Michigan State Police Search Cell Phones During Traffic Stops

Is this a possible over reaction... 5 units state wide, I would more expect to see this as a crime scene tool.

Were they to attempt this on a simple stop it would be an illegal search and seizure and against the The forth Amendment of the United States

Were you to be stopped by the police and should they ask to search your vehicle SOP is NO not without a search warrant and my lawyer present.....

However should one commit a felony, then all your stuff is confiscated, your vehicle subject to search, and anything you have with you becomes evidence and part of an ongoing investigation which basically they can vandalize it to their hearts content with out fear...

sasha601 said:

I am wondering: Am I even legally required to step out of the car when officer orders to do so when the only reason I was stopped is traffic violation (civil infraction)?

Click to expand...

Should the request be made and you refuse, this can lead to other issues, AKA failure to obey a officer of the law...

Mostly they want you in your car where they have you out of their way, if you exit your car with out being requested it puts them at a higher state of alert, and expect them to get upset...

Should the officer ask you to exit the vehicle good, bad, or simple mistaken identity, there is a reason and failure to comply will very likely escalate the session ending you up in dirty dish water. Where as compliance may just ease the situation, in short they want to be in full control of the stop at all times.

So if you are ever stopped, well there are a pile of threads you can read on that one on the do's n don't......

I could see this happening to someone they dont like, for instance, one of those pesky OC nuts.

sasha601 said:

I am wondering: Am I even legally required to step out of the car when officer orders to do so when the only reason I was stopped is traffic violation (civil infraction)?

Click to expand...

Yes

jeremy05 said:

Yes

Click to expand...

Under what authority? What law requires me to exit vehicle when the only reason for a stop is civil infraction. I understand that this request would be lawful if I am legally detained under RAS of a crime or there is a probable cause of a crime. In this case officer needs to pat me down for weapons (if it is RAS) or arrest me (if it is probable cause). In this case I must exit the vehicle to allow officer to frisk search me or to arrest me. But, I do not believe civil infraction is legally a crime and a justification for a pat down search or arrest. In this case, what legal authority officer has to order me to exit my car? What law am I breaking by refusing to comply with this order? I hope you realize that citizens are only required to follow lawful police orders. I will make a ridiculous example, but it will drive my point: are you required to strip down naked in the middle of the street if officer orders you to do so? are you required to jump from the bridge if officer orders you to do so? Again, someone please tell me what law requires me to step out of the car when stopped for civil infraction? I believe the only requirement is to handle over Driver's License, Proof of Insurance and Vehicle registration?

sasha601 said:

Under what authority? What law requires me to exit vehicle when the only reason for a stop is civil infraction. I understand that this request would be lawful if I am legally detained under RAS of a crime or there is a probable cause of a crime. In this case officer needs to pat me down for weapons (if it is RAS) or arrest me (if it is probable cause). In this case I must exit the vehicle to allow officer to frisk search me or to arrest me. But, I do not believe civil infraction is legally a crime and a justification for a pat down search or arrest. In this case, what legal authority officer has to order me to exit my car? What law am I breaking by refusing to comply with this order? I hope you realize that citizens are only required to follow lawful police orders. I will make a ridiculous example, but it will drive my point: are you required to strip down naked in the middle of the street if officer orders you to do so? are you required to jump from the bridge if officer orders you to do so? Again, someone please tell me what law requires me to step out of the car when stopped for civil infraction? I believe the only requirement is to handle over Driver's License, Proof of Insurance and Vehicle registration?

Click to expand...

I would direct you to post #41.

But the simple answer is the authority is because they have a badge and you don't. They can call for back up, and you're on your own. It's one of those many sacrifices we made a few decades ago, when someone decided that the "civilized" thing to do was delegate certain powers to *** ******** ******* *****, the Police.

--Moderator Edited--
..Rule 9 - No bashing

autosurgeon said:

And "in the field" could mean on the mobile crime labs that go to the crime scene... who knows.

Click to expand...

This article states "motorists they pull over".

"The Michigan State Police have started using handheld machines called "extraction devices" to download personal information from motorists they pull over, even if they're not suspected of any crime. Naturally, the ACLU has a problem with this."

Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20055431-1.html#ixzz1KC31eTvv

BTW, what is stopping them from snatching your data through a blue tooth connection? Seems feasible with a device that can bypass passwords.

MSP response:

http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,1607,7-123-1586-254783--,00.html

Bronson

"The implication by the ACLU that the MSP uses these devices "quietly to bypass Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches" is untrue, and this divisive tactic unjustly harms police and community relations."

If they are harmed financially and can prove liable, then I demand they sue to recover damages or my tax money will have to cover these damages.

If they don't have a case for liable, they shouldn't say such things as are in that paragraph...

Do you think its possible their PR department (Really, State Police need a PR department?) could simply have been misleading people with their response?

VW_Factor said:

Do you think its possible their PR department (Really, State Police need a PR department?) could simply have been misleading people with their response?

Click to expand...

I considered that possibility, but figured any other rational person would also consider it. Ergo, I didn't mention it but rather let the reader form that conclusion.

My thoughts were simply. Why does the MSP have a PR department?

Big Gay Al said:

I would direct you to post #41.

But the simple answer is the authority is because they have a badge and you don't. They can call for back up, and you're on your own. It's one of those many sacrifices we made a few decades ago, when someone decided that the "civilized" thing to do was delegate certain powers to the largest street gang in America, the Police.

Click to expand...

"because they have a badge" is really not a valid argument. If this is the standard, then police has unlimited powers - I hope this is not the case yet. Years ago OC would certainly cause detention or arrest - not anymore (almost not anymore). I am still looking for unemotional response to my question that is based on specific Michigan statutes.

sasha601 said:

"because they have a badge" is really not a valid argument. If this is the standard, then police has unlimited powers - I hope this is not the case yet. Years ago OC would certainly cause detention or arrest - not anymore (almost not anymore). I am still looking for unemotional response to my question that is based on specific Michigan statutes.

Click to expand...

There was no emotion involved in my answer. And "because they have a badge" is all the reason some of them need. Granted most will not fall to that level. The thing is, when they ask you to exit your vehicle, you will not know what their motivation is. There may be a BOLO out with a description that fits you and your vehicle. They're not gonna take the time to explain it to you, until they've ruled you out as the person they're looking for.

In the overall scheme of things, generally the safe thing to do, is cooperate as much as you can, without incriminating yourself. Unless of course, you like the taste of pavement.

However, if we assume for the moment that you're basically the typical law-abiding citizen (granted, with a gun) then chances are very good you'll never find yourself in an adverse position. Of all the times I've been stopped, I can't recall a single time I was asked to exit my vehicle.....except for once, in Indiana. The ISP trooper had me exit my vehicle and sit in the front seat of his cruiser while he ran my info. I was very surprised. He didn't even take my gun.

VW_Factor said:

My thoughts were simply. Why does the MSP have a PR department?

Click to expand...

It's a government thing.

Big Gay Al said:

It's a government thing.

Click to expand...

I find 2 things ironic, first, MSP has been "working with" the ACLU since 2008 to fulfil the FOIA request by the ACLU wanted on this use this device by the MSP and they only have responded to ONE of the ACLU's FOIA requests in nearly 3 years? Dont seem like they were really working with them, it seems like they were advoiding them and dragging their feet. DID they really think the ACLU would just go away?

and two MSP did not mention this publicly (that I know of) until this ACLU put out a press release then a couple days later they put up a public statement claiming they have been working with the ACLU to NARROW the focus?


I wonder if they put out a public statement when they FIRST started using this device to invade our privacy to let us know they had a new tool in the police gadget box?

Onnie said:

I find 2 things ironic, first, MSP has been "working with" the ACLU since 2008 to fulfil the FOIA request by the ACLU wanted on this use this device by the MSP and they only have responded to ONE of the ACLU's FOIA requests in nearly 3 years? Dont seem like they were really working with them, it seems like they were advoiding them and dragging their feet. DID they really think the ACLU would just go away?

and two MSP did not mention this publicly (that I know of) until this ACLU put out a press release then a couple days later they put up a public statement claiming they have been working with the ACLU to NARROW the focus?


I wonder if they put out a public statement when they FIRST started using this device to invade our privacy to let us know they had a new tool in the police gadget box?

Click to expand...

The best weapons against crime are usually the ones the bad guys don't know about.

Big Gay Al said:

There was no emotion involved in my answer. And "because they have a badge" is all the reason some of them need. Granted most will not fall to that level. The thing is, when they ask you to exit your vehicle, you will not know what their motivation is. There may be a BOLO out with a description that fits you and your vehicle. They're not gonna take the time to explain it to you, until they've ruled you out as the person they're looking for.

In the overall scheme of things, generally the safe thing to do, is cooperate as much as you can, without incriminating yourself. Unless of course, you like the taste of pavement.

However, if we assume for the moment that you're basically the typical law-abiding citizen (granted, with a gun) then chances are very good you'll never find yourself in an adverse position. Of all the times I've been stopped, I can't recall a single time I was asked to exit my vehicle.....except for once, in Indiana. The ISP trooper had me exit my vehicle and sit in the front seat of his cruiser while he ran my info. I was very surprised. He didn't even take my gun.

Click to expand...

I understand all your points. But, what is the answer to this question based on Michigan Law: "Am I legally required to exit vehicle when ordered to do so by the Law Enforcement Officer when the only reason for stop is civil infraction (most traffic stops are civil nfractions)? Please reference relevant Michigan statutes.

sasha601 said:

Under what authority? What law requires me to exit vehicle when the only reason for a stop is civil infraction. I understand that this request would be lawful if I am legally detained under RAS of a crime or there is a probable cause of a crime. In this case officer needs to pat me down for weapons (if it is RAS) or arrest me (if it is probable cause). In this case I must exit the vehicle to allow officer to frisk search me or to arrest me. But, I do not believe civil infraction is legally a crime and a justification for a pat down search or arrest. In this case, what legal authority officer has to order me to exit my car? What law am I breaking by refusing to comply with this order? I hope you realize that citizens are only required to follow lawful police orders. I will make a ridiculous example, but it will drive my point: are you required to strip down naked in the middle of the street if officer orders you to do so? are you required to jump from the bridge if officer orders you to do so? Again, someone please tell me what law requires me to step out of the car when stopped for civil infraction? I believe the only requirement is to handle over Driver's License, Proof of Insurance and Vehicle registration?

Click to expand...

Try Pennsylvania v. Mimms
http://supreme.justia.com/us/434/106/case.html

sasha601 said:

I understand all your points. But, what is the answer to this question based on Michigan Law: "Am I legally required to exit vehicle when ordered to do so by the Law Enforcement Officer when the only reason for stop is civil infraction (most traffic stops are civil nfractions)? Please reference relevant Michigan statutes.

Click to expand...

You know, I think you have a point here. I'll just bet this exact question has not come before a federal appellate court, yet.

However, I also bet the court will rely on PA vs Mimms. I'm betting the court will say that even though it is only a civil infraction, a cop is authorized to seize a person for a civil infraction. And, a seizure it is governed by 4A. And, since it is governed by 4A, it is controlled by SCOTUS precedent in that area, and--we're back to PA vs Mimms.

You see, its not the seriousness of the offense behind the seizure. Its the possibility of danger to the officer.

My crystal ball told me all that. Plus, it whispered that the courts quite often side with cops and more government power.

warrior1978 said:

Try Pennsylvania v. Mimms
http://supreme.justia.com/us/434/106/case.html

Click to expand...

Tis is what Supreme Court said in part in this case:

"Held:
1. The order to get out of the car, issued after the respondent was lawfully detained, was reasonable, and thus permissible under the Fourth Amendment."

You see, this guy was"lawfully detained" because "a large bulge under his jacket was noticed by the officer" (RAS). Therefore, order to get out of the car was permissible under Fourth Amendment. Police needs something more than just civil infraction (legally not a crime) to have RAS of a crime. Then, you can be ordered out of the car. This Supreme Court decision would not apply to just a civil infraction. So, my question stands.