538 It's our job as citizens to hold government and their people accountable, calling it "crooked" at this point is nothing but shaming Americans into forgetting their role and that it's a very dirty job. Not doing it hasn't exactly been a benefit to us and playing by their rules just lets people slide.

[@michaelsommers2356]

@@maxsdad538 I'm just following the Golden Rule, doing unto them as they do unto others.

[@ronnydowdy7432]

And you wonder why the government is losing the trust of the people.

[@earlwheelock7844]

We as a country were NEVER supposed to TRUST the government , that is the reason the constitutional changes ALL have to go thru the voters eventualy and the MAIN reason the 2nd amendment is second ONLY to the first in the bill of rights so if things get bad enough we can take it back( try THAT with a stick!!)😣😣😣

[@privacyvalued4134]

Lost. Not losing. Assuming there ever was any trust in government. As you get older, your disillusionment with government entities grows because you become better educated about how horrible our government actually is.

[@writerinfact1768]

Past tense, please. The government HAS LOST the trust of The People.

[@0011peace]

@@earlwheelock7844 the 2nd amendment is the only onme protecting you from government overreach

[@ronnydowdy7432]

@@writerinfact1768 loose even more every day.

[@improv6132]

Makes me think of a quote from "Liar, Liar" Jim Carrey: "Objection!" Judge: "On what grounds?" Jim: "Because it's devastating to my case!" Judge: "Overruled" Has the same energy from the prosecutor here

[@WhydoIsuddenlyhaveahandle]

Excellent Liar Liar reference

[@geoffstrickler]

Fruit of the poisoned tree. Nothing obtained from that phone can EVER be used by law enforcement in a criminal trial.

[@Cee64E]

Once you remember that Prosecutors depend on convictions to further their careers, both legally and politically, you start to understand why so many of them are villains.

[@thundergod97]

By their rationale they could just walk down the street breaking in doors, searching for evidence, and then go get a warrant for the houses they actually found stuff in. Uh...that's not how it works....

[@greybeard5123]

Don't give them ideas. With qualified immunity being interpreted as blanket immunity, that probably would work for them.

[@drsteiny1]

James Otis argued against what was called “writs of assistance“ in the 1760s. That is what they have done here. Highly illegal and violates the fourth amendment.

[@jesusnthedaisychain]

Future story: Strangely, the police seem to be trying their new "Find evidence, ask for permission later" approach more often in predominantly non-white neighborhoods. A spokesman for the department has assured us that the searches are randomly determined and it's all just a big coincidence. One reporter scoffed at the explanation and asked to see their search criteria. That reporter's home was subsequently searched.

[@ostlandr]

If we don't keep really, really close watch on what little remains of ouor rights, that's exactly how it's going to be.

[@TheQuickSilver101]

The lottery ticket analogy was perfect!

[@glasshalffull2930]

The scratch ticket reminded me of an old story. Years ago, My buddy used to work in a Massachusetts bar that sold scratch tickets. The tickets were supplied by the lottery commission in boxes and each box was guaranteed to have so many low level winners of $10/$20, but there was also a big winner of several hundred dollars. I think it might have been $500, but it might have been $200. Well, the owner would have the staff pull the boxes if they were getting to the end and hadn’t hit the big winner yet. The owner would then buy the remaining 20 or so tickets and get the $500 prize.

[@greybeard5123]

I had a friend who worked at McDonalds when they ran contests. They'd open tickets and cash in the ones for food. Medium prizes they would throw out, and they never got a big prize. (They would also throw out all the losing tickets.) I would think this would be harder with lottery tickets because you have to turn the unbought ones back in.

[@glasshalffull2930]

@@greybeard5123 They always sold all the tickets in a box or the boss bought the last ones if no big prize winner.

[@peterkn2]

I hope the Cops AND the Judge who signed that warrant are investigated and held accountable if they were found to have abused their authority.

[@jordanwardle11]

We investigated ourselves and found no evidence of wrongdoing

[@maxsmodels]

Lazy law enforcement...the defense attorney's best tool.

[@mjlh7079]

They must using the same manual the FBI was using when it seized the building/cages that contained the safe deposit boxes then proceeded to open & seize the contents of the boxes boxes that belong to 'innocent' little old ladies w/o a warrant in defiance of the warrant that specifically stated it “does not authorize a criminal search or seizure of the contents of the safety deposit boxes.

