Printable View
[QUOTE=HugeLoad34;4356522]How does this pertain to the situation at hand he literally got caught in the act that's definitely not the case with what we're talking about here.[/QUOTE]I think it was a response to your comment that you cannot get in trouble if there is no evidence that you actually met with her. He did not show up but still got a solicitation charge due to his "play texting".
They 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.
[QUOTE=AngryBob;4355832]They will need two things to do that:
A. a warrant (please see my previous post on phone digging and the supreme court ruling).
B. passcode / her fingerprint-assuming the phone is pass or fingerprint protected.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=BuffaloDog;4357068]They 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.[/QUOTE]With a burner and reload cards purchased with cash it gets way more difficult to find you.
[QUOTE=HugeLoad34;4356522]How does this pertain to the situation at hand he literally got caught in the act that's definitely not the case with what we're talking about here.[/QUOTE]He never met the girl. Only talked about rates and what was available. They recognized his voice. Not sure, maybe I posted wrong story? I'd have to check if I did.
[QUOTE=Soft7;4357016]This was a hoax, not real.[/QUOTE]100% true. I know Milwaukee cops that knew the guy. Talk about embarrassing.
[QUOTE=BuffaloDog;4357068]They 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.[/QUOTE]Cop buddy said they can't go into a phone without a warrant if it's password protected or has a code but they can go into a phone with the new facial recognition unlocks. I know the supreme court ruled but was it on this? Wasn't the supreme court ruling about the Wisconsin case where the guy was arrested and passed out but wasn't able to give consent to give blood at hospital but they still did it without asking for a warrant?
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?
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.
Everyone 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.
[QUOTE=AngryBob;4359246]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.[/QUOTE]
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 .
[QUOTE=Miltown;4359309]Everyone 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.[/QUOTE]Why would outiegamie county care about Milwaukee county problems? People north of here don't care about Milwaukee and stay away because of this kind of crap. And Milwaukee isn't going to meddle in some crap up north, they have their own problems here already. A blow job you may or may not have gotten months ago isn't a priority here. Calm down you worrywarts.
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.
[QUOTE=AltereEgo;4359540]Why would outiegamie county care about Milwaukee county problems? People north of here don't care about Milwaukee and stay away because of this kind of crap. And Milwaukee isn't going to meddle in some crap up north, they have their own problems here already. A blow job you may or may not have gotten months ago isn't a priority here. Calm down you worrywarts.[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Dmb4100;4355542]I am going to warn you again. Brittany aka Angela. Saves info, pics, screen names, texts, can history. She got me locked up for 60 days. Not going to repeat the story just be careful. Or better, let her be. She is strung out on meth, three black nubs for teeth. The reason why she looked uncomfortable during sex is because meth tenses up all of your muscles after long term use and the come down destroys sex drive. Which means the pussy is going to suck.[/QUOTE]Remember back when she was pretty? Super gh volume.
[QUOTE=Tiramisu69;4358389]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?[/QUOTE]An inmate can be contacted by mail. One has to look up find the inmate's location in the system and send a letter "care of" the facility. BTDT. Be aware that all mail is subject to inspection. One can also post money to an inmate's account. Best to do that by money order to avoid extra fees. There is whole industry built around milking money from inmates and their friends / family. I found that a girl I had seen was in a minimum security facility in Milwaukee which, fortunately, allowed FTF visits. I mailed her back and forth, got on her approved visitor list (they do a background check) and went to see her. Got a couple of cokes from a vending machine and had a nice chat sitting across a table from her.