Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: This is why my cell has a password lock, and why I don't live in CA

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Conover
    Posts
    237

    This is why my cell has a password lock, and why I don't live in CA

    California: Appeals Court Approves Cell Phone Search During Traffic Stop
    Appellate court rules California cops can look through a Blackberry during a traffic stop.

    The California Court of Appeal on September 26 approved a police officer's rifling through the cell phone belonging to someone who had just been pulled over for a traffic violation.

    Reid Nottoli was pulled over on December 6, 2009 just before 2am as he was taking a female friend home. Santa Cruz County Deputy Sheriff Steven Ryan said Nottoli's silver Acura TL had been speeding on Highway 1. After speaking with Nottoli on the side of the road, Ryan suspected the 25-year-old was under the influence of a stimulant drug. His license was also expired, so Ryan said he would impound the vehicle. Nottoli asked if his car could stay parked on the side of the road, which was not heavily traveled and out of the way. Ryan refused so that he could conduct an "inventory" search prior to the towing.

    Ryan testified that Nottoli's driving was not impaired, and Nottoli was not arrested for driving under the influence. As he rifled through the belongings in the car, Ryan found a fully legal Glock 20 pistol with a Guncrafter Industries 50 GI conversion that should have been stored in the trunk of the vehicle. He also noticed Nottoli's Blackberry Curve which, after it was turned on, displayed a photograph of a mask-wearing man holding two AR-15 rifles akimbo. Such rifles could have been legally possessed if owned before California's assault weapons ban took effect. The photograph could also have been taken in another state, but Ryan took it was evidence of possible "gun-related crimes."

    Another deputy began reading all of Nottoli's cell phone text messages, photographs and emails. Much later, Ryan obtained a search warrant to grab more information from the phone, and then a second search warrant was obtained for Nottoli's home. Based on the information from the Blackberry, the Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office SWAT team on December 16 raided the Nottoli home. They found a large cache of weapons, a marijuana growing operation and $15,000 in cash, which the law enforcement officials kept.

    At trial, Nottoli argued the cell phone search was illegal, and a magistrate agreed to suppress the evidence as obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The appellate court, however, only agreed that the phone search was unlawful as part of the inventory process for the automobile. The judges insisted that the search was valid as part of the arrest process in which no warrant is needed to examine items related to officer safety and the preservation of evidence, as expanded by the 2009 US Supreme Court ruling in Arizona v. Gant (view ruling).

    "In sum, it is our conclusion that, after Reid [Nottoli] was arrested for being under the influence, it was reasonable to believe that evidence relevant to that offense might be found in his vehicle," Justice Franklin D. Elia wrote for the three-judge panel. "Consequently, the deputies had unqualified authority under Gant to search the passenger compartment of the vehicle and any container found therein, including Reid's cell phone. It is up to the US Supreme Court to impose any greater limits on officers' authority to search incident to arrest."

    The court reversed the lower court's order suppressing the evidence, but the decision was made solely to set legal precedent. Reid Nottoli died on September 4. A copy of the decision is available in a 120k PDF file at the source link below.

    Source: California v. Nottoli (Court of Appeal, State of California, 9/26/2011)

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    Hang on a sec...

    Ryan testified that Nottoli's driving was not impaired, and Nottoli was not arrested for driving under the influence.
    "In sum, it is our conclusion that, after Reid [Nottoli] was arrested for being under the influence, it was reasonable to believe that evidence relevant to that offense might be found in his vehicle,"
    Ahh, Kommifornia...

  3. #3
    Regular Member ImJustMylan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    York, PA
    Posts
    110
    Wow thank god I changed my mind about moving to california a couple of days ago... Wheww!!

  4. #4
    Regular Member ArmySoldier22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    406
    Quote Originally Posted by PistolPackingMomma View Post
    Hang on a sec...

    ((Ryan testified that Nottoli's driving was not impaired, and Nottoli was not arrested for driving under the influence.

    "In sum, it is our conclusion that, after Reid [Nottoli] was arrested for being under the influence, it was reasonable to believe that evidence relevant to that offense might be found in his vehicle,"))

    Ahh, Kommifornia...
    I hope I'm never arrested for something that I'm not being arrested for

  5. #5
    Regular Member Resto Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    186
    Stalin would be proud.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543
    Wow, ridiculous! I hope this guy has enough funds to appeal this case to the next level.
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Hickory, NC, ,
    Posts
    1,025
    Quote Originally Posted by thebigsd View Post
    Wow, ridiculous! I hope this guy has enough funds to appeal this case to the next level.
    Haha, the 9th circuit? Now that's a crapshoot if there ever was one. The most overturned court in the nation. I think they use a magic 8 ball.
    Last edited by chiefjason; 10-06-2011 at 12:06 AM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member ArmySoldier22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    406
    Quote Originally Posted by thebigsd View Post
    Wow, ridiculous! I hope this guy has enough funds to appeal this case to the next level.
    Well, he deserves jail time, thats for sure. BUT, they way they went about getting the information is ridiculous.

  9. #9
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    245
    Quote Originally Posted by PistolPackingMomma View Post
    Hang on a sec...
    Ahh, Kommifornia...
    My question is: How can you be stopped for suspicion of driving under the influence, not be cited for driving under the influence, but be arrest for being under the influence? O.o

    ETA: My mistake, he was stopped for speeding.
    Last edited by Darkshadow62988; 10-06-2011 at 12:43 AM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member ImJustMylan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    York, PA
    Posts
    110
    My phone password is almost government issued. Yeah u try that Officer Needle Dick...

