Its a secret family recipe, if this gets out my aunt is gonna kill me
Met with a local provider recently who said she was being harassed by the pd. They took her phone in and said they needed to download the information on it. Was wondering what on earth they could be wanting to download and what the hell they are up to. More reason to have a burner phone i think.
LE can do that if the owner of the phone allows it but the Supreme Court recently ruled that phones are private.
Was that in the Cites?
Maybe she should talk to a lawyer or least stop cooperating w/ the PD.also other hobby-ist's will be curious as to who, so they can proceed w/caution.
maybe this link would be helpful, not sure if they will allow it but just you tube "flex your rights" for real life examples.
-- Modified on 12/18/2014 10:20:28 AM
Who, where? Come on you can't just post stuff like this and not reveal relevant info.
If this is a credible post, I would suggest that the existence of a phone number in your call history, without any other kind of material evidence, is useless. It's evidence of a phone call.
Unless LE are following a trail of evidence related to something more serious, I don't know that I would be concerned. They wouldn't follow up a line of enquiry based on a phone call, the content of which is unknown, if the suspicion is of a typical provider/client transaction and nothing more.
it's the string of back and forth texts/emails between you two and/or the notes she has made so she remembers you the next time you contact her.
If she keeps the texts they can find a play by play trail of every number and what they were inquiring about. This is more in the StC area. LE has been up to something just trying to figure out what. Just a reminder to everyone to get a burner phone and start with a fresh one every so often...
To take or look at a phone. So anything they get they can't use.
Are you sure this is true?
Google Links:
Not sure if its a bs story but i believe it. She has no reason to lie. Still not sure why she gave up her phone...
100%. Even if they catch you texting while driving they need a warrant
That statement is true.
Where there's smoke, there's a fire. LE would not be harassing her for nothing, they already are on to something and you should share more info without outing her.
Besides her being a local provider, is she a Backpage provider or a well reviewed TER provider? Is this provider still active and what were the circumstances behind the LE request to download information from her phone? How did LE come in contact with her in the first place? Was she arrested and for what? Drugs, prostitution, traffic ticket or what?
Without the circumstances behind LE's request, the issue of a burner phone is irrelevant because if LE detains you with your burner phone on hand, they can still download information from it. Are you going to try and get rid of a burner phone in front of them? You probably should be using a burner phone anyway.
The more I think about it, I believe LE's request to download information from her phone is for other legal reasons that have no relation to the hobby.
Are you sure she is not trying to pull a fast one on you?
In the absence of her voluntary consent, LE needs a search warrant specific to searching her phone. Knowing the way LE works, they probably would find some way for her to give consent without a warrant. If she didn't, she needs a lawyer, because her rights were violated. At this point she just plain needs one.
Its a secret family recipe, if this gets out my aunt is gonna kill me
And not talk to the police or let them take information from her without a warrant whether this is hobby related or not.
If they asked her and she said yes, well she shot herself in the foot doing that.
The information on the phone would be of little use to LE from an evidentiary standpoint. Possibly, if the provider and hobbyist were really dumb on text messages. There is a reason you don't discuss either acts or dollars.
It surprises me a provider, or anyone else, would allow LE to download information on their phone.
It also surprises me that LE would download the information absent an arrest.
The vague description of "harassing" her is troubling. Are neighbors complaining? Why would LE waste the time.
TV cop shows make it seem like Miranda is cut and dry, and that the request to search the phone is being made by someone that has the detective skills of Barney Fife. None of that is true. Here's the kind of constitutional slippery-slope erosions that happen every single day in law enforcement:
1. LE Officer asks her questions without reading her Miranda. He/she justifies this by saying to the court "I was only asking her questions to investigate the possibility that she was a victim of human trafficking, not a criminal, so no Miranda warning was necessary. But in my questioning, she made voluntary comments that incriminated herself."
2. Provider gets caught. "OK, we're going to seize your house/car/phone as evidence until this gets straightened out, you should be able to move back in in a few months. OR, you could just cooperate and waive Miranda. S'up to you, you decide."
3. Generally, the police are not required to be honest when investigating. When they ask for the phone, the victim replies "I don't think you can legally do that." They reply, "Yes we can." What they mean is "yes, we can ask, but you don't have to comply." This use of intentionally misleading the suspect has generally been held up in the courts.
It's never as clean and easy as it looks on TV