BUSH DID IT FIRST!!

[rushmc 23]

I can hear kallend now

Quote

Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/19/obama-administration-asks-supreme-court-to-allow-warrantless-cellphone-searches/?print=1

Quote

The defendant was convicted, but on appeal he argued that accessing the information on his cellphone without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Earlier this year, the First Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the man’s argument, ruling that the police should have gotten a warrant before accessing any information on the man’s phone.

The Obama Administration disagrees. In a petition filed earlier this month asking the Supreme Court to hear the case, the government argues that the First Circuit’s ruling conflicts with the rulings of several other appeals courts, as well as with earlier Supreme Court cases. Those earlier cases have given the police broad discretion to search possessions on the person of an arrested suspect, including notebooks, calendars and pagers. The government contends that a cellphone is no different than any other object a suspect might be carrying.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jgoose71 0]

So, just making sure I'm reading this correctly....

If you are walking down the streets of New York and the police do a "Stop and Frisk", the court is saying that it's OK for them to go through your cell phone also?

The liberals can keep giving away their rights to the government all they want, but leave mine alone.....

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[Bignugget 0]

jgoose71

So, just making sure I'm reading this correctly....
.

You aren't.

Stop n Frisk doesn't mean you get arrested....unless of course you are carrying illegal shit.

Once you are arrested, they can look through your phone, your car, your pockets, your asshole, etc. without a warrant.

A distinct and important difference.

[rushmc 23]

Bignugget

***So, just making sure I'm reading this correctly....
.

You aren't.

Stop n Frisk doesn't mean you get arrested....unless of course you are carrying illegal shit.

Once you are arrested, they can look through your phone, your car, your pockets, your asshole, etc. without a warrant.

A distinct and important difference.

The only difference is you are ok with illeagal search
I am not

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Bignugget 0]

rushmc

******So, just making sure I'm reading this correctly....
.

You aren't.

Stop n Frisk doesn't mean you get arrested....unless of course you are carrying illegal shit.

Once you are arrested, they can look through your phone, your car, your pockets, your asshole, etc. without a warrant.

A distinct and important difference.

The only difference is you are ok with illeagal search
I am not

Where are your threads against searching vehicles and pockets after arrests?

[rushmc 23]

Bignugget

*********So, just making sure I'm reading this correctly....
.

You aren't.

Stop n Frisk doesn't mean you get arrested....unless of course you are carrying illegal shit.

Once you are arrested, they can look through your phone, your car, your pockets, your asshole, etc. without a warrant.

A distinct and important difference.

The only difference is you are ok with illeagal search
I am not

Where are your threads against searching vehicles and pockets after arrests?

Non starter
If arrested you get searched

Stop and frisk without probable cause is illeagal search
Same for imigration check points
Same for AZ produce check points

Which I am against

You?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Bignugget 0]

Yep, I am against the stop n frisk idea.

The original comment was founded on the (incorrect) idea that IF you were subject to a 'stop n frisk' (which I oppose) then that would allow the police to access your cell phone....that is not the case at least as per the article and the references made in it.

Er go, he did not read it correctly, which was his question.

The case was about a man who was in fact already under arrest when the police accessed the phone. As you so eloquently put it "If arrested you get searched ".

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

In a petition filed earlier this month asking the Supreme Court to hear the case, the government argues that the First Circuit’s ruling conflicts with the rulings of several other appeals courts, as well as with earlier Supreme Court cases.

Are you saying that asking for clarification from the Supremes when different courts give conflicting rulings is not an appropriate role for the administration?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

kallend

Quote

In a petition filed earlier this month asking the Supreme Court to hear the case, the government argues that the First Circuit’s ruling conflicts with the rulings of several other appeals courts, as well as with earlier Supreme Court cases.

Are you saying that asking for clarification from the Supremes when different courts give conflicting rulings is not an appropriate role for the administration?

BUSH DID IT FIRST, BUSH DID IT FIRST, BUSH DID IT FIRST

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,148]

rushmc

***

Quote

In a petition filed earlier this month asking the Supreme Court to hear the case, the government argues that the First Circuit’s ruling conflicts with the rulings of several other appeals courts, as well as with earlier Supreme Court cases.

Are you saying that asking for clarification from the Supremes when different courts give conflicting rulings is not an appropriate role for the administration?

BUSH DID IT FIRST, BUSH DID IT FIRST, BUSH DID IT FIRST



I very much doubt that.

I'm sure other administrations asked for clarification from the Supremes before Bush.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.