  11. #11
    Regular Member SovereignAxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Elizabethton, TN
    Posts
    795
    I'm so glad my mom didn't live in CA for too long. She moved to the Sacramento area about 10 years ago, but moved up to the SeaTac area of Washington after a couple years. I'm sooooo glad she did. I hated visiting her in CA.
    "Anyone worth shooting once is worth shooting twice." -Zeus

    "Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back!" - Malcolm Reynolds

    EDC = Walther PPQ 9mm

  12. #12
    Regular Member ArmySoldier22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    406
    "In sum, it is our conclusion that, after Reid [Nottoli] was arrested for being under the influence, it was reasonable to believe that evidence relevant to that offense might be found in his vehicle," Justice Franklin D. Elia wrote for the three-judge panel. "Consequently, the deputies had unqualified authority under Gant to search the passenger compartment of the vehicle and any container found therein, including Reid's cell phone.
    Anybody here have a cell phone that's a container? Cause if so, I'd like one that keeps my drinks cold. What kind of twisted interpretation of the law is this?

  13. #13
    Regular Member moonie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    High Point NC
    Posts
    253
    "The court reversed the lower court's order suppressing the evidence, but the decision was made solely to set legal precedent. Reid Nottoli died on September 4."

    Kalifornia executing gun owners now? (joke)

  14. #14
    Regular Member Sahib0120's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Weaverville, NC
    Posts
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by moonie View Post
    "The court reversed the lower court's order suppressing the evidence, but the decision was made solely to set legal precedent. Reid Nottoli died on September 4."<br>
    <br>
    Kalifornia executing gun owners now? (joke)
    Give them time lol

  15. #15
    Regular Member ImJustMylan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    York, PA
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by moonie View Post
    "The court reversed the lower court's order suppressing the evidence, but the decision was made solely to set legal precedent. Reid Nottoli died on September 4."

    Kalifornia executing gun owners now? (joke)
    It seems like it.. sucks that he died before he could continue his fight to clear his name

  16. #16
    Regular Member ArmySoldier22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    406
    I have mixed feelings about this. Because yes, he did deserve jail time for what was found in his house. But the way it was found isn't right...

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509
    Much of the information that appears to be on a phone isn't really "on" it, even though it appears with the touch of a button. Allowing searches of information that can be found via someone's phone is little different than allowing a search of their house merely because police have possession of their keys.

    I don't know what kind of precedent will really be set here. It will only apply to existing cases, since new cases will be subject to the law that passed in January:

    http://blog.laptopmag.com/california...phone-searches

    California Outlaws Warrantless Cell Phone Searches

    California State Legislators just passed a new law that makes it illegal for a police officer to search a suspect’s cellphone without first obtaining a search warrant. According to CNN, the law was passed in response to a January ruling by the California Supreme Court, which found that a police officer could search a suspect’s phone without a warrant.

    In handing down its decision, the court said that, “the loss of privacy upon arrest extends beyond the arrestee’s body to include ‘personal property … immediately associated with the person of the arrestee’ at the time of arrest,” CNN wrote. That included smartphones, tablets, and any other mobile devices and the data stored on them.

    The new law, however, wipes away that policy and instead requires officers to obtain a warrant before searching a cell phone or other mobile device. The Peace Officers Research Association of California opposed the law saying, “Restricting the authority of a peace officer to search an arrestee unduly restricts their ability to apply the law, fight crime, discover evidence valuable to an investigation, and protect the citizens of California.”
    Last edited by KBCraig; 10-07-2011 at 03:04 AM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    462
    If you read the case, the court also incorrectly cites AZ V. Gant in saying that that case allows them to search a vehicle after someone has been arrested for officer safety.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    If any of you folks in areas with well-funded LEAs think for even a minute that password-locking your cell phone keeps the cops from getting all your info, you are delusional. The technology to "break" phones has been available to LEAs for several years, and it is being pushed hard by the US DOJ and DHS.

    WTFU, people...

    http://ebongeek.com/2011/04/20/the-c...rt-phone-data/
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    snip...

    California Outlaws Warrantless Cell Phone Searches

    The Peace Officers Research Association of California opposed the law saying, “Restricting the authority of a peace officer to search an arrestee unduly restricts their ability to apply the law, fight crime, discover evidence valuable to an investigation, and protect the citizens of California.”
    Oh boo hoo

  21. #21
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    The new law, however, wipes away that policy and instead requires officers to obtain a warrant before searching a cell phone or other mobile device. The Peace Officers Research Association of California opposed the law saying, “Restricting the authority of a peace officer to search an arrestee unduly restricts their ability to apply the law, fight crime, discover evidence valuable to an investigation, and protect the citizens of California.”
    Let me translate that into language that non-lawyer-types can easily understand:

    “Restricting the authority of a peace officer to search anyone they please, for any reason (real or fabricated) gives LEOs more authoritarian power over the people, ensures they will become even more thuggish, and guarantees increased violation of civil rights of the citizens of California. Which is JUST the way we want it to be..."

    There, that makes this ruling MUCH easier to understand...
    Last edited by Dreamer; 10-10-2011 at 09:53 PM.
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509
    Gov. Moonbeam vetoed the bill that would have outlawed these searches.

    I mistakenly thought it was already law, but apparently not.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •