ACLU: Michigan cops stealing drivers' phone data

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20055431-1.html#ixzz1K1YGQb9t ^

[mdel747]

"What next... driving down the street mining data from open wireless portals?"

[Munz]

I can’t imagine why any “street cop” woudl even want to be bothered with this type of crap.

I think that the story needs to be filed under needs more information. Something is not as it appears here.

I could think of tons of better things to do with my time than downloading just anyone’s cell phone data for grins.

It doesn’t pass the smell test

[packrat35]

I guess the folks that either don’t want to be
1. Arrested
2. Tasered
3. Pepper-sprayed
4. old-fashion beatdown
5. take your pick

Ever deal with cops nowadays...seriously they are out of control and don’t give a damn. Try to enforce your rights and pick 1-5.

[VeniVidiVici]

I need to get me one of these bad boys.

[Vendome]

That’s at least an abridgment of my 4th... not to mention a few others

[SECURE AMERICA]

This is just silly
Why would I hand my cell phone to a police officer if I was not under arrest or if he did not produce a warrant?

[kearnyirish2]

I’m no fan of the ACLU either, but then again most of their media exposure is recent nonsense compared to the very serious matters they address; they do have a purpose.

[kearnyirish2]

Here in NJ they fixed a lot of that with dash cams and microphones on the cops’ ties; the response has been a total drop in any kind of law enforcement.

On the positive side these measures have protected cops in “he said, she said” cases where minorities have died in pursuits; the evidence was unmistakable.

[SECURE AMERICA]

(Sorry officer, I don’t HAVE a cell phone!”)

(Then you’ll be charged with a myriad of charges depending on locality ranging from “obstruction of justice,” “lying to an officer,” and probably assault (Since swearing now constitutes )

Would not lie, I would simply state NO.
Without a warrant they have no legal right,
If they then arrest you for some bogus charge, look at as winning the lottery.............

[ShadowAce]

[martin_fierro]

What next... driving down the street mining data from open wireless portals?

ALPR

[PapaBear3625]

“Sorry officer, I don’t HAVE a cell phone!”

Making a false statement to a police officer generally is a crime, and also gives him probable cause to examine you more closely.

Better to just say "Where is your warrant, and what is your probable cause?"

The only circumstance where I could see the cop legitimately wanting to see your phone is if there is a law against talking while driving, he saw you with the phone to your ear, and he wants to check your call history to confirm that you were engaged in a phone call in the minutes before he pulled you over.

[Does so]

Is there really any proof the cops are using this in routine traffic stops?

Maybe for "Texting while Driving"?

[hyperconservative]

The good Freople of MI could squirell away their real cellphones and get a twentydollar one before travelling in state or beyond.

But don’t throw the good one away, though because the dumpster diving is in high gear.

[G Larry]

It’s fishy that there are no citizen complaints, just ACLU assertions.

The Texting while driving issue doesn’t wash, because that’s a 5th and 4th A violation.

The cop can’t ask for your phone!!!
(Especially if he can’t see it!)

[unixfox]

Why would I hand my cell phone to a police officer if I was not under arrest or if he did not produce a warrant?

The same reason you hand over your financial information to the IRS. Because they FORCE you to do it!

The 4th Amendment means NOTHING to these people. NOTHING!

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

Another factoid from the story is that the MI police apparently have a whopping five of these in the entire state.

In other words, the program is in the ramp-up stage, awaiting funding for more widespread implementation after the MSP decides such data collection procedures are feasible and useful. No point in waiting for full implementation before nipping this in the bud.

It would seem to follow that a phone would need to be formally seized to be thus read in most traffic cases.

The allegation is that these are being used in routine traffic stops (implying that they're being used on the scene). This is an important distinction, and IMO key to the usefulness of a program like this. Imagine the administrative nightmare of seizing multiple phones from traffic stops, taking them to a central facility for data extraction, and then getting them back to their owners. I'm sure we'd be hearing about this from more than just Cnet if it was happening this way.

[Gilbo_3]

What next... driving down the street mining data from open wireless portals?

sorry you asked, as Im sure youll get 1000 'well duh???' replies to that rhetorical question...8^}

[Gilbo_3]

would seem to follow that a phone would need to be formally seized to be thus read in most traffic cases.

wow, ive never had a cop give me the choice of 'cooperating' or going directly to jail, where once officially arrested, the aforementioned cooperation is pointless...

most people would simply give occifer friendly the phone, in hopes of driving away afterwards...

can you say WOsD ??? i knew ya could...

[HiTech RedNeck]

Most people with an extensive telephonic social life would be like “hell no, I’m not parting with this phone, it has all my business and pleasure contacts in it, and it’s not like I can just bop over to the cell phone store and get a replacement that automagically has the same data setup.”