• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

muccione

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
237
Location
Conover
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)
 

PistolPackingMomma

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,884
Location
SC
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...:banghead:
 

ArmySoldier22

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2011
Messages
406
Location
Concord, NC
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
 

chiefjason

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2009
Messages
1,025
Location
Hickory, NC, ,
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:

Darkshadow62988

Activist Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2010
Messages
238
Location
Iowa
Hang on a sec...
Ahh, Kommifornia...:banghead:

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:

SovereignAxe

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
791
Location
Elizabethton, TN
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.
 

ArmySoldier22

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2011
Messages
406
Location
Concord, NC
"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?
 

moonie

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2010
Messages
251
Location
High Point NC
"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)
 

ImJustMylan

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
110
Location
York, PA
"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
 

ArmySoldier22

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2011
Messages
406
Location
Concord, NC
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...
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
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-outlaws-warrantless-cell-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:

mekender

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
462
Location
, ,
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.
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC

PistolPackingMomma

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,884
Location
SC
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
 
Top