[TUT317]

We all know its bad to drive drunk. And there are laws against it. But as a free citizen should you be pulled over and asked for all your papers just because your driving down the road and they are looking at you under the guise of drunk driving?

Hi Dad,

Of course they should and they do in Australia on a regular basis. Police can pull a motorist over and request a breath test any time and anywhere. This is regardless how you are driving.

Police set up road blocks on roads requiring drivers to pull over when directed for a random breath test. You don't have this?


Tut

[paraclete]

The main issue I have is that what is really going on behind the law. Its not designed to help with safety its designed to step into your life and intrude into your privacy. There is already court battles taking place because of intrusion. If they believe you were texting how are they going to prove it? They will take the phone and download everything on it including where you have been and what has been said and to whom it has been said. Not just the incodent but whatever is on there. They have tried it out already in Michigain already this year.

We all know its bad to drive drunk. And there are laws against it. But as a free citizen should you be pulled over and asked for all your papers just because your driving down the road and they are looking at you under the guise of drunk driving?

I for one say no. It gives the government too broad of power for thier brush to be painted upon the landscape.

You must have a class of cop over there with nothing better to do, probably because you have another layer of law enforcement. Despite what you might regard as restrictive laws regarding cell use, drink driving, etc it is fairly rare to see a cop on our roads and as long as you behave in a reasonable manner you rarely get pulled over unless you are a motor bike or have a dodgy looking vehicle. The exception might be Friday night/Saturday and holidays when the booze bus is operating or the last day of the month. The point I'm making is a law doesn't mean intrusive behaviour by police (have to make the quota). Once we were allowed to have radar detectors, now outlawed. I expect that if cell phones are a problem police will be given detection devices.

[cdad]

Hi Dad,

Of course they should and they do in Australia on a regular basis. Police can pull a motorist over and request a breath test any time and anywhere. This is regardless how you are driving.

Police set up road blocks on roads requiring drivers to pull over when directed for a random breath test. You don't have this?


Tut

The road blocks they have. Not random breathalizer tests. If your suspect then you get one. Why would a random one even matter?

[cdad]

. The point I'm making is a law doesn't mean intrusive behaviour by police (have to make the quota). Once we were allowed to have radar detectors, now outlawed. I expect that if cell phones are a problem police will be given detection devices.

Here it is for you in a nutshell. If you allow the law (police and other managing agencies) any slack and not be diligent then they will start to intrude on your rights in that name. Its like hearing its for the children. It's a game to strip rights from the people. I watched as a seat belt law was voted in. Makes sense everyone agrees it makes you safer. The law stated that if you were pulled over and weren't wearing one then you get a ticket. OK, sounds good so far. Let the offender beware. In less then 2 years time it morphed into having roadblocks to check for seatbelts and being pulled over simply because your not wearing one. That wasn't what was voted in. Give them an inch and they rob you blind.

Do you actually think it is right for the government to have all the information you have on your cellphone just in case you did something wrong? To me no. They should have a warrant to get that information. You have a right in this country to privacy and to be free to move about without interference. Yes life throws curves your way. But its not the governments job cradle to grave. If you act irresponsibly then let them put you away. Otherwise they should leave you alone.

[TUT317]

The road blocks they have. Not random breathalizer tests. If your suspect then you get one. Why would a random one even matter?

Hi again Dad.

I would say it matters because it makes people too afraid to drink and drive. I'd imagine the same thing works for seat belts. You wear one because you don't know when you will be pulled over for a seatbelt check, i.e. pay a fine.

Tut

[talaniman]

Its like any other ticket you get, go to court and pay the fine, or fight it. Inconvenient, and expense maybe, but like anything it CAN be used as a pretext, to check the car, driver ID, papers.

Yeah then we got PROFILING, and nobody cares about that much, because they were profiling before cell phones, or seat belts.

So while I can see the argument against another excuse/reason to hassle, harass, and fill the ticket book, with minority faces, if you aren't breaking the rules and being a responsible citizen, you have nothing to hide, or fear from a cop right? RIGHT?

[paraclete]

The road blocks they have. Not random breathalizer tests. If your suspect then you get one. Why would a random one even matter?

