Woman fears use of cell pics confiscated by cops (Axe To Grind Alert!)

The Herald News ^ | 9/03/2010 | Joe Hosey

[Buckeye Battle Cry]

Lights on for safety.

[Psalm 144]

“After seizing the cell phone officers secured a search warrant...”

Shouldn’t that be the other way around? How can one be considered “secure in their person and effects” when the police can seize one’s personal effects without a warrant?

*********************

A fair question with a fine distinction.

The phone had been seized, but (allegedly) not gone through for the evidence - text messages according to the story - sought by the police. Thus the warrant to actually dig through the phone’s records.

This comes up more often with seized or impounded vehicles. If it is impossible to allege “exigent circumstances and the safety of police officers”, warrants are subsequently procured to search the car. This happens with computers too, but less often.

Sort of the distinction between being ‘detained’ but not ‘arrested’ for individuals.

Hairsplitting artificial flatulence I know, but that is what law always reduces down to, regardless of place or time.

[Psalm 144]

As much as we have been warned about the dangers of sexting, people are still doing it. Once the picture is sent out the sender no longer has control of it.

******************

This is true of all emails as well. Everything sent or received can be recovered and scrutinized by serving a subpoena duces tecum on the ISP.

People are oblivious to how public their electronic trail is.

[McGruff]

Polaski, a former stripper and club manager, said she is also worried by the prospect of the photos being digitally altered in such a way that it appears she is engaged in some depraved act. "My daughter's 14. I'm concerned about that,"

Careers have consequences.

[a fool in paradise]

They are still holding the phone... because?

[a fool in paradise]

Even though Polaski faces no charges so far in connection with the Romeoville car vandalism investigation, she is fighting a pair of driving under the influence cases out of Joliet. One is from a felony arrest in June, the other a misdemeanor charge from March.

No charges but still need to put some scandal in her profile. If she were to go to trial on this vandalism charge, the jury would not be informed of the other charges.

[dfwgator]

"Don't you people get it? It was the Phone Cops!"

[a fool in paradise]

That’s my view. When you allow a naked picture of yourself to be taken you have to expect that some time or other someone will view it .

When you purchase fancy lingerie, it is with the expectation that someone will view you or your woman in it.

That does not excuse peeping toms.

[carcraft]

If her pictures appear on the Internet who is the more likely culprit, a teed off boy friend or the cops? Remember, no pictures of her have appeared yet. She does seem willing to mail them to boy friends and loses control at that point!