Home | Community | Message Board

NorthSpore.com BOOMR Bag!
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
Offlinewiggles
Miffed a Milf
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 11/09/05
Posts: 2,615
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
Re: You may know this...STAY AWAY FROM TXT MESSAGES [Re: fastfred]
    #6729574 - 03/30/07 08:36 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Believe what you want, this is like talking to a wall. I'm done until you start using proper legal lexicon to show me that you genuinely understand how law works. I have experience in the legal system, working in a criminal defense firm. Apparently I knew enough to keep from getting arrested... but hey, I don't know what I'm talking about.

It would not give probable cause. THe first thing a decent attorney would say to such a claim is that any person could have typed the text message. They have no hard evidence tying it to you - UNLIKE a voice print which can clearly denote a person's identity. An officer knows this. It could give him reasonable suspicion, but that wouldn't give him the ability to search you, nor would it give him the ability to arrest you.

Even if it gave probable cause, it is not enough evidence to convict. As an example, hearsay is considered probable cause evidence, and yet is completely inadmissable in court as evidence. There are levels to measure the amount of warrant an officer has, and that translates into whether you experience a "mere encounter," a terry stop, or a custodial situation.

I'm done here. Listen to whatever you want and believe what you want.


--------------------


You can turn your back on a person, but never turn your back on a drug, especially when its waving a razor sharp hunting knife in your eye.
Hunter S. Thompson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinededjam
Electro Penguin
Male


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/14/05
Posts: 2,139
Loc: Moralton, Statesota
Last seen: 12 years, 11 months
Re: You may know this...STAY AWAY FROM TXT MESSAGES [Re: wiggles]
    #6732578 - 03/31/07 06:35 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

wiggles said:
Believe what you want, this is like talking to a wall.




As well it should be, no one should be listening to the crap your telling them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemalcom43
Stranger

Registered: 03/08/07
Posts: 95
Last seen: 17 years, 6 days
Ya'll be just as dumb as the other guy [Re: dedjam]
    #6734799 - 04/01/07 12:56 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

You guys are both stupid and use the same source-less claims to attack each other.

Problems w/ cell phones, text mssg's:

1. Can be seized incident to search OR arrest, esp a drug-related arrest, whether or not there is an arrest/ search warrant (i.e. You can be arrested and jailed for a 26 in a 25 speeding ticket in some states- at po po's discretion.) See: United States v. Lazcano-Villalobos, 175 F.3d 838, 844 (10th Cir. 1999)[regarding the seizure of the phone, not the speeding arrest, though I can provide citations for that if ya'll want and I get around to it.]

2. The records of the tower's transmissions easily establish what handset sent the message and when, verifying any data recovered from the phone.

3. Text messages stored by the service provider can be seized via warrant, and such does not need to meet the heightened standards (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) required for an actual wiretap. See: United States v. Steiger, 318 F.3d 1039, 1048-49 (11th Cir. 2003)

4. Once obtained (through an informant, annonomys tip, warrant), the content of the text messages are sufficient to allow warrants to issue to the service provider housing information related to the text messages. See: USA v. Jones; 451 F. Supp. 2d 71; (D.C.-2006)

Edited by malcom43 (04/01/07 12:58 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemalcom43
Stranger

Registered: 03/08/07
Posts: 95
Last seen: 17 years, 6 days
wiggles misses the point [Re: malcom43]
    #6734820 - 04/01/07 01:03 PM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Wiggles,

If you get your rights violated its a crapshoot that you'll see the misteps corrected within a reasonable amount of time.

Even if the cops do break the law, you wanna lose your job, money, whatever the cops seize, and possibly sit in jail for years before the appealatte courts see the case?

Once the cops start looking at you , it's a huge impact on your life and freedom wheather or not you are ever convicted or charged.

You strike me as naive, but maybe you're just being a devil's advocate or something.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSchwip
Never sleeps.
 User Gallery

Registered: 06/27/05
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 11 years, 5 months
Re: Ya'll be just as dumb as the other guy [Re: malcom43]
    #6737274 - 04/02/07 06:48 AM (17 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

malcom43 said:
You guys are both stupid and use the same source-less claims to attack each other.

Problems w/ cell phones, text mssg's:

1. Can be seized incident to search OR arrest, esp a drug-related arrest, whether or not there is an arrest/ search warrant (i.e. You can be arrested and jailed for a 26 in a 25 speeding ticket in some states- at po po's discretion.) See: United States v. Lazcano-Villalobos, 175 F.3d 838, 844 (10th Cir. 1999)[regarding the seizure of the phone, not the speeding arrest, though I can provide citations for that if ya'll want and I get around to it.]

2. The records of the tower's transmissions easily establish what handset sent the message and when, verifying any data recovered from the phone.

3. Text messages stored by the service provider can be seized via warrant, and such does not need to meet the heightened standards (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) required for an actual wiretap. See: United States v. Steiger, 318 F.3d 1039, 1048-49 (11th Cir. 2003)

4. Once obtained (through an informant, annonomys tip, warrant), the content of the text messages are sufficient to allow warrants to issue to the service provider housing information related to the text messages. See: USA v. Jones; 451 F. Supp. 2d 71; (D.C.-2006)




Yes. Actual judicial precedents! Good post.


--------------------
--------------------------------

" If the sky were to suddenly open up there would be no law. There would be no rule. There would only be you and your memories... the choices you've made, and the people you've touched. If this world were to end there would only be you and him and no-one else. "

..............

"MAN! You know there aint no such thing as left over crack!"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* MY CELL PHONE, recieveing messages that werent sent to me ZippoZM 1,519 9 07/14/04 06:04 AM
by ivi
* Which is safer? Text Messages or Calls
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Zwieback0 5,902 61 12/08/07 12:22 PM
by Mickalopagus
* Text messaging privacy CosmicFool 563 0 01/27/08 10:40 AM
by CosmicFool
* Feds reading texts or tapping cells? billycorgan55 285 6 09/17/09 08:47 PM
by roby000
* Secure Private Message not that secure. bloodbob 1,046 2 07/18/05 03:06 AM
by bloodbob
* Can text messages on someone else's phone who was arrested be used to get a search warrant? HagbardCeline 1,312 11 11/09/08 04:56 PM
by Vermonster420
* Errant text message sends cops to door *DELETED* Chemy 658 1 11/15/07 08:53 AM
by Wronguy
* Can cops scanners hear cell phone calls? PDU 1,263 15 01/14/08 03:44 PM
by johnm214

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, Alan Rockefeller
6,257 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.023 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 15 queries.