[@suedenim9208]

Apples and oranges. It strikes me as illogical that a warrant that allows them to search for and seize a phone doesn't let them search the phone, unless the simple possession of the phone was the reason to seize it (such as phone stolen during a robbery). OTOH, it's extremely well established that a warrant to search your property doesn't let them search my property just because it happens to be stored at your place.

[@sootymammal2891]

We need very harsh mandatory minimums for corrupt police and officials! Accountability!

[@snex000]

Steve asks if there is a "good faith" exception in the 4th amendment. But I don't see any exceptions at all, and the government still insists that there are some.

[@scotthultin7769]

The detective didn't do his due diligence and now the case gets thrown out thank you that's great I love that stuff

[@ianbattles7290]

In the private sector, this type of negligence/incompetence would get you fired.

[@crosscompiler]

When I was 15, I had to pay for any glasses I broke as a dishwasher (I never broke any). These crooked cops get to use our money to break as many laws as they want.

[@Carahan]

It wasn't legal to make you pay for glasses either you broke unless you agreed to it in writing. And in some states, even that is not allowed for any foreseeable expense - such as breaking glasses when you handle enough of them. Restaurants are some of the worst for sheer number of labor law violations.

[@orppranator5230]

@@Carahan “You don’t get hired unless you sign this document”.

[@hxhdfjifzirstc894]

It's amazing how if breaking something costs you nothing, then you don't care whether you break it or not.

[@hxhdfjifzirstc894]

@@Carahan Don't accept the job, then.... DUH.

[@almo3250]

Not sure which is more disgusting. That or making the server pay if someone dines/dash.

[@popquizzz]

The prosecutor's office and these police are either ignorant of the law (not an excuse), inept, or blatantly feel that they are above the law. In any of the aforementioned they are not fit to hold the office that they are in and should be removed before someone sues that government body and costs the taxpayers more money. This defendant should get damages for the confiscation of their phone and all legal fees paid for by this prosecutor and the police. The taxpayers should not be paying for stupidity.

[@Jirodyne]

The Judge who signed off on the second ILLEGAL Warrant, should ALSO be on the hook and punished. As the first time it was only enough to Seize, and NOT search. So why would applying the EXACT same facts and evidence, suddenly change it from SEIZE to SEARCH?

[@My-Pal-Hal]

Well, that answer is obvious. Because they have no one to Answer To.

[@chrisbudesa]

Report judges who break laws to the state judicial review board.

[@nnelg8139]

AFAIK the search warrent was not illegal, it just was too late to matter. There is a good chance that if the cops had simply asked the judge *first*, they would have gotten the go-ahead and the evidence would be clean. But no, they were too impatient for that.

[@My-Pal-Hal]

@@nnelg8139 Yes It Was Illegal. Asking for something After The Fact. AND, after the fact had already been actioned. Is like locking everyone up. THEN, ... seeing if a crime was committed. ... google logic, then the laws

[@My-Pal-Hal]

@@nnelg8139 HEY,.. YOU'RE A CLOWN. Though your comment shows that Clearly. I Won't Wait For Others To Point That Out. ... im impatient 😂

[@tjohnson4062]

Boy they were trying like hell to tie together qualified immunity and valid search warrant. I thought I had a good warrant... I thought that was the correct apartment... I felt like we had the right person in handcuffs.

[@jesspeinado480]

Who's more stupid? The criminal who keeps incriminating information in his cell phone? Or law enforcement who are ignorant of the laws and the Constitution? Or are they just incompetent and corrupt? Every leo, da and judge involved in the prosecution should be fired.

[@Vandassar]

Na, they just get a free holiday. "sit at home with your families, have a good time and maybe think about what you did!"

[@simonmultiverse6349]

WHAT?!???? It has been only since 2014 that the law required a warrant BEFORE the search? Surely *THE CONSTITUTION* , a far higher authority, is older than that!!??!???

[@WhiteG60]

@@simonmultiverse6349 The problem is that cell phones weren't really that much of a thing until the early 2000's and generally didn't hold much other than phone logs and text messages until the late 00's. So it took a few cases to realize there was a problem, and a few years after that to come up with the appropriate legislation to cover it more specifically. It's the same reason the writers guild is on strike. The contract says very little about streaming, because when the last contract was written, streaming didn't really exist in the way it does today. Laws can only be written based on reality today. To put it another way, if someone invented a holodeck tomorrow, and someone left evidence in the holodeck (it's a shitty example, but stay with me), the cops would try to treat it like a 'digital device', and the accused would say 'Naw, this is something completely different.' There would be legal fights for a few years as it works its way up the chain to set precedence or until legislation gets written classifying it as one thing or another officially.

[@TheUncommonShaman]

All of them. Isn’t technology miraculous. Nothing is deleted. Nothing is hidden. But it never was. We have your Akashic records.

[@josephrogers8213]

Take pension assets and freedom

[@shepardsinsequence]

It reminds me of Timothy Leary and “The Marijuana Tax Stamp” . In order to get the Tax Stamp, you had to have the marijuana first, therefor you committed a crime in order to apply for the Tax Stamp

[@ianbattles7290]

It's illegal to pay taxes on it, but it's also illegal not to pay taxes on it!

[@brandonhebert5485]

@@ianbattles7290 It's ok its illegal to have it anyway.

[@Let_The_James_Begin]

Isn't qualified immunity a "good faith exception" that also isn't in the Constitution? Yet, here it is, part of our present reality.

[@johndougan6129]

Should have Cher singing "If I could turn back time" in the background. 😂

[@LiamMack33]

I remember The Wizard of ID.... but the comic strip that you're referring to is, I Believe, Hagar the Horrible. Same Era of comic strips and similar medieval themes. Keep up the great work! Cheers!

[@jmadler007]

It was Wizard of ID. I found that particular strip.

[@kenyattaclay7666]

I was watching an episode of The First 48 a couple of months ago & they seized a cellphone from a suspect. The narrator mentioned that they were waiting on a search warrant for the phone itself. The same thing also happens even if they have a warrant for a garage and the house but they also seize the suspects car, they know they will need a warrant for the car if the original warrant doesn't specifically state they can search the car. Also, it isn't like cellphones are a brand new thing so I find it hard to believe that detectives don't know they don't know they would also need a warrant to get data from the phone.

[@glasshalffull2930]

More than likely just a mistake with multiple officers handling the case/search/digital examination. I’m retired now, but several times I was notified that, “We have the search warrant. Go ahead with the search.” My response was always, “ Great! Bring over the warrant and I’ll start the search.” I’d get a call back in 5 minutes with something like, “Sorry, somebody told me the warrant was signed, but it hasn’t been done yet.” This was almost always in cases with multiple warrants and additional warrants being issued as searches uncovered more locations to search. Once another jurisdiction contacted me to seize a car that was purchased with funds from a fraud. They assured me they had the seizure warrant and to go ahead. Well, it’s years later and I’m still waiting for that seizure warrant. BTW- I didn’t seize the car.

[@kenyattaclay7666]

@@glasshalffull2930 I can somewhat understand a miscommunication & I’m glad that you wanted the actual warrant but according to Steve that’s not what happened here. They are essentially arguing that they misunderstood the warrant. I don’t work in criminal law but my uncle as a criminal defense attorney & in grad school I had to take a couple of criminal law courses so I do know that a locked cellphone or doesn’t fall under the plain view doctrine. I just can’t see this as a mistake or them not knowing because even as someone who works in civil law that will never even see the inside of a courtroom I know that they need a warrant to search a phone and so should they.

[@glasshalffull2930]

@@kenyattaclay7666 I’m saying they ‘probably’ knew they needed a warrant when the phone was first seized, but the phone was ‘accidentally’ searched by the tech officer. All the legal shenanigans after that were just ill advised. I totally agree on that. Especially since a court threw the evidence out once.

[@greybeard5123]

@@kenyattaclay7666 According to Steve, one officer had a "seize" warrant and executed it. He turned the phone over to another cop with some explanation. That cop turned the phone over to a third cop and said something like it had been seized under a warrant. So two chances to garble the message. The third officer heard phone and warrant and assumed he was OK without checking further. (Because they never face personal consequences, why go the extra mile?) After they got caught, it sound like the lawyers threw every argument at it hoping something would stick. I'm too lazy to listen again to get the words the cop who search the phone used, but he indicated he thought they had a valid warrant to search it.

