Thread: News and Media Reports
+
Add Report
Results 391 to 405 of 1215
-
07-13-19 04:29 #825
Posts: 1087Originally Posted by Tiramisu69 [View Original Post]
-
07-12-19 23:38 #824
Posts: 2852Lucky to be alive
Originally Posted by Dmb4100 [View Original Post]
-
07-12-19 18:11 #823
Posts: 63Wouldn't stress it
Until somebody gets a call from outgamie there's no need to stress over it they obviously need a warrant to go through her phone and even then it's going to be a ***** trying to get into but honestly if they were getting a warrant they would've gotten it by now.
-
07-12-19 17:37 #822
Posts: 382Seriously!
Yes. How the hell would the cops know what she has or doesn't have in her phone? You don't know what is in there either. That's That is exactly my point. Plus Outagamie would certainly care who has contacted her from their area and they have no idea the extent or lack of info.
Originally Posted by AltereEgo [View Original Post]
-
07-12-19 17:15 #821
Posts: 202Seriously?
Originally Posted by Miltown [View Original Post]
-
07-12-19 16:10 #820
Posts: 8Thanks
Thanks for the clarification angrybob. You live up to your name LOL. In regards to cutting a deal, idk. I'd like to think she won't since the max is 9 mo for misA and she's done time before and she doesn't seem the type to snitch. I think we will all be fine and sadly she will take the brunt of it all because the justice system .
-
07-12-19 14:15 #819
Posts: 382Everyone is assuming she won't give consent. I'm not so sure she won't. She's looking at jail time and may cut a deal. She was UTR before she blew up; she may go back that way.
Originally Posted by AngryBob [View Original Post]
-
07-12-19 13:26 #818
Posts: 215For the last fucking time.
I posted this before, guess I'll post it again because it is useful and there is clarification on this matter:
NO, if you are simply arrested, they do NOT have the right to search your cell phone right away. They need a warrant to do this. In 2014, there were two cases that went to the Supreme Court that dealt with this very specific issue. In both Riley vs California and United States vs Wurie, the police arrested the defendants, and during a search incident to that arrest, the police seized each defendant's cell phone that was located on their person. Evidence of gang and weapons activity was discovered on Riley's phone, after police looked through text, photographs, and videos. In Wurie, police searched the defendant's phone finding he had received multiple calls from "my house. " They accessed the call log, traced it to the defendant's apartment, and then searched the apartment, finding drugs and firearms. Both defendants were convicted. The California Court of Appeals upheld Riley's conviction, but the First Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Wurie's conviction.
The USA Supreme Court heard both cases together, and in a 9-0 opinion, held that the police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested. Just because they have the tools to do it, doesn't make it legal without a warrant.
Furthermore, last summer, the Supreme Court ruled that police must obtain a search warrant to access an individual's cellphone location information. They can't simply go to a cell phone provider and ask for tower data-they need a warrant. While that decision may limit the government's access to cellphone data, it has no impact on the ability of private companies to amass, use and sell their customers' information. That is because the Fourth Amendment only limits government conduct, not private conduct. Only Congress, in enacting legislation, can limit how private companies amass and use information.
-
07-11-19 21:33 #817
Posts: 8Sc
After searching around, it seems that most state supreme courts agree that LE require warrants to access phones that are password protected OR locked with biometrics (which I would think includes facial recognition). It seems the supreme Court in the fed level follows along the same lines, but the cases are not as straightforward. For example, there was a case that involved cracking into a defendant's phone and investigating GPS activity which the SC found to be unconstitutional. All this means to me is that if SL's phone is locked by touch or password (which it probably is), they will need a warrant. Seeing how she was on probation when this shit went down, she is likely fucked. Honestly, the law is fucked up when it comes to pros. How in the fuck is serving time a fair sentence or preventing pros? It ends up being a revolving door and these girls will go right back to it. It's literally just a cash cow for jails. Fuck the justice system. Also, is anyone able to get in contact SL?
-
07-11-19 17:09 #816
Posts: 379Originally Posted by BuffaloDog [View Original Post]
-
07-11-19 17:06 #815
Posts: 379Originally Posted by Soft7 [View Original Post]
-
07-11-19 17:04 #814
Posts: 379Originally Posted by HugeLoad34 [View Original Post]
-
07-11-19 12:07 #813
Posts: 322Originally Posted by BuffaloDog [View Original Post]
-
07-10-19 23:44 #812
Posts: 228They get warrants there and crack phones open. Likely don't care about non-920 numbers but ya never know. Lots of mongers this way get phone calls and visits from Uncle.
Originally Posted by AngryBob [View Original Post]
-
07-10-19 23:06 #811
Posts: 29Originally Posted by HugeLoad34 [View Original Post]