http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100204/NEWS02/100209812
Obviously, this guy is a creep. My only question is how a "routine traffic stop" led police to searching the images on his cell phone. Strange.
Ex-employee of Tiffin medical center to be arraigned for taking illegal photos of patients
Comments ... #
It is always troubling when faced with a dilemma of this sort: on the one hand is an obvious creep, but should cops be allowed to ignore the Constitution in their duties? Of course the fans of Jack Bauer say "yes," but in the real world the decision is not so simple.
I suppose the only consolation is that losers like Jamie Aguirre of Willard eventually get discovered as they become more and more bold and reckless in their behaviors.
posted by historymike on Feb 04, 2010 at 06:46:45 pm #
but in the real world the decision is not so simple.
Oh, I think the decision is very simple. Police may not ignore the US Constitution while performing their duties.
Now then. How many jack booted thugs in blue can recite the Bill of Rights, explain each individual right in detail along with three recent examples of unconstitutional violations? Don't everyone speak up at once, now...
There! K9 in the back.
Maybe he was looking through the phone to see if he had been texting? But, Seneca County? Do they have a texting law?
It's called, reasonable cause. Whether the suspect was trying to hide his phone, or doing something with it that gave the officer "reasonable cause", will/could be challenged in court and that is when a judge will decide if the officer indeed had cause to search phone.
There is no such thing as "reasonable cause." In Ohio, there is "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause." You should refrain from lecturing on subjects you are not well-versed in.
With few exceptions, the cops need a warrant to go through a phone.
Not that I have anything to worry about, but other than making/answering a call on my Blackberry you have to enter a password to get to any other functions including: text, chat, pics, application (facebook,etc) and address book.
To get my PW, they will need a warrant, because I'm not giving it.
I agree, this guy sounds like a real creep, but something smells about the cops actions.
Sounds pretty simple to me. Traffic stop. Odor of marijuana. PC to search. Marijuana and associated paraphernalia located. Driver arrested. Vehicle inventoried prior to tow. Verification that cell phone was neither a weapon or storage container to conceal contraband. Or, possibly, defendant asked the arresting officer(s) to retrieve a number for him or call somebody.
"I'm trying to find that number for you but these phones nowadays are so confusing. Hey! What is a naked picture of my mom doing in your phone!"
More PC. Seach warrants (hopefully!) for phone, memory cards, storage devices and home of suspect.
What Constitutional issues?
Mesmerix said:
"There was a recent US Supreme Court ruling regarding cell phone images in THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. SMITH"
This case was NEVER EVER decided by the US Supreme Court, only the Ohio Supreme Court. The rest of your analysis is correct, but to interpret this case as a US Supreme Court decision gives much more precedent than an Ohio SC decision. The actual case is State v. Smith, 2009 Ohio 6426
JohnnyMac: Thanks.
From Solleks: What Constitutional issues?
The amendment found between the third and fifth.
P.S.
The (very interesting) full text of the decision is found here:
www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-6426.pdf
Constitutional isssue? = per Ohio Supreme Court =
In this appeal concerning the scope of federal protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, we are asked to determine whether the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the warrantless search of data within a cell phone when the phone is lawfully seized incident to an arrest. Given the particular facts of this case, we hold that the trial court improperly admitted the call record and phone numbers from appellant’s phone. We therefore reverse and remand to the trial court for a new trial
You mean the even numbered amendments count? Really? Who knows how the events proceeded. I was not there. I simply provided a scenario in which any questions regarding the search and seizure would likely be decided in favor of the state.
In regards to the Smith case, the police I know understand that a search warrant is required in order to access information contained in a cell phone with some limited exceptions...most notably, consent, and/or to verify that the phone is neither a weapon nor a container. Maybe when the case goes to trial we will find that one of these exceptions led to the discovery.
Based on what little we do know, I suspect the case will be settled. The prosecution will not have to push forward with a case built on potentially tainted evidence and the defense will gladly accept a plea that saves the defendant from a potentially negative outcome at trial. Then again, considering the allegations, maybe the prosecution will push and take a chance on the case.
I'm curious as to how a potential plea agreement might affect the defendant in the civil arena?
Lecturing? I don't recall standing in front of a group of people and telling them I was well-versed. I forgot this was a public message board in which opinions and thoughts could be posted.
You could have corrected me without being a butthead. I guess you live in Toledo and by definition you felt better when you did that. You should dash over to the other topics and correct everyone that expressed their opinion too.
This just was stepped up..or at least it seemed to be stepped up - as there was child porn and stuff found now. The guy has put in a no contest plea.
At least, thats what I saw on the news.
So not only where they photos of just women, but children too.
posted by OhioKimono on Feb 07, 2010 at 04:05:38 pm #
There was a recent US Supreme Court ruling regarding cell phone images in THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. SMITH,
Here's their summary: The warrantless search of data within a cell phone seized incident to a lawful arrest is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment when the search is
unnecessary for the safety of law-enforcement officers and there are no exigent circumstances.
Which, in layman's terms means, that cops looking through your cell phone is a no-no without a warrant.
posted by Mesmerix on Feb 04, 2010 at 05:39:41 pm #