[@kenyattaclay7666]

@@greybeard5123 okay three things, first, the defense attorney didn’t just throw something against the wall to see what would stick. Oriole like you need to get this “technicality” nonsense out of your head. The police didn’t do their job & that’s who’s to blame, not the lawyer doing their jobs. That leads me to my second point. Second, that sounds like a lot of excuses. This wasn’t some huge police department where they barely know each other. Also, even the smallest police departments have electronic databases & part of those databases includes warrants. The officer who downloaded the information off of the phone could’ve just as easily looked up what warrants they had & what warrants they didn’t have. Third, this was just either pure laziness or just not giving a damn & playing hot potato with the phone isn’t an excuse.

[@daviddesrosiers1946]

The law is a spider's web. The flies get caught while the wasps go free.

[@OmniscientWarrior]

Once the fruit had been poisoned, it will always be poisoned

[@CraigGrant-sh3in]

But how are they suppose to know if they need a warrant if they don't look to see if they need one lol

[@tedkaczynskiamericanhero3916]

I genuinely laughed out loud, but based on the current state of the authoritarian Era we're rapidly approaching, I would not be surprised in the slightest if they actually made this exact argument in court, AND A JUDGE AGREED.

[@necessaryevil455]

They don't want to bother a Judge with a fruitless Warrant request because, of course, they didn't want it to look like they don't know what they were doing.

[@aebalc]

They were not searching the phone, they were just checking it for weapons for officer safety.

[@jerryshelton1481]

Those government officials should be fired and never allowed to work for government offices again and law license revoked indefinitely

[@necrowolfgaming2494]

Back in 2003 I was arrested and informed several things were taken from my apartment while I was at work. After doing going to court a few hours later for setting up my bond, the arresting officers proceeded into the next court room to petition the court for a warrant for the stuff they already had in possesion. My attorney witnessed this as well but nothing ever came of it. To this day I've never seen the warrant used but I do have the signed paper where they took the stuff hours earlier.

[@garyalabama]

It’s sad when there are so many lawyers that never seem to have read the constitution. I think a lot of them need remedial training

[@stevejorgensen5274]

The training is they need to have their jurists prudence license revocked.

[@GrayRaceCat]

@@KameraShy It used to be the case, in the 60s when I went to grade school we were taught the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence, etc.

[@georgesheffield1580]

The DA and cops should have to automaticly pay all cost incured by the defendant incurred

[@bryanleverett2830]

Taxpayers should sue that prosecutor for wasting taxpayer money

[@korpse6rinder]

They do warrantless searches of everyone's communication. Then they have to find a way to collect the evidence in a valid way to charge you. Stingrays and Bluetoothing your phone to your cars navigation system.

[@greybeard5123]

Bluetooth is hard to intercept because it has limited range. If you are bluetoothing to your car, they can just use the Stingray to intercept the car communicating with the network.

[@korpse6rinder]

@@greybeard5123 cops can search your cars navigation without a warrant. You hook your phone to your navigation and it's a back door for them. They still have to reverse engineer the bust but that will be easy knowing when, where and who else has been meeting in the location

[@GrayRaceCat]

@@greybeard5123 Another good argument for holding on to your 'old tech' non-Bluetooth/WiFi/GPS NAV car!

[@georgesheffield1580]

The cops should have to pay full price for any remedial training , not the taxpayers

[@lonjohnson5161]

How often do the cops let you go when you tell them you believed the speed limit was 60?

[@jaybrava2741]

They don’t let you go, they demand your papers and you have to obey.

[@vladildikan]

Do you deliver pizza...

[@michaelpace64]

Should be able to sue when all charges are dropped. Most cases you just loss all your money you put out. Definitely not right. Cost me over 10000 grand for that kind of b s .almost lost my house over this kind of crap

[@richieosborne7477]

You can’t search and then get a warrant, that’s like wiping before you poop! It makes no sense! Lol 😂

[@ephanhymerable]

Someone took the "It's easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to ask for permission" saying to heart

[@randyrainbow6692]

But it's Georgia , Steve.......that alone says it all. LOL!!! 30 years ago my wife (who is American) and I came up to the Georgia state line and she turned to me and said "Lock your doors and don't stop until you hit the other side.!" We still joke about that.

[@garymccann2960]

There has to be a severe punishment for government employees that ignore constitutional rights. Right now, they get off scott free!

[@WhydoIsuddenlyhaveahandle]

Currently, in some circumstances, it is death under 18.242. The problem is that it is never enforced.

[@dr.ryttmastarecctm6595]

But, they had a Time Machine waiting for the signed search warrant. Oops, the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree strikes again.

[@trfatman]

The sad thing is that if that guy tried to sue for violation of his fourth amendment rights, that phrase "thought it was a lawful search" creates the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, and the cops don't have to pay. We need more accountability for law enforcement and prosecutors when they violate our rights. Did the defendant have to sit in jail all that time that this motion and appeal process went on? If an accused is held without or pending bail, and then at trial is found not guilty or the charges are dismissed, then the government should be forced to compensate the accused for the damage caused by his incarceration.

[@maryricketts7337]

Your analogies are funny. It’s also like taking a bite out of a chocolate to check the filling and putting it back in the box to try for a flavor you like better.

[@andrewewels3054]

In the old days, putting the cart before the horse, was a foolish thing to do !

[@Gr_ywind]

How did they think this was gonna turn out, did the cop, detective, prosecutor all miss the day in school when they taught this.

[@greybeard5123]

None of them were probably aware of the issue until defense pointed it out. What I heard was one officer had a "seize" warrant and executed it. He turned the phone over to a second cop with some explanation that we'll never know. The second cop turned the phone over to a third cop and said something like it had been seized under a warrant (that's what the third cop said in testimony). So two chances to garble the message. The third cop heard phone and warrant and assumed he was OK without checking further. (Why go the extra mile when they never face personal consequences?) The first cop assumed the third cop got a warrant. The third cop assumed the first cop got a warrant. The prosecutor didn't care who got it, he just assumed someone had. And it turns out no one got a warrant.

[@Gr_ywind]

Sounds like law enforcement by Abbott & Costello.

[@frozencanary4522]

Prime minister "Your Majesty, the peasants are revolting!" King " They certainly are." Wizard of Id

[@anthonyburke5656]

I’d like to see more done about false testimony to obtain a Search Warrant

[@privacyvalued4134]

"They might want to put together some remedial Constitutional law classes for its investigators and prosecutors." That's probably the sickest burn I've heard in a long time from a court of law. The word "remedial" implies they haven't met the minimum bar of competence to do their jobs properly. Humiliating!

[@Daniel-lk3sy]

Yeah she know. Searching something before they have a warrant to legally search instead of getting the warrant first before they even show up! They do that a lot here in PA!

[@mattlalor6565]

"The Wizard of Id"!!! HAAAAAAAH!!!!!!! Thanks for THAT fun little trip down Amnesia Ln., Counselor!!! I used to read that strip in the Comics EVERY DAY!!! Sir Rodney and The King!!! FABULOUS!!!

[@rustycarter8969]

Sounds like the FBI case of the safe deposit boxes .....

[@k.chriscaldwell4141]

"Gun and Badge Thugs Illegally Search Phone THEN Obtain a Search Warrant." Fixed it.

[@Andres64B]

The idea that police and prosecutors think that they can get a search warrant after they've already searched, is beyond comprehension. There is no way that these people are really that stupid, is there?

[@mikezupancic2182]

It always amazes me how the police fail to read the rules on a warrant they applied for.

[@onradioactivewaves]

Fail to read? More like successfully intentionally not read.

[@MonkeyJedi99]

@@onradioactivewaves Silly, cops can't read.

[@Vandassar]

​@@MonkeyJedi99 I bet they can easily read the "2 for 1" sign at the doughnut shop.

[@paladin181]

@@onradioactivewaves Exactly. Plausible deniability.

[@annelarrybrunelle3570]

One more reason that Constitutional violations should presumptively be criminal offenses AND require restitution. If a warrant was issued on insufficient cause, that should expose both the judge and the affiant to both civil and criminal penalties: either the affiant lied, or the judge allowed the intrusion contrary to law. These are (well, should be) rebuttable presumptions.