Because Dad this is how you catch those who think they are fine but are over the limit. It also means there is a visible police presence, no hiding in the shurbary as I saw one cop car recently

[TUT317]

Here it is for you in a nutshell. If you allow the law (police and other managing agencies) any slack and not be diligent then they will start to intrude on your rights in that name. Its like hearing its for the children. Its a game to strip rights from the people. I watched as a seat belt law was voted in. Makes sense everyone agrees it makes you safer. The law stated that if you were pulled over and werent wearing one then you get a ticket. OK, sounds good so far. Let the offender beware. In less then 2 years time it morphed into having roadblocks to check for seatbelts and being pulled over simply because your not wearing one. That wasnt what was voted in. Give them an inch and they rob you blind.

You vote on how a law should be enforced?

Do you actually think it is right for the government to have all the information you have on your cellphone just incase you did something wrong? To me no. They should have a warrant to get that information. You have a right in this country to privacy and to be free to move about without interference. Yes life throws curves your way. But its not the governments job cradle to grave. If you act irresponsibly then let them put you away. Otherwise they should leave you alone.

This is the bit I don't get.

In Australia police don't have the right to confiscate mobile phones because you were texting while driving. They do where your are? If so I would find that very surprising.

Tut

[tomder55]

Tut . Here is NY they confiscate cars if the driver was over the alcohol limit. Often the owner never gets them back and they end up being auctioned . Not sure if they are empowered to take the cell phones from offenders.

Cal's point is that the only proof someone is using the cell is to get access to the phone records . That also allows them to see other contacts made on the phone.
Surely all the people concerned about civil liberties for terrorists should show similar concerns for the rights of the motorists .

[cdad]

You vote on how a law should be enforced?




This is the bit I don't get.

In Australia police don't have the right to confiscate mobile phones because you were texting while driving. They do where your are? If so I would find that very surprising.

Tut

You have 2 parts here. So I will address them seperatly.

1) In California they have a process called referendum. It is a means for the voters voice to be heard at the ballot box. It can create or direct to be created laws. Like the seat belt law or the helmet laws. It is our peoples way to have a representative voice into legislative law.


2) They don't take away the actual cell phone. What they can do is take it to their patrol car and download everything from it. I feel this is just an avenue for the government to step in and broaden the search to where it goes beyond the scope of original intention.

Here is some info on what has been happening so far. So you can get the idea of what Im talking about.

Michigan Police Use Cellphone 'Data Extraction Devices;' ACLU Objects - ABC News

[cdad]

So while I can see the argument against another excuse/reason to hassle, harass, and fill the ticket book, with minority faces, if you aren't breaking the rules and being a responsible citizen, you have nothing to hide, or fear from a cop right?? RIGHT?

Love this argument. Will you allow the police in at anytime into your home or your personal space just because the "feel" you could have done something wrong? How do you feel about the fourth amendment? Should we just throw it away since really if your not doing anything wrong you don't need to ever use it.

In this case its about personal information. Which is very broad in its scope. Its not like speeding where a line is drawn. Or drunken driving where certain amounts may be acceptable. Its about entering a grey area. One that shouldn't be. If they observe you texting then it should be limited to that. Just like if your speeding and they "see" you they are limited to that observation only.


Michigan Police Use Cellphone 'Data Extraction Devices;' ACLU Objects - ABC News


http://thenewspaper.com/news/34/3458.asp


See the above quoted article as to how they have broadened their scope.

[talaniman]

I doubt you find a cop that's limited to observing you breaking the law, and has no power to exercise his power to investigate.

They have been doing it for centuries, what ever the law is at the time, haven't they??

[cdad]

I doubt you find a cop thats limited to observing you breaking the law, and has no power to exercise his power to investigate.

They have been doing it for centuries, what ever the law is at the time, haven't they???

Not really. Only on more severe crimes do they mandate opening an investigation. For simple more non severe crimes like speeding or j-walking they usually go no further then observation. If they see you then they have a right to act upon it. If a crime is in progress it involves a different area of the law. But most others are through observation. Isn't it like that where you live?

[talaniman]

Most cops can pass on J walking, but that's up to them, you can still get a ticket for being wrong. That's how it is here, sometimes they warn you that you are wrong, sometimes they write the ticket.

The more wrong they find, the further they go.

[cdad]

Most cops can pass on J walking, but thats up to them, you can still get a ticket for being wrong. Thats how it is here, sometimes they warn you that you are wrong, sometimes they write the ticket.

The more wrong they find, the further they go.

Exactly. But in the case of them downloading your information from a cellphone they are taking everything and can have a look at it just for a texting violation.

Lets use as an example the "I never do anything illegal so I dont have to worry about it attitude".

So you're a person male/female and on your cellphone for whatever reason you have a personal picture of your spouse/husband or girlfriend/boyfriend. Your all adults and all over 18. Is that legal? With respect to the law it is. You're an adult and your allowed those adult things. So now your being pulled over. Should the police be allowed to see that picture too or did you really have it as a private thing?

In my opinion no they shouldn't see it nor who you talk to or where you have been. Not for simple texting. That is way too far of an intrusion into your privacy. What about that text you sent... you know the one a week ago about wanting to kill your child because they broke a window on your neighbors new car?? Sure you were blowing off steam. Its just an expression right?? In the hands of the police it could mean child abuse even when it wasn't. Think about that. Do you actually favor that type of intrusion? Not me. Not without a warrant.

[TUT317]

You have 2 parts here. So I will address them seperatly.

1) In California they have a process called referendum. It is a means for the voters voice to be heard at the ballot box. It can create or direct to be created laws. Like the seat belt law or the helmet laws. It is our peoples way to have a representative voice into legislative law.

I get that bit, but what I am saying is that once a law is enacted you don't get to vote on how it is policed.

2) They dont take away the actual cell phone. What they can do is take it to thier patrol car and download everything from it. I feel this is just an avenue for the government to step in and broaden the search to where it goes beyond the scope of original intention.

Here is some info on what has been happening so far. So you can get the idea of what Im talking about.

Michigan Police Use Cellphone 'Data Extraction Devices;' ACLU Objects - ABC News

If they are doing this then the police are breaking the law. I'm not a lawyer but I would say that this type of evidence would be inadmissible proof of texting because it was obtained illegally.

Tut

[cdad]

I get that bit, but what I am saying is that once a law is enacted you don't get to vote on how it is policed.




If they are doing this then the police are breaking the law. I'm not a lawyer but I would say that this type of evidence would be inadmissible proof of texting because it was obtained illegally.

Tut

Once the law is actually put into the books then it retains a life of its own. Its out of the hands of the people other then to overturn the law itself. The people still have that power but then its up to the courts to uphold it.

Its not breaking the law if they ask your permission first. Its stated in the article that what they were doing was asking people to allow them to do it and thinking that they weren't ever doing anything wrong they gave permission. From there the entire content was open for evaluation. Not just for text but everything including where you are and where you were etc. Everything.

What I fear is in passing a law without more formal protection then they will intrude upon privacy on a grand scale. After all was that person really texting or just dialing a number. If they were dialing then it wasn't illegal to begin with.

[cdad]

Here is a link as to how it works in California. Not all states have this same process.

California ballot proposition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[talaniman]

Michigan Police Use Cellphone 'Data Extraction Devices;' ACLU Objects - ABC News

While its no telling what's really going on the fact that no one has complained is telling. This is but an example of where technology has developed faster than a law to govern them.

What does that have to do with a law against texting while driving, or is this a fear of big brother, or a police state?

[cdad]

What does that have to do with a law against texting while driving, or is this a fear of big brother, or a police state?

What it has to do with it is that the only real way for them to "know" what your doing is to download your records. Unless they "observe" you texting in an obvious fashion then they don't really know if your dialing or not. It is a catch 22. I don't want to give away my rights to privacy nor anyone else's without just cause.


A quote from this article:
Michigan: Police Search Cell Phones During Traffic Stops


A US Department of Justice test of the CelleBrite UFED used by Michigan police found the device could grab all of the photos and video off an iPhone within one-and-a-half minutes. The device works with 3000 different phone models and can even defeat password protections.
"Complete extraction of existing, hidden, and deleted phone data, including call history, text messages, contacts, images, and geotags," a CelleBrite brochure explains regarding the device's capabilities. "The Physical Analyzer allows visualization of both existing and deleted locations on Google Earth. In addition, location information from GPS devices and image geotags can be mapped on Google Maps."