Police Given Direct Line To Cell Phone Searches

DALLAS (CBSDFW.COM) – Think about all the personal information we keep in our cell phones: It’s something to consider after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit ruled it is now legal for police to search cell phones without a warrant.

Former Dallas FBI Agent Danny Defenbaugh said the ruling gives law enforcement a leg up. “I think not only will it help them, but it could be life saving,” said the former Special Agent, who was based in Dallas.

The decision stems from an Indiana case where police arrested a man for dealing drugs. An officer searched the suspect’s cell phone without warrant.

The judge in the appeal case, Judge Richard Posner, agreed that the officer had to search the phone immediately or risk losing valuable evidence. Judge Posner ruled it was a matter of urgency, arguing it was possible for an accomplice to wipe the phone clean using a computer or other remote device.

Defenbaugh says the ruling takes into account exigent or time-sensitive circumstances that could be life saving in more urgent cases, such as child abduction. “If the child is alive and you’re only minutes behind, that could be critical to recovering that child alive,” added Defenbaugh.

Judge Posner ruled that the search was legal because the officer conducted a limited search and only looked for phone numbers associated with the alleged drug deal. The judge argued it was similar to  flipping through a diary to search for basic information such as addresses and phone numbers.

Paul Coggins is the former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas. Coggins says the court’s ruling pushes the envelope on privacy issues and wonders if it opens the door to more extensive searches down the road. “Does that mean officers now have the right to search through your phone, search through your search history, your photographs, your e-mails and the rest, because it could all be wiped clean,” Coggins asked.

Many critics are asking the same question. They call the ruling an invasion of privacy that far outweighs the needs of law enforcement.

Both Defenbaugh and Coggins agree that the case is likely to go to the U.S. Supreme court.

Also Check Out:

  • bloward

    yet another judge that has never read the Constitution…..

    • Know your Judges

      Judge Posner is a VERY conservative jurist–some would say the LEADING conservative jurist. The only reason he is not a SCOTUS judge is because he’s too conservatives for the Libs to let him on.

      • grizzled

        Yeah, but how old is the guy. People tend to become more liberal as they get older. As they get older, their mental capacity towards freedom is diminished in favor of being cared for by someone else.

    • Rawn Pawl

      Oh, Judgy read the constitution, but got paid by some lobbyist folks. Libs are gonna have their communism much earlier than they ever imagined.

    • Constitution

      I agree. I bet the Judge can’t spell Constitution. They won’t be reading my phone. This govt. is out of control and has been for decades…. That whenever any form of Govt. becomes destructive of these ends, IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to ABOLISH IT.

      • MuneShadowe

        Yes he can, he spells it constipation.

    • makanik

      The ORIGINAL 13th. Amendment to U.S. Constitution would negate ALL lawyers from being judges, as to pass the BAR would be considered a renouncement of their citizenship making them (even today) a subject of the Queen of England. Check out the definition and substance of THE BAR!!! For more info; davis32208@hotmail.com

    • Jim Dea

      We’re toast.

      • LTCB

        Joe, did you mention, “You are breathing.”?

      • Oe

        Like always, will it be used in good faith with good intentions and only when completely necessary?
        Interesting times


      • patriot_weatherman

        It’s perverse, but at least you can still mail in (snail mail) your bomb threats. Uh-oh, this means they’ll get it too late.

      • Joe Potus

        Agreed. Presumption of guilt. Additionally, judicial powers given to the police to determine guilt.

        You are speeding.
        You must be drinking.
        You must be doping.
        You must be a drug dealer.
        You must be a killer.
        oops… what’s this? Looks like anti government talk.
        Bam. Head shot reduces costs.
        hmmm…. not enough speeders.
        Pass a law against “distracted driving”
        Eating a fry? Drinking coffee…
        …start process all over again.


      • Ralph

        Yup its all coming to a head now right before 2012 go figure. We are losing constitutional rights faster than we could ever imagine, American citizens are fair game with no trial if they are designated “terrorists”.

        I say be prepared for anything that happens… lock and load America!

    • scottrb

      That judge is a traitor. That’s the excuse that Holder gave for thinking its patriotic to kill u.s. citizens abroad.. time was of the essence. So, when time is of the essence, we have no rights. That’s oppression.

      • LTCB

        Yah, think? The whole point of the Constitution was to prevent these very things. For ANY law enforcement type to go past that is a violation of the Constitution and a violation of ALL OF OUR RIGHTS.

    • Regulas

      7th Circus court, Imagine That. I don’t own a cell phone, it’s the fascist FED tracking tool.

      • Andrew P.

        Wow, you don’t own a cell phone because it is a “fascist” tracking tool? Do you own a car, because they can be tracked too? How about a computer (searches are easily traceable)? Ever left the house – or are you afraid the Feds will follow your every move via satellite?

        At some point, you have to realize that the government COULD track any of us. But why would they? If you’re not doing anything WRONG, then they have no reason to bother you. Sure, things are getting out of hand in this quasi-police state. But to not carry a cell phone, haha, because it’s “fascist”. That’s a stretch, amigo.

      • Brown

        I spell it “FED”, but F’ed!

      • Bunky

        The government will track because it can.
        Wake up fool.

      • Bunky

        @andrew p,
        the government will track you because it can.
        Get that through the skull full of mush.

      • David Schulz, CIPP

        @Andrew What you are saying might have been accurate in the 70s… too much information, no technology to absorb it, correlate it. Stasi died under the weight of its own data before the Wall fell. But today? If it can be tracked, it will; if the current administration doesn’t have need for it, some future admin will. The notion that if you’re not doing anything wrong, you shouldn’t care, pesumes you know what the government will consider “wrong” … not just this year, but next year and as long as data lives.

    • ctiZEN

      Use encryption people. Another judge recently ruled that police can NOT force you to decrypt!

      • Jeff

        They might be able to hack into or decrypt the phone. Militarization and police control are heavily subsidized by taxpayers and I’m sure they can find a way around that.

      • rigdriver01

        They are way ahead of you ctiZEN,

        they already have a device that law enforcement has been using to plug into your phone that can crack/bypass your encryption and access your phone. there was an article all over the web about 6 months ago about it.

        Cant remember the staty, but they were using it during traffic stops and asking offenders if they could scan their phones. And the shock was fully half allowed their phones to be plugged in without probable cause, just their consent.. It downloads all your info in the phone in a matter of a few seconds.

      • Freeland Dave

        But what you fail to know citZEN i that all encryption software used in the US today by law has to be Registered with the government. And along with that registration comes the keys to crack that encryption any time they desire. encryption only protects you from the average citizen, not the government who, for reasons only known to them, can look at your encrypted files any time they so desire. And if you create your own software to encrypt your own data and don’t register it with the government they can take you out of circulation because that too is now against the law.

      • jj

        not yet

    • N

      A Republican judge appointed by a Republican President.

      • Rich

        The parties don’t matter. Pay attention. They promise different things, but actually do only what their handlers demand. Demopublicans. No difference. The ruling class is tightening the noose.

      • mark

        Hey Seriously, You give us conservatives a bad name by being so stupid. You are wrong on two accounts. the US Court of Appeals is a federal post and Reagan appointed him.

      • rigdriver01

        The 7th circuit court of appeals; if I am not mistaken; is one of the most liberal appeals courts in the land.

      • Tanner101

        To Seriously?:

        Yes, facts are important. Judge Posner sits on the United States 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. This is a Federal, not a State, court. United States Circuit Court Judges are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. I do not recall who appointed Judge Posner. I only know that he has been on the bench for quite some time now.

      • Seriously?!

        D-bag ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^, the President has nothing to do with appointing a State Supreme Court Judge; hence, STATE not FEDERAL.

        Another liberal that can’t get the facts straight.

      • LJ

        rigdriver01, you would be incorrect. The 7th Circuit has some of the biggest and most influential conservative-leaning judges in the courts of appeal.

      • rigdriver01

        LJ, I was incorrect….I was thinking of the 9th circuit. My bad :)

    • Nick

      In the case referred to, a suspect was arrested on drug charges. When he was arrested, his phone was with him, which could technically make it evidence. Searching it without a warrant isn’t unconstitutional, because he was arrested without a warrant, he was arrested on probably cause.

      If this were referring to police grabbing your phone without arresting you, or confiscating your property without a warrant OR arrest, then you would have reason to worry. I undertand you came here from Drudge. So did I. Do yourself a favor and read past the headlines and opening statement of the article.

      The bottom line is that for this search to happen, the suspect had to be arrested first. Because eh was arrested without a warrant, there had to have been probable cause that he was committing or had committed a crime. Post-arrest, interrogating his phone is no different than interrogating his person.

      • Just Sayin'

        Excellent reply and spot on. Interesting how nobody comments on the posts with a true and logical explanation. I wonder how the “conspiracy theorists” would feel if the dope their kid od’s on came from the arrested dealer and the cops didn’t do their job by following all possible leads. I am sure that would be the cops fault then too, right???

    • geo

      we njeed to IMPEACH such judges….lets do

    • Deandre Andres

      it’ll go to the Supreme Court, and as long as it gets there before Obama puts up another judge, then it will get overturned because it’s simply ridiculous.

  • bloward

    yet another judge that has never read the Constitution…..

    • LC

      Fourth Amendment to the Constitution is crystal clear on this:

      “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and EFFECTS, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

      My personal cell phone is an EFFECT.

      No warrant, no searching.

      This “judge” needs to be tried for treason for attempting to abridge our natural rights under the color of law.

      • Ron

        Bravo! Agreed.

      • Patrick Henry

        Why do all you anti-constitutional dolts always answer with do not do anything to get arrested and you have nothing to worry about? Are you really that naive? Surely, you know of cases where individuals are arrested under false pretenses and then charged with some crime they were never accused of. Are you so naive to not know that with 4500 Federal Statues all of us commit criminalacts everyday and we aren’t aware of it. Please, the founders and framers placed this restriction on the government because of the tentency of government to oppress the people with unreasonable searches and detainments.

      • Hal Jordan


        Adjust that tinfoil hat and cue the black helicopters. The Thought Police are coming to arrest you and confiscate your shadow. They will take away your birthday and demagnetize all your credit cards too!

        Okay, feet firmly back on the ground now? Great. Check this out:


        “In addition, it is entirely reasonable for the arresting officer to search for and seize any evidence on the arrestee’s person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction.”

        This is all basic Constitutional law, reaffirmed daily by law enforcement officers all over the country. I’m sorry it’s so confusing to you.

      • DMAC

        Miwa, it states “supported by Oath or affirmation”, an offucer has to swear he saw something, like the marijauna was sitting in plain sight. Affirmation meaning their has to be witnesses to collaborate what the person asking for the warrant is telling the truth.
        Don’t give up your freedoms so easily my friiend, a lot of blood was spilled to obtain them for you. Those freedoms belong not onlu to us, to to future generations of Americans, they are not ours to give away, they are our to protect an die for.

      • DMAC

        TSA officer to Hal Jordan, “you’re under arrest for speaking out against the government”
        Hal Jordan,”but I didn’t do anything”
        TSA officer, ” take everything he owns and search it, and then search everyone in his contacts list on his cell phone and computer and take what they have too, and then search their cell phones and computers for contacts, and take their stuff too………and on and on an don.
        “He who gives up freedom for security shall have neither freedom or security” Benjamin Franklin
        Excuse me hal, but I’ll take Franklins advise over your opinion.

      • Stephen

        Totally AGREE!

      • Міша

        But you are only protected “against unreasonable searches”. The whole hoopla is whether this particular search was REASONABLE. And the judge decided, that it was…

      • DMAC

        They claim they can legally make you give blood to determine if you are under the influence of drugs or alcohol, that is an invasion upon “my person” and focres me to incriminate myself. Do these judges ever read? Have they ever read the constitution? This is tyrrany and we should not tolerate it.