[@CannibalChuck]

Just a random question the ex and I used to debate: if a person is drunk and riding a horse on a public right of way can they get a DUI? and will that affect their driving rights? I ask because I knew a mule who could get a rider home on the trail no matter how hammered - provided the person could maintain enough composure not to fall out of the saddle. I mean is it a DUI even if the horse is sober? 😊

[@Plarndude]

I’m no lawyer, but I’m pretty sure horses and mules are Self Driving. :p

[@derekvancampenhout5530]

riding a donkey while drunk isn't illegal although it would be fun to watch. If they were to stop the donkey, it would say hew haw hew haw he always rides me drunk😊

[@MegaCyberleader]

Now that, Is a good mule, and I love horses and mules in general. Id say no but Im not a judge.

[@michaelsommers2356]

It will depend on state law. In New Jersey, drunk horse riding is an offense, and will affect your car-driving license.

[@rdizzy1]

Yes, in most states, you can even get a DWI/DUI riding a vehicle on your own private property, even a bicycle or a tractor. Even mowing your own law on your own private property while drunk.

[@jonm2381]

I’m sure if asked the cops would be mad saying the guy got away with something on a “technicality”, when in fact the cops should be prosecuted for violating the civilians rights

[@Munchy421]

Hi Steve, I especially liked the part about how a warrant to seize such devices does not necessarily include a search of it's contents as well, if that part is not clearly stated in the warrant. I'd always assumed it would be standard.

[@greybeard5123]

The initial warrant was to seize a lot of generic stuff. Then they need a second warrant to search one specific item. Seizing it makes it so the bad guys can destroy evidence, and then they can decide what to search and what to just return to the owner.

[@GrayRaceCat]

@@greybeard5123 *can't destroy

[@greybeard5123]

@@GrayRaceCat Good catch

[@stephengreen3566]

Another case of the police not being able to read.

[@jinxmcgee3328]

OMG! Something similar happened to my mom back in 2011. Cops forced their way into her home, "saw" drugs in "plain sight", so they walked outside and called for a warrant.

[@goaway3717]

Aside from 'don't commit crimes' but if you are 'don't take selfies while you're doing so' but even better leave your phone at home while you're being a criminal so the cell tower records never log you as being in the area. This is also why you never use biometrics (fingerprint, facial recognition, etc) to unlock your phone's security and encrypt your stuff. This is another reason why you use the best encryption you can on your computer hard drives and all the devices you can. Cops lie and commit crimes against the public all the time. In my opinion there should never be a 'good faith' argument because they never do anything in good faith it's always BS.

[@cashstore1]

It makes me wonder how often something like this happens.

[@davidburnett5049]

Either constantly or not very often depending on how crooked and careless the judges are in signing unneeded warrant for little reason. Probably, I think, judges are rubber stamping most things most of the time so there are plenty of warrants

[@helloitsme4139]

Think of how many pubic defenders out there with massive case loads that either don’t care or don’t have the time/resources to fight these properly. Cops do an illegal search and the advice is to just plead out.

[@noconsentgiven]

Men and women of integrity...gotta love those kinds of Judges❤️👍!

[@manlybaker3098]

"Fruit of the poisonous tree" but "Inevitable discovery" This has been agrued in EVERY COP/COURT Show for the last 20 years

[@arthurhouston3]

Reason is they have to have proable cause and judges will not give them.

[@lordvader3640]

At least the court got it right this time... it seems the courts side with the government/cops most of the time even when they are obviously in the wrong

[@Vaportrail70]

I haven't thought about wiz of id for eons. Thanks Steve ❤❤❤

[@mcapps1]

This is the same as police entering a home THEN "detaining" the resident until a warrant is obtained?

[@suedenim9208]

It would depend on the situation. Cops don't always need a warrant to enter, and if they enter lawfully and see something while just inside the front door it's entirely possible that they could get warrant to search the rest of the house. detaining you might be based on the opriginal reason for entering or the first thing thy saw.

[@TransNeingerian]

I wonder how many times there have been searches /and then/ warrants been drawn the same day. Itd be hearsay on which happened first, and the civilian loses in that one, right?

[@RedwoodTheElf]

They really should learn you can't unscramble those eggs.

[@BrianDavis-no6gy]

Thanks Steve !

[@OlJarhead]

Our government is totally out of control

[@josueveguilla9069]

If cops don’t "abide" by the "law", then. Why should we?

