Skip to comments.Michigan: Police Search Cell Phones During Traffic Stops
Posted on 04/20/2011 6:49:30 AM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER
I don't know anything about this source but this sounds credible.
ACLU seeks information on Michigan program that allows cops to download information from smart phones belonging to stopped motorists.
The Michigan State Police have a high-tech mobile forensics device that can be used to extract information from cell phones belonging to motorists stopped for minor traffic violations. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan last Wednesday demanded that state officials stop stonewalling freedom of information requests for information on the program.
ACLU learned that the police had acquired the cell phone scanning devices and in August 2008 filed an official request for records on the program, including logs of how the devices were used. The state police responded by saying they would provide the information only in return for a payment of $544,680. The ACLU found the charge outrageous.
"Law enforcement officers are known, on occasion, to encourage citizens to cooperate if they have nothing to hide," ACLU staff attorney Mark P. Fancher wrote. "No less should be expected of law enforcement, and the Michigan State Police should be willing to assuage concerns that these powerful extraction devices are being used illegally by honoring our requests for cooperation and disclosure."
A US Department of Justice test of the CelleBrite UFED used by Michigan police found the device could grab all of the photos and video off of an iPhone within one-and-a-half minutes. The device works with 3000 different phone models and can even defeat password protections.
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewspaper.com ...
“I do not consent to that search.”
Ya gotta tell them.
Texting 30 seconds before they got pulled over?
I don't think there is a "good reason" and I 100% oppose the police invading privacy like this. I just find it especially chilling that they seem to be doing it "just because they can".
Would "Get a !#*@% warrant" work?
You are correct, refuse consent period.
If they threaten arrest for obstruction or some other crap, demand it and sue them into oblivion.
If you don’t object, the po po will say you implied your consent.
Any search by consent is valid. So, you gotta say: “I do not consent to that search.”
Basic rules with Police
1. Don’t talk to them under any circumstances and never answer questions
2. Don’t consent to any searches without a warrant
3. Don’t allow them on your property without a warrant
That is right.
Anything they get can AND WILL be used against you.
Here’s something to say to give you something to say if they’re hounding you: “I got nothing to say.”
I would preface that statement with, “Am I under arrest?”
I’m not sure that anything like “implied consent” exists with police searches. Unless you AFFIRM their request to search, it’s invalid.
I knew a very high paid and sought out defense attorney long ago. In his office, behind his desk, he had a huge marlin with a sign under it which read, I would not be on this wall if I did not open my mouth.
I was directed to it while asking him if his client would consent to an interview. He added, my client is not going to concent to the interview, he is not going to say anything and I guarantee, he is not going to jail...good bye.
I used to be a huge supporter of LE, and still do support them, but no longer give them my trust. I now see them as an important, but overbearing unionized agent of an out-control government. They will arbitrarily chew up the guilty and innocent alike.
You trust them a lot more than I do.
If the cop takes the phone and starts flipping through the massages, (not hooked up to this machine) you gotta say “I do not consent to that search.” Do you really think he is gonna check with you first?
Criminals already have some devices like this and are cloning peoples’ phones and making international calls. Been there and had that happen to me already. Especially vulnerable are those who work in retail. They can stand near you and get your phone data.
I share your stand on this. And that's sad because I have a son who a uniformed deputy sheriff here in Florida, as well as a son-in-law who is also a sworn deputy.
Sadly we have come to the point where the citizen is in the middle with criminals who want to rob or otherwise harm you and law enforcement whose job is to find a criminal for every crime.
It's become a form of double jeopardy. First when you are accosted by the criminal and then again when you have to deal with those who are supposed to sort it all out.
I make it a point to steer clear of officers. Time was I truly enjoyed engaging them in conversation and expressing support and appreciation for what they do, but now I find so many of them to be difficult to talk with and so I just avoid them.
“I used to be a huge supporter of LE, and still do support them, but no longer give them my trust. I now see them as an important, but overbearing unionized agent of an out-control government. They will arbitrarily chew up the guilty and innocent alike.”
What? How can you support them w/o trust? Just curious...seems illogical to me.
ACLU fishing expedition using made up charges.
Not backed by ANY citizen complaints.
Also, one of my favorite sites:
A very good source of information for the citizen dedicated to knowing and enforcing their Constitutional rights.
It’s awkward to have dueling impressions. I support them when they defend against the legitimate criminal element, but I no longer trust them, as they increasingly represent stealth tax collectors, militarized governmental gangmembers and capricious thugs. I expect that most are still good, sensible people, but I’m not willing to roll the dice.
If they start this nonsense in Ohio,I’ll make sure that I always have a large cup of Cola in the cupholder.If they ask for my phone,it’s going in the cup.
how about lawyer’s phones? client data and emails and txt msgs there.
how about judges?
how about reporter sources?
how about someone who is just anti-union?
police aready record license plates of groups they don’t like.
LOL, honest answer, very good! :) Thx! BTW I suspect them all and would never assume they’re OK.
“Any search by consent is valid. So, you gotta say: I do not consent to that search.”
That is false. Not knowing the cops are performing a search is not consent. Second, you do not need to tell them you are asserting your rights for those rights to be protected.
My “point” is that I don’t believe the ACLU when they claim these devices are being used in traffic stops.
There are no citizen complaints to back it up.
I believe the ACLU doesn’t like the cops using these in on-going crimnal investigations and they’ve created this strawman to fight it.
This could be a great tool used on VICTIM’S phones, to learn recent contacts and whereabouts.
If you wish to be added to or removed from the Michigan ping list, please post or FReepmail me.
I am a citizen and consider this a complaint. Do you believe you are the property of the government?
Have some coffee and pay attention!
The only folks claiming the cops are doing this are the ACLU!
For some reason, I don’t believe them.
Perhaps it is because no individual citizen has complained that cops have used this device on their cell phone?
Yes....that’s an Apple problem, not a cop violating your rights.
I totally agree on “not knowing they are performing a search” but not on the rest.
I suppose that would depend on the Court and the roll of the dice and if someone can afford representation.
China: Beijing to Track Peoples Movements via Their Mobile Phones