      • http://thegreenlanterns.wordpress.com Hal Jordan

        Absolutely it was reasonable. If you are arrested, everything you have in your possession is now available for the police to search. Solution: don’t do anything that will get you arrested, and they can’t search your phone.

      • NickRobets

        He was arrested on probable cause….with his phone in his possession.I see no violation of the 4th amendment.

  • Winky

    We have sold our souls to the devil.

    • Joe Doakes

      For paper money and the false promise of “health care.”

      We were suckers.

      • Eric Long

        Bread and circuses my friends.

      • TheFatLadyIsSinging

        Not all of us were suckers. We were outvoted.

      • CanYouHearMeNow

        Like after the coup and cover up we became a country where the police follow a rule of law. Fact of the matter is unelected officials took over Washington and the media for domestic spying purposes. They fear the truth leaking out. We have no democracy, no president, and freedom of press is an illusion.

        This next election is shaping up to be as big of a sham as the last. Do you know why Sarah Palin’s bus tour was really canceled? Do you know why she stayed 30 miles away from the second debate and chose the death of Steve Jobs to announce that she’s not running? Know what leaked out? Sarah Palin and Cain aren’t in the race for the same reason, the truth leaked out. Search PalinsDirtyLittleSecret for the biggest cover up in history

    • paull ford

      you have. others prefer common sense conservatives with a BRAIN.

      • ItsOver

        Who would be those common sense conservatives?

      • woodNfish

        If you mean you are willing to give away your rights in return for some false sense of safety, you are an idiot.

  • Arrest the traitors to the Constitution

    A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.

    But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.

    For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men.
    He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.

    ~ Marcus Tullius Cicero, Roman Statesman, philosopher and orator (42 B.C) ——– http://911essentials.com

    • ItsOver

      The quotes are so appropriate.

      • bob dobbs

        Look on YouTube for this: MCSO: Obama Eligibility Cold Case Investigation (Full Press Conference) wow! If that doesn’t wake you up and get your attention, we might as well accept what we will get and continue to get.

      • Obama-Biden 2012: YES WE CAN... AGAIN!

        @ bob dobbs
        I just reported you to http://www.AttackWatch.net

      • woodNfish

        Obama-Biden 2012: YES WE CAN… AGAIN! is a nazi dirtbag.

      • bob dobbs

        @Obama-Biden 2012: YES WE CAN… AGAIN!

        Reporting you to the FBI as a domestic terrorist for threatening me.

        Have a great day.

      • Jerry Lewis

        Here’s something the Dallas police and FBI can investigate:

        Obama’s Original vault copy of Certificate of Live Birth in the USA: — Released 4.27.2011 raises as many questions as it answers.

        Obama/Dunham marriage license — Not released

        Soetoro/Dunham marriage license — Not released

        Soetoro adoption records — Not released

        Fransiskus Assisi School School application — Released

        Punahou School records — Not released

        Selective Service Registration — Released – Proven Counterfeit

        Occidental College records — Not released

        Passport (Pakistan) — Not released

        Columbia College records — Not released

        Columbia thesis — Not released

        Harvard College records — Not released

        Harvard Law Review articles — None (maybe 1, Not Signed)

        Baptism certificate — None

        Medical records — Not released

        Illinois State Senate records — None (Locked up to prohibit public view)

        Illinois State Senate schedule — Lost (All other Illinois state senators’ records are intact)

        Law practice client list — Not released

        University of Chicago scholarly articles — None

      • Molly Jefferson

        Obama list of Historic firsts ….

        • First President to Preside Over a Cut to the Credit Rating of the United States Government

        • First President to Violate the War Powers Act

        • First President to Orchestrate the Sale of Murder Weapons to Mexican Drug Cartels

        • First President to issue an unlawful “recess-appointment” while the U.S. Senate remained in session (against the advice of his own Justice Department).

        • First President to be Held in Contempt of Court for Illegally Obstructing Oil Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico

        • First President to Defy a Federal Judge’s Court Order to Cease Implementing the ‘Health Care Reform’ Law

        • First President to halt deportations of illegal aliens and grant them work permits, a form of stealth amnesty roughly equivalent to “The DREAM Act”, which could not pass Congress

        • First President to Require All Americans to Purchase a Product From a Third Party

        • First President to Spend a Trillion Dollars on ‘Shovel-Ready’ Jobs — and Later Admit There Was No Such Thing as Shovel-Ready Jobs

        • First President to sue states for requiring valid IDs to vote, even though the same administration requires valid IDs to travel by air

        • First President to Abrogate Bankruptcy Law to Turn Over Control of Companies to His Union Supporters

        • First President to sign into law a bill that permits the government to “hold anyone suspected of being associated with terrorism indefinitely, without any form of due process. No indictment. No judge or jury. No evidence. No trial. Just an indefinite jail sentence.”

        • First President to Bypass Congress and Implement the DREAM Act Through Executive Fiat

        • First President to Threaten Insurance Companies After They Publicly Spoke out on How Obamacare Helped Cause their Rate Increases

        • First President to Threaten an Auto Company (Ford) After It Publicly Mocked Bailouts of GM and Chrysler

        • First President to “Order a Secret Amnesty Program that Stopped the Deportations of Illegal Immigrants Across the U.S., Including Those With Criminal Convictions”

        • First President to Demand a Company Hand Over $20 Billion to One of His Political Appointees

        • First President to Terminate America’s Ability to Put a Man into Space.

        • First President to Encourage Racial Discrimination and Intimidation at Polling Places

        • First President to Have a Law Signed By an ‘Auto-pen’ Without Being “Present”

        • First President to Arbitrarily Declare an Existing Law Unconstitutional and Refuse to Enforce It

        • First President to Tell a Major Manufacturing Company In Which State They Are Allowed to Locate a Factory

        • First President to refuse to comply with a House Oversight Committee subpoena.

        • First President to File Lawsuits Against the States He Swore an Oath to Protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN, etc.)

        • First President to Withdraw an Existing Coal Permit That Had Been Properly Issued Years Ago

        • First President to Fire an Inspector General of Americorps for Catching One of His Friends in a Corruption Case

        • First President to Propose an Executive Order Demanding Companies Disclose Their Political Contributions to Bid on Government Contracts

        • First President to allow Mexican police to conduct law enforcement activities on American soil

        • First President to Golf 90 or More Times in His First Three Years in Office

        But remember: he will not rest until all Americans have jobs, affordable homes, green-energy vehicles, and the environment is repaired, etc., etc., etc

    • Cvale

      Sadly this is NOT 1984 it is 2012 and we have the government subverting the constitution daily in this nation ! Holder said it’s fine to target and kill Americans too ! I’m all for killing the terrorist ….. After he/she has been given due process !

      • Frank

        And the traitor of which Holder is one.

  • TheMediaIsStupid

    Yes. Let’s use hypothetical situations and assumptions based on nothing to push legislation… the country is a joke.

  • http://www.northwestfirearms.com/off-topic/83974-us-court-appeals-7th-circuit-rules-ok-search-cell-phone-without-warrant.html#post577016 US Court of Appeals for 7th Circuit rules OK to search cell phone without a warrant

    […] […]

  • Joe Klip

    We are becoming a nation of slaves.

    • mark

      try this, pay off your mortgage but don’t pay your real estate taxes and see what happens to your private property in a few years… Libertarian ideology has the right idea that protectoin of personal property = freedom.

    • John C

      This country long ago decided that protecting little children from any possible threat is much more important than liberty, except for little children in foreign countries-those can be blown to hell.

      • DMAC

        It is not the responsibility of the government of the United States to protect children in foreign countries. That responsibility belongs to the government of the country the little foreign child lives in. Stick to the subject matter pleae. The subject is the United States Constitution and our Bill of Rights. It’s what gives you the right and ability to post on sites like this.

    • MamaConchita

      What? “Becoming” a nation of slaves. We already are! For many of us, we are white slaves on Uncle Sam’s plantation taxed to death for the benefit of the minorities.

      • Cindy

        GET a grip.

      • Patrick Henry

        Not yet, but quickly getting there. Slaves aren’t allowed to own guns, once they try to take that, then we are officially slaves.

        Don’t be an Unarmed Sheep!

  • ItsOver

    Unfeaking real!

  • Mike Jones

    If the majority of the judges on this circuit are investigated, I bet they are Demo appointees.

    I do not care how old you are, or how much experience you have, every judge before sworn in should take a test on the US COnstitution.

    • Frank

      And there should be no life appointments. There needs to be term and age limits on all judgeships.

    • Me

      Gee, you really need to do some research and re-think your thoughts of being competent about politics. 7 out of 10 current active members of this Circuit are Republican nominees—and conservative Republicans are the ones who tend to be more permissive towards allowing police searches and seizures. If you want to weigh more towards personal freedoms rather than permissive police searches then go Democrat—if you want to lean towards personal freedom but hold conservative views on government spending, budget, and other similar economic matters then think about Libertarian.

    • Jojo

      On October 27, 1981, Posner was nominated by President Ronald Reagan to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

    • Lebek Johnson

      You might be surprised. Conservatives tend to push greater restrictions of Civil Liberties (especially since the inception of the War on Drugs).

      • mark

        Don’t know if that’s a true statement. I think it is more correct that the Repubs tend to trample on certain rights while the Dem’s trample on the ones left over.

    • oldcutlas

      posner was appointed to the court of appeals by REAGAN!!

  • steve5150

    This does not seem constitutional to me but I have noticed a growing number of court decisions where the judges involved don,t seem to have ever read the constitution.

  • John L.

    This NEEDS to be overturned! A clear violation of the 4th.

    • Rich in Cali

      How so? In fact, this could be construed as a ‘search incidental to arrest.’

      • oldcutlas

        even a search incidental to arrest should need a warrant!! Getting arrested doesn’t automatically make you a criminal!! Has everyone forgotten the basis for our criminal system “innocent till proven guilty”???The fourth amendment doesn’t say JACK about getting searched when you’re arrested!! the reason they search you before throwing you in a cell is to make sure you have no weapons or contraband!!!

      • ItsOver

        They havent forgotten sir. They dont know their rights. Sad days for sure.

      • Scott in Midwest

        Ya! There could be a Knife or gun hidden in the phone’s address book! Or drugs! Best to pat down those 1s and 0s. (idiot)

  • Lone_Gunman45

    Yet another of our “rights” down the toilet! This is an example of good intentions resulting in unintended consequences as it opens the door for mass abuse of our rights to privacy!

    Communism at it’s finest under the guise of catching bad guys?

    • mark

      Not communism, the judge was appointed by the granddady of conservatisim Ronald Reagan

    • DW

      You’re a fool if you believe ANY of this is the result of good intentions gone bad. Good intentions are as rare as unicorns with that crew.

  • Dave

    Looks like these guys haven’t seen the SCOTUS’ ruling on warrantless GPS tracking–this signals another bench slap for the 7th circuit because the SCOTUS is sick and tired of the police attempting to erode the 4th amendment. Sorry guys, a phone is just like a closed container, you can’t just start searching it without a warrant.

    • dave

      In United States vs Jones there was more of a time factor involved than appears in this case. In Jones they had a warrant, but let it expire prior to attaching the device. I can see lots of issues with these warrantless searches, but I don’t think Jones is a good precedent. I believe Chimel vs. California is a better precedent with the phone’s contents falling in the category of “destructible evidence”.

    • DW

      Apparently, you can.

    • dave

      When the make an arrest they must have developed a probable cause for the arrest. The search must be confined to evidence which relates to the probable cause or the immediate safety of the arresting officer. If they find evidence that is unrelated to the probable cause and the search was involuntary, it will likely be excluded in court. No fishing expeditions at the sobriety checkpoint.

  • merphisellis

    Obama and now Judge Richard Posner are impeachable for not understaining what the Constitution sayes!

    To h377 with them both!

    I will be tossing the cell phone today!

  • chuckly

    let me get this straight, the same people crying about the constitution in this case are the same ones that have no problem with us torturing prisoners who ‘may’ have information we need? Is that how this goes?

    • Mike Jones

      One is criminal law one is terrorism. The former is afforded by due process, the latter isn’t.

      You really know nothing about law do you?

      • chuckly

        Torturing is illegal, but bush did it anyway. But, don’t worry, I understand. Bush was a republican, so it’s ok for him to wipe his a$$ with the constitution.

    • KW

      The Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens I believe. Terrorists are not citizens, so you have to go to some other authority besides the Constitution.

      • DMAC

        Jimmy, The United States has been snookered by the liberals. Terrorist who carry no flag, wear no countries uniform and fight for no recognized government are nothing but terrorist. They are’nt even combatants. They are criminals acting in organized violence and are actually entitled to no rights what so ever and the United States could claim that position and there is nothing any court in the world could do about it. The rules set forth by the Geneva Convention are only for those fughting for a country and or government, not for individuals or small groups of individuals. The United States needs to just shoot these animals on sight. You don’t ever hear of anyone telling the Chinese or the Russioans to treat the terorist they deal with to give them a trail do you? No, becauase China and Russia would tell them to go to hell.

      • Know-it-mostly-not all

        Yep. The Genevea Conventions apply to terrorist, and if accurately interpreted, terrorist are eligible for immediate exectution upon capture. So Guantanomo and all the secret prisons are actually better treatment than they are eligible for.

      • DonnieB

        Right On KW

      • snipelee

        The Geneva Convention applies to nationally constituted AND uniformed armed forces – not terrorists

      • Eric Long

        Except when they are US citizens like Anwar al-Awlaki?

      • me

        Anwar Al-alwaki was a anchor baby

      • Jimmy

        NTM Im pretty sure the torture of enemy combatants is a Geneva convention thing. More of a “treaty”. I am not aware of ANY Constitutional Amendment that protects enemy combatants, and I am CERTAIN its NOT covered by the Bill of Rights. Terrorists are by there own actions, enemy combatants. There is no other classification that fits them. That is what they are, and if you ask them, they will TELL you that is what they are. No remorse, blowing themselves up for the sake of some Fanatical Cleric who promises something he cannot guarantee in the afterlife. God, Allah, Zeus, Yahweh, pick a god, they all represent the SAME God. Just different ways of seeing and understanding Him. If people would UNDERSTAND THAT SIMPLE STATEMENT, they would see that God (Allah) would never willfully command the destruction of his own creation. Only MAN would do that. Get that through your heads. MAN, not GOD orders MANS destruction. GOD did his part by giving you the FREE WILL to do it. The test is to see if your Godlike enough to NOT do it. Sadly, it is a test many of us fail. And sadly for God, he will remain alone as none of his creation is up to the task.

      • dave

        Actually, I believe the US Constitution applies to all persons who are physically present on US territory.

    • jerry

      Hey Chuly while you cry about the tortiring of prisoners. Take a step back and look at you POTUS and Mr Holder have declared that it is ok to KILL US citizens over seas .. WAKE UP MAN and quick drinking the KOOL AID

    • oldcutlas

      only because they are too stupid to realize that Posner is a reagan appointee!! they all think Obama appointed him ROFLMAO!!!

  • plainolamerican

    From Plato’s book:
    “Won’t he smile in welcome at anyone he meets, saying that he’s no tyrant, making all sorts of promises both in public and in private, freeing the people from debt, redistributing land to them, his followers, and pretending to be gracious and gentle to all?”
    However after a series of unpopular actions, including stirring up a war, the leader begins to alienate some of his most ardent advisers who begin to voice their misgivings in private. Following a purge of these advisors the tyrant attracts some of the worst elements of the state to help him rule. As the citizens grow weary of his tenure the tyrant chooses to attract foreigners to resupply his dwindling bodyguards. The citizens finally decide they’ve had enough and begin to discuss rebellion.
    At this point in the story the student asks his teacher incredulously: “What do you mean? Will the tyrant dare to use violence against [the people] imprison or to hit [them] if [they] don’t obey? The teacher answers,
    “Yes – once he’s taken away [the people’s] weapons.”
    The name of book 8 in the 10 book series from Plato Is THE REPUBLIC.

