Cell phone warrants....

[Eric B]

DA wants warrants for Parole and Probation phone searches now "just to be safe". WTF?!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tripper]

While other DAs are saying get all the parolees and probationers you can, since they have no choice

Look at it this way though
There's always the 'consent' option


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Eric B]

I shouldn't have to ask.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[williamcm]

Doesn't a felony make you unfit for society for a prescribed period?

Not sure about all felons, but I'd like to see all violent offenders stripped of rights for some time, and sex offenders to never see daylight again.

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk 2

[71MUSTY]

maybe overcautious because of this

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=950681&highlight=CELL+PHONE

[Eric B]

maybe overcautious because of this



http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...ght=CELL+PHONE

It's because of this that they've completely pussied out.

When parolee, probationer, or OR release signs those those papers waiving their 4th Amendment rights, that's it. Just because police lost something that was solely built on case law, search during innocent to arrest, why would a DA choose set the dangerous precedent of requiring warrants when they're plainly not required. If something happens, appeal it up the chain like everything else. Binding your own hands is not smart.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Eric B]

It's nothing about "just to be safe."



Please check out yesterday's U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Riley v, California.



Our ability to search cell phones under People v. Diaz just ended.

PAROLE & PROBATION... When they have the clause, they have 100% signed away their 4th Amendment rights, meaning we need nothing more than the knowledge that they are on probation or parole with that clause. Requiring warrants for a parolee's phone sets, IMO, a dangerous precedent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CSACANNONEER]

Parole means you should still be locked up so, I don't see a problem with parolees not having the right to privacy. Probation is a slightly different story.

[Eric B]

Parole means you should still be locked up so, I don't see a problem with parolees not having the right to privacy. Probation is a slightly different story.

I have to assume you're not familiar with probation.

Basically, it's the same thing as parole for those in jail and not prison. The crimes folks on probation for are still violent, dangerous and oppressive to us law abiding folks. Shooting, stabbing, beating, wife beating, burglary, dope dealing, etc... Though felonies, these are often pled down and the convicted are allowed jail/probation over prison/parole.

Also, not everyone on probation has a search and seizure clause. It's usually attached to those on probation that have been convicted of crimes in which searching their persons and property would likely produce evidence of more crime. Most guys I've found on probation for Malicious Mischief do not have a search clause.

In the end, if the convict chooses not to accept the clause, they can deny probation and stand for their entire sentence.

Make more sense now?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RickD427]

PAROLE & PROBATION... When they have the clause, they have 100% signed away their 4th Amendment rights, meaning we need nothing more than the knowledge that they are on probation or parole with that clause. Requiring warrants for a parolee's phone sets, IMO, a dangerous precedent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Eric,

You're correct, and also very fast. I deleted my post about 10 senconds after putting it up after re-reading the OP's part about parolees and probationers.

I was just thinking too much about the Riley ruling.

[Manolito]

I have not read the decision but I am told the supreme court just ruled today that police can not search a cell phone without a warrant it violated the fourth.

This is not involving paroles just us common non violent people.

[Eric B]

I have not read the decision but I am told the supreme court just ruled today that police can not search a cell phone without a warrant it violated the fourth.



This is not involving paroles just us common non violent people.

This court ruling is a good one that I 100% agree with.

However, my DA is not allowing the search of Parolee/Probationer's cell phones without a warrant "just to be safe." The DA is messing up. I can't think of a valid reason he's decided this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NuGunner]

This court ruling is a good one that I 100% agree with.

However, my DA is not allowing the search of Parolee/Probationer's cell phones without a warrant "just to be safe." The DA is messing up. I can't think of a valid reason he's decided this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

DA needs to get with the program. If you could search a parolee's home when they're not present, which also contains very personal/private info (what was argued in the cell phone decision), you can sure as hell do the same on the cell phone.

We have similar issues with our DDAs and head DA down here. Specifically when Miranda needs to be read.

[CBR_rider]

DA wants warrants for Parole and Probation phone searches now "just to be safe". WTF?!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have met some outstanding DDA's, but I have also met more than a few (often because of pressure from the top of their food chain) who would do their best to reject cases for anything/everything if they didn't feel they had a near 100% chance of a conviction going forward with it.

We somewhat recently had a DDA fired because he was refusing to prosecute cases for what he claimed were search and seizure/other problems but in reality were simply because he didn't want to prosecute those cases (probably no plea bargains/more legwork versus other cases) and not have as high of a workload as other DDA's.

[Eric B]

I have met some outstanding DDA's, but I have also met more than a few (often because of pressure from the top of their food chain) who would do their best to reject cases for anything/everything if they didn't feel they had a near 100% chance of a conviction going forward with it.



We somewhat recently had a DDA fired because he was refusing to prosecute cases for what he claimed were search and seizure/other problems but in reality were simply because he didn't want to prosecute those cases (probably no plea bargains/more legwork versus other cases) and not have as high of a workload as other DDA's.

I had a DDA bust her tushy for weeks during a motion to suppress. It's was just a simple possession for sales case, but this DDA went all out. We won. Killer DDA.

On the other hand, had a DDA that refused to prosecute an ounce of meth as a possession for sales case because he thought it was "too small" of an amount.

I'm of the belief that this guy just wants to avoid court at any cost.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk