Cell phone warrants....

[NuGunner]

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

It irks me how LA County has this .03 grams rule. Possession is possession! I've alway been tempted to ask the defense attorney if they would take the "unusable" amount lol.

[CinnamonBear723]

Since the DA won't let you search without a warrant you can always use the other half of search and seizure, and seize the phone while you apply for the warrant. Every time i run in to a probationer or parolee that won't let me search their phone or won't give me the password, i just take it and book it as evidence on a 148 charge, and i'm always happy to let their PO know about it. Not the most popular move but at least you're taking their phone from them. If they don't want to go with the program then take the phone and call their PO and get them violated.

So if your DA doesn't want to play the game then seize a bunch of phones and apply for a ton of warrants until the DA gets tired of it.

[Eric B]

So if your DA doesn't want to play the game then seize a bunch of phones and apply for a ton of warrants until the DA gets tired of it.

THIS! This is my style.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CinnamonBear723]

You seemed pretty fired about it, as we all are i'm sure....just tossing ideas around.......sometimes it doesn't hurt to send a friendly message back, tastefully of course......

[Eric B]

You seemed pretty fired about it, as we all are i'm sure....just tossing ideas around.......sometimes it doesn't hurt to send a friendly message back, tastefully of course......

It did fire me up. When one takes, arguably, the best part of P&P and ties the hands of the law enforcers, it pisses me off. I shall be having words, and they're always professional.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CinnamonBear723]

Well if the DA wants warrants give them all the warrant applications they can handle and take everyones phone while you're at it. Dirt bags sign away their 4th for a good reason. You/we should not have to apply for a search warrant for something that these dirt bags don't even have. Not sure how things are at the department you work for, but if i booked the phone of every parolee/probationer i come into contact with and apply for a warrant on each of the phones it would drive the DA's office bananas. Especially since they are letting so many of them out of jail right now, i could stack a whole pile of them up in a week.

[diverwcw]

What's the big deal? Just get the warrant.

[CBR_rider]

The "tying the hand of law enforcement" argument is what got the case to SCOTUS in the first place. Some LEO's treated everyone like they were on parole and screwed it up. Better judgement should have been used when searching cell phones and it wasn't.

But we are talking about people on parole and probation right now..

What's the big deal? Just get the warrant.

Its not required by law, that's the big deal.

[CinnamonBear723]

Which DA do you work with?

[Tripper]

Just curious
Was either Riley or Wurie ON parole or probation. at the time of their respective event which ultimately resulted in this decision?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CinnamonBear723]

Thats a good question, i don't know the answer. I think the bigger issue was whether we could search the phone incident to arrest.

[Tripper]

Cell phone warrants....

Thats a good question, i don't know the answer. I think the bigger issue was whether we could search the phone incident to arrest.

I'm thinking in general, your fine on the matter (my opinion) unless Riley or Wurie were probationers, in which case that would mean probationers did not 'sign away' their 4a as is currently assumed

I would think it's not the case as this mainly involves 'incident to arrest' doctrine


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[omgwtfbbq]

I talked to one of our DDA's this morning after court and asked about the recent decision. They said until we hear otherwise probation, parole, PRCS, Mandatory Supervision cases are all still fair game for cell phone searches as part of a normal probation compliance search.

We write our search conditions "Shall submt personal, property, residence, and vehicle to a search for...." Cell phones are property, therefore they are searchable.

As far as I know, the case in question has nothing to do with probation conditions, VoPs, or the use of anything found during a probation search of a cellphone towards future prosecution. The issue at heart of the Riley case is with a search of the phone incident to arrest. My understanding of the case is that the phones were searched incident to arrest, not as part of a probation/parole compliance search. I imagine they weren't on probation because if they were, there would be no issue worth taking to court.

In my experience, most probationers aren't even smart enough to keep their violoations off facebook. Don't even have to search their phones most of the time.

[Eric B]

My agency wears black.



As to the OP: I talked to one of our DDA's this morning after court and asked about the recent decision. They said until we hear otherwise probation, parole, PRCS, Mandatory Supervision cases are all still fair game for cell phone searches as part of a normal probation compliance search.



We write our search conditions "Shall submt personal, property, residence, and vehicle to a search for...." Cell phones are property, therefore they are searchable.



As far as I know, the case in question has nothing to do with probation conditions, VoPs, or the use of anything found during a probation search of a cellphone towards future prosecution. The issue at heart of the Riley case is with a search of the phone incident to arrest. My understanding of the case is that the phones were searched incident to arrest, not as part of a probation/parole compliance search. I imagine they weren't on probation because if they were, there would be no issue worth taking to court.

This is everything that seemed black and white from the 38 page decision I read. Too bad a decision maker in my chain has decided to.... Never mind. Hopefully a nice talk with the chief can start us down the right path.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tripper]

I concur, I don't see anything where it could relate to probation searches, only the incident to arrest is brought up anywhere


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk