Judge puts man in jail for refusing to unlock cellphones

What I'm saying is the author left out of the article the 3 months this guy may have been watched and they decided to move forward and arrest him. Then again, it could have been a fishing expedition. But the first sentence is just as likely as the second one. The article is full of absolutely zero facts and I'm not basing an opinion on a 'journalist' who put no research into this article.

My reply to you is they either have something on him or not. If they do not have something then do not apprehend him. The facts to me scream that it was a fishing expedition. That article stated plenty of facts. I outlined them in my earlier post.
Am I next? The cops have nothing on me. Can they pull me over and demand my phone to see what I may have done?
I sense that you are holding judgement based on whether the guy is a good guy or bad guy. I sense that you may be ok with it if the guy was guilty of something. I am saying, I do not care if or how long the cops were following him. If they have hard evidence of a crime then arrest him and charge him, if not then Constitution.
 
Keep a burner in your car that never gets used and hand that over upon request?

What this world needs is a background app
that doesn't merely protect your files from unauthorized access,
but infects the forensic computer with a virus
that "adjusts" your NCIC record.

LUgU.gif


The piece you missed was that the driver was stopped for a traffic violation and he refused the cops to search his car. So the cops decided to circumvent his protection and bring in a biased investigator who could never be cross examined (the dog) ...

The cops extended the length of a traffic stop
to conduct a dog sniff unrelated to the original purpose of the stop?

In violation of Rodriguez v. United States?
 
What I'm saying is the author left out of the article the 3 months this guy may have been watched and they decided to move forward and arrest him. Then again, it could have been a fishing expedition. But the first sentence is just as likely as the second one.

Well first, no, the first scenario isn't just as likely as the second. That's absurd. But secondly, and more importantly, it's completely and utterly irrelevant to whether or not someone should be compelled to provide their password. Irrelevant.
 
What I'm saying is the author left out of the article the 3 months this guy may have been watched and they decided to move forward and arrest him. Then again, it could have been a fishing expedition. But the first sentence is just as likely as the second one. The article is full of absolutely zero facts and I'm not basing an opinion on a 'journalist' who put no research into this article.

Lets pretend that he is in fact the newest Pablo Escobar. The police are close to catching him. They just have zero evidence. They have followed him for months now. They pull him over, because this is go time. And what do they find? "A small amount of marijuana".
If they have been following him for months and he is guilty of bigger things, then they should have more proof in their back pocket to make an arrest. If their whole case is falling on what is in that phone, then they don't have a case.

You're missing the point. Do you go to an airport and yell (insert certain trigger words here)? If not, why would you post certain comments on a public forum? Even though you "can" say what you want, you're going to draw heat if someone is offended by it or considers it a threat. I don't save anything on a phone/computer, and with forensics, anything written/sent can later be obtained anyway. As for phone contact numbers, I'm sure they know where he lives, and as for others, if they were watching him, they would know where they lived as well. If someone is really out to get you, and wants to "make up an excuse for a warrant", don't you think they'll plant evidence anyway? Or, at least twist whatever they find? "Your Honor, the defendant had a copy of Tom Sawyer in his library! He must be against the system!".

I break the law. We all do. On purpose? Probably not. But it happens. There are so many laws on the books that you and I are guilty of something. Some, we probably don't even know about.
What will stop .gov from taking info from phones for GPS and speeding? What happens when they start mapping where you've been? Cities are using Shotspotter now, what if you were in the vicinity of where they heard a shot? You are a gun owner in that area. You are now suspect.
I don't want to be put under a microscope for everything I have ever done and said and where I have been. We should have the right to say no to that type of investigation and invasion.
 
Or, you avoid all of this, and don't keep anything on your phone (computer, tablet, etc.)
I don't use my phone for anything that could be compromised if I lost the phone (other than needing phone number contacts, and the robo-callers already seem to have all of those anyway!). As for emails, posts on NES, etc. someone can always hack it, so why say/leave anything that will be used against you?

That sounds great and all, until you actually try to do it. The thing about computing devices is that their usefulness increases with the amount of things you need to store on it, or transmit over the network. That may work fine for a $10 flip phone that only does voice and SMS (plus the snake app... can't forget that). Every so often, I try to see what I don't need on my phone so I can remove it and not have the data there, but I'm usually like "nope can't remove that". The browser has all the browsing history on it (I use that for NES plus others). There's a couple of IM apps. Emails. Facebook app. Slack (which I have to use for work). Several banking and CC apps. My security cameras. Everything saves password and auto logs in. It's too much to worry about, so I just leave the phone encrypted and make sure it has a complex password, and fingerprint enabled so I don't have to keep typing in a long password every few minutes (it actually makes it more secure, otherwise I'll set the lock timeout to 8 hours so I don't have to enter password). So I look through all these useful things the phone does for me, and I'm like "well, what useful thing here am I willing to give up?" None of it.
 
And it doesn't solve anything. Whether there is anything useful on it or not, the issue of being forced to provide your passwords still exists. If you can be jailed for not telling the people criminally investigating you your password, what else will people be jailed for not saying? Shit, makes the state's job super easy. If they can't make a case against you without you doing it for them, you can just be jailed for contempt! That's about the most draconian thing I can think of.
 
People who abide with sh!tt!ng on the Constitution are not conservatives.

Uh. . . . you're kidding, right?? Seriously.

Conservatives have been assaulting our 1A, 4A, and 5A protections for 100+ years.
Now lets talk about the war on drugs and the militarization of our police!! Jesus dude get yoru head out of your butt.

If you truly believe in liberty, you are not a conservative. You are a libertarian.
 
Last edited:
Uh. . . . you're kidding, right?? Seriously.

Conservatives have been assaulting our 1A, 4A, and 5A protections for 100+ years.
Now lets talk about the war on drugs and the militarization of our police!! Jesus dude get yoru head out of your butt.

If you truly believe in liberty, you are not a conservative. You are a libertarian.

No need to be rude about it, brother. We both believe in the same things. There are still genuine conservatives around.
 
I'm not trying to be rude. I guess I was frustrated. I sincerely apologize.

A serious question: What is a genuine conservative?

How does a genuine conservative feel about warrantless searches??
How does a genuine conservative feel about stop and frisk policies??
How does a genuine conservative feel about the ability to video record the police?
How does a genuine conservative feel about marriage equality (the new term for gay marriage)?
How does a genuine conservative feel about the legalization of marijuana and other drugs??

Because these are areas where in my opinion genuine conservatives fall short. There are a lot of pro-gun conservatives who don't see much need for the other liberties I've noted above.

I'm hi-lighting this because if you fall on the liberty side of all of those questions, you aren't a conservative. You are a libertarian.
 
Ah. If they got a warrant and he refused to unlock them, then he's screwed -- textbook definition of contempt of court.

Except that the Constitution has a provision against self incrimination. There is at least one case where it was ruled that unlocking a phone with a fingerprint is OK, but not using a password. If his cell phone was locked with a password, he can withhold that from the court. If it was locked with biometric data (fingerprint, facial recognition, etc.) he can be compelled to unlock it. The reasoning is that you leave fingerprints everywhere, all the time. Same for facial recognition. However, a password is something you know and giving it up would be giving testimony against yourself.

ETA: A couple of URLs

Minnesota Supreme court ruling

5 things about the ruling

This isn't binding in all states, but you should be aware of it.
 
Last edited:
Anyone who thinks that either party will roll back these post-911 unconstitutional laws and policies is inept, ignorant, and silly. There's no legal recourse for this kind of thing. Government will erode our rights, the stranglehold on our freedom will never be loosened. That's what government does. It takes more and more and more.

I'm hoping android adds a boot-n-nuke keyslot for the phones, like in LUKS. If you're under duress you give an alternate password that nukes the data.
 
So let me get this straight, minor M/V infraction (civil), small amount of marijuana (pretty much legal now or a simple civil offense in most places) and thrown in jail because the guy won’t let them in his phone? Wtf??

Let’s just say for the sake of argument that this guy is a closet homosexual, and has incriminating photos or messages in his phone that are private to him and him alone, he doesn’t want it to get out, it’s nobody else’s business and his phone has zero to do with the civil charges mentioned according to the story.

But, we still have career criminals walking around free everywhere dealing, stealing and killing, but this poor bastard is in the can because he values his personal property and privacy??

This country is so f**ked up right now. lol

I KNEW that was your hand on my knee!
 
No slippery slope, the current state of what is needed dictates a warrant to search cell phones. They got said warrant. What am I missing that's in the 5 lines of the article that has everyone up in arms?

How does a traffic stop rise to a need to search his phone?

Granted, he LOOKS guilty as hell of SOMETHING, but what they found was was some pot. Cool. Seize it, fine him and send him on his way. What's his phone got to do with anything?
 
How does a traffic stop rise to a need to search his phone?

Granted, he LOOKS guilty as hell of SOMETHING, but what they found was was some pot. Cool. Seize it, fine him and send him on his way. What's his phone got to do with anything?


None of this explains why police wanted to access Montanez's phones. According to the police reports, the deputy was attempting to power down Montanez's phones. While doing so, a text message popped up that said "OMG, did they find it?" The report states that the text message arrived after the traffic stop, leading the officer to believe that there was evidence on the phone. So the deputy seized the phones. He asked Montanez for the passcodes and Montanez declined. They submitted a search warrant to compel Montanez to supply the passcode and allow them to access all the content on both the phones.

Ok, quite sketchy. Making a note to configure the phone not to display texts when locked...

STILL, he's already going away for the "felony" THC. He has nothing to lose by refusing to say the password. Jail is jail...
 
I'm not trying to be rude. I guess I was frustrated. I sincerely apologize.

A serious question: What is a genuine conservative?

How does a genuine conservative feel about warrantless searches??
How does a genuine conservative feel about stop and frisk policies??
How does a genuine conservative feel about the ability to video record the police?
How does a genuine conservative feel about marriage equality (the new term for gay marriage)?
How does a genuine conservative feel about the legalization of marijuana and other drugs??

Because these are areas where in my opinion genuine conservatives fall short. There are a lot of pro-gun conservatives who don't see much need for the other liberties I've noted above.

I'm hi-lighting this because if you fall on the liberty side of all of those questions, you aren't a conservative. You are a libertarian.

Thanks, buddy. I grew up in East Watertown. After the marathon bombing, hundreds of homes in my neighborhood were subjtected to warrantless searches. I was outraged by this mass violation of the 4th Amendment. I still call myself a conservative, but if that makes me a libertarian by your definition, I'm okay with that as well.
 
That's the problem with political labels. I don't understand why people insist on forcing themselves into a box with them.

And that sounded unintentionally dirty.
 
I'm hoping android adds a boot-n-nuke keyslot for the phones, like in LUKS. If you're under duress you give an alternate password that nukes the data.
What is needed is a multi-level password system in which it is impossible to prove you have given all the passwords, and impossible for a court to prove you have not.
 
The cops extended the length of a traffic stop
to conduct a dog sniff unrelated to the original purpose of the stop?

In violation of Rodriguez v. United States?

Great minds run in the same channel:

Gizmodo: Florida Man Jailed for Failing to Unlock His Phone

AJ Dellinger
7/14/18 1:00pm
...
The strangest part about Montanez’s predicament is that it started with a traffic stop. According to an emergency writ filed by Montanez’s lawyer, he was pulled over by police on June 21 for not properly yielding while pulling out of a driveway. The officers making the stop asked to search his car, which he refused, so the police brought in a drug-sniffing dog.

It’s worth noting that the emergency writ says the canine unit was contacted before police spoke to Montanez during the stop, which seems a bit suspicious. In 2015, the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Rodriguez v. United States made clear that police are not to turn traffic stops into investigations of other possible infractions. Police have to have reason to believe another crime has been committed in order to investigate further, and refusing to allow law enforcement to search your car is not a valid reason for suspicion.​

Dude needs a much better lawyer.
 
What is needed is a multi-level password system in which it is impossible to prove you have given all the passwords, and impossible for a court to prove you have not.

Veracrypt has a hidden volume feature, where if you give an alternate password, instead of loading your private data, the container appears to load normally but actually shows dummy data, a real looking container with nothing juicy. They call it 'Plausible Deniability'
 
That's the problem with political labels. I don't understand why people insist on forcing themselves into a box with them.

And that sounded unintentionally dirty.

In an interview, Reggie Watts talks about something he calls "Diametrical Oppositionalism", the natural tenancy for humans to dislike something, and by extension dislike anything or anyone related. People like to label themselves as left-or-right or American Cars vs Japenese cars or AK47 vs AR15, to garnish support of their community, to virtue signal on instagram, to be attention whores, or whatever the reason. These group dynamics will bring out fringe people, usually the loudest and most obnoxious. These people from each fringe being the most observable, create an infinite loop of bs. In some cases these whirlwinds of opposite ideologies clashing has spiraled into the most atrocious acts ever beheld.

For me, any good idea is a good idea. It doesn't belong to a corner of ideology. Good ideas aren't democrat or republican.
 
Yep. There is a reason why you can be labeled a liberal and a conservative by different people for saying the same thing. I'd find it comical if it wasn't so sad, but it happens. It's why the Trump thread is often so ridiculous. If you don't agree with everything Trump you are a far left liberal and if you agree with anything Trump you are a far right conservative.


What if the box is, say, stood up on a corner?
And, like, contains some teeny boxes?

nolanchart_withindices.jpg

Same problem exists. It's actually just an illustration of that problem. Sure, it can be helpful as a general guide to ones beliefs, but again, if you label yourself as one of those labels you've shown, yet have any ideas or beliefs that falls outside of that label, where does that land you? In another label that may or may not accurately reflect your ideals.
 
For me, any good idea is a good idea. It doesn't belong to a corner of ideology. Good ideas aren't democrat or republican.

Consider the following proposition:

An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it.​

It occurred to me years ago, while pondering the reactions of Manhattan Project principals to the success of the Trinity test. However, I can't quite recapitulate the exact chain of thought at this moment, so don't jump to any conclusions about which ideas or people, or what my personal assessments of them, might have been. The bald statement is intended to be agnostic about the kinds of ideas it is applied to.

Yep. There is a reason why you can be labeled a liberal and a conservative by different people for saying the same thing. ... It's why the Trump thread is often so ridiculous. If you don't agree with everything Trump you are a far left liberal and if you agree with anything Trump you are a far right conservative.

BTW, at a time when I tried tracking all the (non-sale, non members-only) threads on NES without benefit of site features like "New Posts", I would stop checking for activity on a thread when the last post was date-stamped with an actual date; i.e., not "Yesterday" or "Today". It took weeks after the Trump megathread's founding, but there was eventually an actual interval of at least 24 hours and two seconds when no one posted anything in the thread. It was with profound relief I stopped following it; sort of like a exhausted moth's relief when a timer finally turns off the porch light.

So you're telling me that the Trump megathread is active again?


Same problem exists. It's actually just an illustration of that problem. Sure, it can be helpful as a general guide to ones beliefs, but again, if you label yourself as one of those labels you've shown, yet have any ideas or beliefs that falls outside of that label, where does that land you? In another label that may or may not accurately reflect your ideals.

That dilemma might be an example of the definitional fallacy of incongruity.
Or not; I haven't consumed a lot of that kind of formal logic.

I presume that the Nolan Chart doesn't merely have the goal of recruiting "libertarians" from some "right conservatives" and "left liberals". It must have the effect, and so probably the intention, of establishing which positions are properly "libertarian". So you're entitled to your frustration.
 
Consider the following proposition:

An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it.​

It occurred to me years ago, while pondering the reactions of Manhattan Project principals to the success of the Trinity test. However, I can't quite recapitulate the exact chain of thought at this moment, so don't jump to any conclusions about which ideas or people, or what my personal assessments of them, might have been. The bald statement is intended to be agnostic about the kinds of ideas it is applied to.



BTW, at a time when I tried tracking all the (non-sale, non members-only) threads on NES without benefit of site features like "New Posts", I would stop checking for activity on a thread when the last post was date-stamped with an actual date; i.e., not "Yesterday" or "Today". It took weeks after the Trump megathread's founding, but there was eventually an actual interval of at least 24 hours and two seconds when no one posted anything in the thread. It was with profound relief I stopped following it; sort of like a exhausted moth's relief when a timer finally turns off the porch light.

So you're telling me that the Trump megathread is active again?




That dilemma might be an example of the definitional fallacy of incongruity.
Or not; I haven't consumed a lot of that kind of formal logic.

I presume that the Nolan Chart doesn't merely have the goal of recruiting "libertarians" from some "right conservatives" and "left liberals". It must have the effect, and so probably the intention, of establishing which positions are properly "libertarian". So you're entitled to your frustration.

The Trump Mega Thread is not only active, it's going to out pace the funny pictures thread lol
 
I'm not trying to be rude. I guess I was frustrated. I sincerely apologize.

A serious question: What is a genuine conservative?

How does a genuine conservative feel about warrantless searches??
How does a genuine conservative feel about stop and frisk policies??
How does a genuine conservative feel about the ability to video record the police?
How does a genuine conservative feel about marriage equality (the new term for gay marriage)?
How does a genuine conservative feel about the legalization of marijuana and other drugs??

Because these are areas where in my opinion genuine conservatives fall short. There are a lot of pro-gun conservatives who don't see much need for the other liberties I've noted above.

I'm hi-lighting this because if you fall on the liberty side of all of those questions, you aren't a conservative. You are a libertarian.

The problem is most conservatives do the "armflap and brush off" on all of those things, demeaning their relevance because they're like this
archetype...

std jingoservative said:
"EYEME ONE OF THE GOOD GUYZ AND EYE DONT GET IN TRUBBLE WITH THE LARWR!!! ANDIM NOT GAY CUZ MARRIAGE IS BETWE#EN A MAN AND A WOMAN and WAR ON DRUGS FAPFAPFAP REEFER MADNESS POT SMOKERS ARE FAT AND LAZY I USE DTO SMOKE PAWT BUT DONT CARE IF SOMEONE ELSE GETS ARRESTED FOR IT CUZ I DONT DO IT NO MOAR IM GONNA PET MY PORTRAIT OF REAGAN NOW KAY? FENTINIL IS BAD THEY SHOULD PUT UP DA WALL TO STOP IT FROM COMING IN! DEATH PENALTY FOR EVERYTHING! AMERICAN FLAG BALD EAGLES JINGOISM PFFFFBBBBT!!!!" "EYE DONT MYND A BACKROUND CHECK CAUSE IM NOT A KRIMINUL!! I HAVE NOTHING TO HYDE!!!"
"LEMME TURN ON FAWX NEWS NAW K? WHO THE f*** IS THAT GHERALDO WHY THE f*** IS HE STILL ONT HERE????" THOSE NFL FGTS SHOULD BE EXECUTED CAUSE THEY DIDNT STAND FOR THE ANTHEM!!!! BWEEEEEEEEEEE! PRAYSE THE LARRRD!" DOMESTIC SURVEYLLLANCE? DEY ARE JUST KEEPING US SAFE... NINE ELEVEN! BWAEAH!"

Did I miss anything? [laugh]

The only difference between these people and the pussy hat types is at least the jingoservatives usually fall short of doing heinous shit like blocking streets. Plus also most of them have jobs. So they got that going for them... .but outside of that, some of them are indeed, part of the problem.

-Mike
 
Back
Top Bottom