[@jppagetoo]

The Wizard of Id... that brings back some memories.

[@edwardscott3262]

The exact same thing happened here except it was a house and the alarm system caught them. They got a warrant after illegally breaking in and searching. The judge ruled the evidence admissable under inevitable discovery.

[@GrayRaceCat]

It should have been "Fruit of the poisonous tree' at that point, and disallowed.

[@suedenim9208]

Got a cite? I believe a judge would do that, but it would never stand on appeal if you've described it accurately..

[@edwardscott3262]

@@suedenim9208 It was like 10 years ago in Rochester NY. Trying to find one single case of RPD abuse is like searching for a needle in a haystack.

[@suedenim9208]

@@edwardscott3262 Too bad, because it would be useful to see if there's any reason the judge made a reasonable ruling. I can't think of how the search of private property would turn up stuff that would qualify under inevitable discovery, but I'm willing to consider that it might happen under some circumstances.

[@suedenim9208]

@@firedragon5927 So you know what case it is but didn't think that's useful info?

[@masonr1666]

It is hard to fathom a warrent that would allow for the confiscation of a phone, but not allow for the search of the phones contents. However, I can understand needing a different warrent to open the phone. It would be like you have a warrent to confiscate a sealed safe. But the warrent doesn't not allow you to open the safe until trial. For example a married couple is in the midst of a divorce, and there is contention over who has the rights to the contents of the safe. The police pick up the safe to serve as a custodian, an arrangement gets reached then they open the safe. - Clean transfer of assests.

[@nickybeingnicky]

Sounds like a judge needs disbarred.

[@arribaficationwineho32]

Hard to accomplish but badly needed

[@boneless8473]

More likely the judge was lied to by the cops and thought he was giving a search warrant for a phone that hadn't been illegally searched.

[@arribaficationwineho32]

@@boneless8473 but it was years after the illegal cop search.

[@boneless8473]

@@arribaficationwineho32 and? That's not going to stop a cop from lying.

[@kathleenkrug-byle1199]

1. Read the warrant 2. Don’t exceed the limitations of the warrant. The Supreme Court has just allowed an official to accept a bribe as long as it’s after the illegal deed, not before.

[@KabobHope]

A judge needs to throw out this illegally obtained evidence en toto.

[@RM-kc6qk]

It's about time that the cops pay for their ignorance of the law

[@peachesrambo4037]

The cops don't care.

[@Girltrucker05]

Lol yeah that didn’t fly! I love the suggestion about further training, couldn’t hurt! 😂

[@arkrainflood]

ALL law enforcement agents should be required to wear body cams.

[@deirdrecorey3876]

Oops!!!! We thought we had a warrant...... Looks like the LAW DOESN'T KNOW THE LAW....

[@anniebhere2]

Interesting! So the cell phone has a different warrant than the home search warrant?

[@davidh9638]

Depends on what the warrant includes… which will depend on what the cops asked for in the affidavit.

[@nickybeingnicky]

Always has. Thank apple.

[@nickybeingnicky]

​@@davidh9638Intellectual Property cannot have a warrant issued for it. Supreme Court ruled on it. My cellphone can be seized. You cannot open in or search it.

[@markymark5281]

They have to get a warrant for the contents of the phone, not just the phone itself.

[@tedkaczynskiamericanhero3916]

PSA Newer phones have a security feature that locks out fingerprints and face ID to unlock your phone. For Samsung, you hold your power button like you're shutting your device down and just select "Lockdown mode" and you have to enter your password for everything, and your phone is encrypted until it's unlocked via the password/code. I strongly advise using a strong password/code. Add: SCOTUS has ruled (wrongly as it's a blatant invasion of privacy) police can use your biometrics to unlock your devices and gain access *without a warrant*

[@mwwhited]

I’m glad the guys issue was suppressed after the illegal search. But how in the glorious f… hell, do these police, detectives and prosecutors not go to jail for their abuse of power and disregard of people’s rights.

[@bobmorgan1575]

These types of actions more than anything else justify eliminating qualified immunity across the entire law enforcement community from the lowest patrol officer right up the the head of the DOJ.

