Handing over a Cell phone to LE ?

No, a cell phone can't log a cell site. That is stored by the carrier. And even with that data it is not as easy as they make it sound on TV. Unless you are in a congested area, you may have cell towers 100 miles apart.

 

Why are you bringing up vehicle searches to defend them being able to search your phone. They can not take your phone witjout permission or a warrant now you will say they can because it could be destroyed but they can subpoena your cell records or request a warrant for them they could also detain you until a warrant arrived to take the phone but they do not have the right to take it because they wanna. I have been in court to many times and seen these types of maneuvers get thrown out because the officer thought he could. i worked hundreds of drug cases and that was the usual cases that involved cell phones that were confiscated after an arrest and the officer went thru the cell phone and took info to make the case and the judge always ruled it was an unlawful search without a warrant. we on my team learned fast to obtain a warrant they aren't hard to get. In the case of evidence may be destroyed you could use the argument to never get one and just bust in afraid they may flush the drugs before a warrant could be issued. in those instances we just detained the suspects until we got the warrant.

 

A warrant wouldn't be necessary if the driver gave them his phone voluntarily, would it? But yeah, I'd say all of this is CB stories.

The way I see it, if they want to play hardball and press the issue, that's the only way I know to tell if they're bluffing or not. If they have probable cause they think will stand up in court, more power to them. If they don't, they'll not break in.

 

This was not in defense of home search, they need a warrant. But what the Supreme Court ruled on back in 1925 on vehicle search. Warrantless search under certain conditions is allowed.

And we are talking about what is allowed in regards to CMV compared to what you are talking about. We as drivers of CMV have less rights than we do when we are sitting in our home, eating at a restaurant, etc. On many other issues the courts have ruled that the safety of the public takes precedence over our rights of privacy.

Searching a drug dealers phone is not the same as a DOT officer seeing a driver with his phone in his hand.

 

So if they feel like the public's safety is at risk, they don't need my permission to search my truck or my phone, right? That's totally fine with me, because I'm not going to give them my permission. If they don't need my permission, they'll search it anyway. What's wrong with that?

And you mean the Supreme Court ruled on it in 1985, not 1925, right?

 

It is a little more nuanced than that. They have to have probable cause for a warrantless search of your vehicle. The number one reason for cause of searching a CMV – Carrier calling in saying they had reports of a driver buy alcohol (accounts for over 50% of all searches. Second – driver showing signs of impairment at road side inspection. Other accounts for less than 5%.

And vehicle searches happen less than .01% of the time at road side inspections. So the chance of even being asked is so remote that you likely have a better chance of winning the lottery.

And it was 1925 that the court ruled on warrantless searches. In 1985 they ruled that a motorhome was not to be considered a home for purposes of needing a warrant for search.

And for everything else, suspecting you have violated a safety regulation is sufficient for reasonable suspicion. So why would a DOT officer viewing your cell phone to see if you have been texting when they see you holding your phone while driving be excluded from this?

 

They were good posts to debunk the "well the sleeper is my home so they can't search it" argument, but you're right, I can't see how they would be applicable to information contained on a cell phone. Someone earlier suggested that a cell phone could be view as a "container", but I think that's a stretch that even a New York lawyer couldn't make.

I would never deny having a cell phone... because I do, but that is as far as that conversation will ever go. My cell phone is always password protected and some data is also encrypted and no they cannot have any of the passwords nor may they look at the phone itself without a warrant. If they seize it then I guess we'll sort that out in court.

 

Even if they take your phone it's not admissible only the records would be and they'd need a warrant. Everytime we got a warrant for a phone we had to get one for the records too. The phone can be manipulated but not the records.

 

As already mentioned, based solely on cellular signals, they aren't tracked that accurately. Beyond that, is the "time stamp" a certified time? No. Is the transmission of a voicemail message and/or text guaranteed and certified as well? No. I have had texts show up on my phone several hours after the time shown in the text and I know that it was sent at that time, just not received. I have had voicemail messages show up a day later as well. If a phone company was subpoenaed and asked the questions I have posted above, they cannot guarantee the timeliness of their services.

 

OH yeah, and I agree, and I am definitely picking nits. I've never had anything that remotely resembled a problem during an inspection.

OK, gotcha now.

OK, that I don't have a problem with-what I would not give my permission for is a random search of my truck/car/phone/chainsaw/whatever. I'm probably making too much of this because of what I'd heard about guys being asked for their phones (or Pilot cards) at roadside inspections.