[@jemmrich]

If i was the judge i would tell the bailiff(?) to bring me the prosecutors phone. When the prosecutor doesn't allow it, i would say, well that's interesting you seem to understand the implication.. you just want to waive it when it's convenient for you.

[@koda0027]

I have a great idea. In order to issue and obtain a warrant, all officers, judges and lawyers shall put up, in good faith, all personal possessions and contents of bank accounts. If the warrant is therefore found to be in violation of state law and/or constitutional rights, all assets shall be forfeited to the defendant

[@orppranator5230]

So if they apply to get a warrant and it turns out that they can’t get it, they literally lose everything even the clothes on their back? No, that’s insane, we don’t even do that to murderers. We send them to jail but their legally gained possessions stay in their name.

[@Vertraic]

@@orppranator5230 I think the intent was more along the lines of, in cases like this/the safe deposit box company where it is later found out they LIED to get the warrant so they could perform unconstitutional acts. Now, I think in MOST cases the degree he mentioned is excessive, but a certain multiplier of the value they are trying to take from the citizen? Sure. Like that safe deposit box fiasco where they knowingly lied to the judge, and THEN IGNORED LIMITATIONS on the search specified by the warrant to take a total of hundreds of thousands of dollars from people, they should have to provide those people with, say, three times the value illegally taken. And this value should come NOT from the government agency, but from the pockets of the people that knowingly committed these criminal acts as well as anyone above them that knew about/ordered it.

[@greybeard5123]

This case wasn't about bad warrants, it was about a search with no warrant.

[@fench1234567]

"Pillage, THEN burn!!!" ROFL!!!! How appropriate for today's govt and law enforcement blunders! That right there earned you a sub.

[@brucelytle1144]

Ben's still checking out 71 and turbine cars.

[@MissLibertarian]

Am I correct in thinking they can’t go get warrants for the phones that were involved in the calls and texts on the other end? Or the towers and providers that gave proof of location? In the Perry Mason novels I seem to recall “fruit of a poison tree,” is prohibited, so they can’t even seek additional warrants for other phones if the only probable cause came from the constitutional violation. Yes, this may mean the robber doesn’t get justice, but all of us will have our equal right to due process and security of our persons, places, and things upheld. Small price to pay. I wonder if this case changes the accused robber in any way.

[@ziggy7668]

I wondering if the judge that signed the warrant knew it was already done illegally

[@loytaverite2780]

Seems they are expanding on the ideas found in their training about ways to get around and ignore the pesky limitations found in that old "useless" document call the constitution. The scary part is depending on what area of the US one is located this could have very easily been upheld, at least in lower courts. (We are only about a half step away from very dangerous interpretations of the US constitution. Of course this falls in line with UN. SDG treaties as well as ESG recommendations.). The fact they even tried this should make everyone very nervous.

[@arlo4051]

I find it amazing the phone actually still had the information on it after 2 years uncharged.

[@SeanBZA]

Why not, all use flash memory, and that is good for at least 10 years with no power applied.

[@LawlessChemistry]

Why won't it? Nothing happens to the actual data on the phone's flash memory if the phone battery is discharged.

[@50PullUps]

The data would remain for a very very long time even while the device was powered off.

[@SeanBZA]

@@50PullUps Even the volatile memory, things like the clock and such, like stored state in RAM, will stay for a long time, kept there by the phone battery, and also by the small coin cell soldered to the main board that is used on phones with a removeable battery. Lithium cells will last a long time on a charge, 2 years is not a long time, they will do 5 years from a full charge, and not be under cut off voltage, keeping things like the standby processor, which is looking for things like power button press, USB connections, battery state and such, with no problems. The processor spends 99.9% of the time in a very low power state, only turning on briefly to update clock time once a minute on roll over of seconds, and in the interim having low power consumption, basically the low power 32kHz clock crystal that provides the clock, and almost nothing else, while waiting for the hardware interrupts to occur for change of state. Then start the low power on chip oscillator, execute the code, and drop back to deep sleep mode again. The high power mode draws under 1mA for a fraction of a second once a minute, which will be less than the self discharge of the lithium pack.

[@filanfyretracker]

@@SeanBZA And keeping it uncharged and in airplane mode is probably the only way to keep it from being wiped. If the phone can see the internet than the owner can in theory login to their apple account from anywhere they can get on a computer and nuke the phone.