    • Jose

      Yep. I know was thinking the same thing. We are right now, as Plato correctly predicts, on the edge of tyranny.

  • NiteNurse

    If you haven’t committed a criminal act then there is usually no reason for the pokice to need to have access to your cell phone. Drug dealers usually store a lot of information on their phones that will help put these criminals away. What if someone you loved was killed and the killer texted your loved one. It’s important information. I don’t have a problem with allowing law enforcement to gather information from a cell phone if they believe a crime has been committed.

    • DMAC

      Someone died and lost their life so you could have the rights afforded to you by the Constitution of the United States. Why would you so easily give up something someone died to get for you?
      “One who gives up freedom for security will have neither freedom or security”, Benjamin Franklin

    • bman

      It violates the 4th Amendment plain and simple. I don’t care if it “saves lives” or whatever excuse you use, the Constitution is the rule of law in this country. Read it! Learn it! Understand it!

    • DeMouk

      Then they can get a warrant, like they are required to. It’s better that the guilty go free than to punish the innocent.

    • oldcutlas

      INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY!!! Getting arrested doesn’t make you a criminal!!!!!

    • John

      How naive you are. The can get your name address and phone number from your license and ASKING YOU FOR THE NUMBER! They can call it back ti see if it is correct. In your above example, they would have already searched all numbers on your ‘loved one’s’ phone AND could track the location in real time if the phone was on(or even a battery inserted). You MAY trust your local, county or state police, but do you trust the TSA,DHS,DEA or the gunrunning ATF? How about Eric Holder, you trust him? This case MUST go to the SCOTUS.

  • Tom NJ

    Why not just give the cops bags that block wireless signals. They can just throw the devices in the bag. If a warrant is issued turn the radios off while it is still in the bag and then search it.

    Doesn’t this decision allow every electronic device searchable at will?

    • Hootie00

      Why not just turn the phone off until a warrant can be obtained? This will not destroy the data and insure due process. Why ignore the protections of the Constitution when a lesser means is available?

  • Tony

    Judge Posner is involved in alot of high profile cases which he always rules for the government, he must be a Progressive or has been promised something if he
    rules for the PTB, powers that be, he needs to be removed.

    • Jojo

      On October 27, 1981, Posner was nominated by President Ronald Reagan to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

    • oldcutlas

      he is a radical conservative appointed by Reagan!!! ROFLMAO!!! A simple GOOGLE search will enlighten you!!!

      • 1EasyTarget

        “Posner is a pragmatist in philosophy, a classical liberal in politics, and an economist in legal methodology.”


        Not what I would call a radical conservative by any means.

  • Randy B

    Sure, why not? NEXT thing to do is to allow them to search your house without a warrant to prevent you from destroying evidence. Seriously, what the hell??? Apparently this judge (and MANY others) feels it’s ok to ignore the Constitution. Welcome to slavery…

  • Onewithwords

    Keep stepping on the people’s necks…keep it up…

  • bob

    somebody should kick that judge right in his teeth

  • Tony

    If people are smart they will stop all the facebook, twitter, social activity accts
    because its all gonna be used against you at some point, I think they are afraid of the social medium, and to that they must make you wary of it now,

  • Tony

    Randy thay already can search your house, with “sneak n Peek ” warrants

  • Johnny B Goode

    You folks voted for the Democrats who put these ignorant judges on the bench. You now have to sleep in the bed you made. Perhaps you folks are the really ignorant ones whom if they know anything about freedom and liberty would not elect a single Democrat.

    • ItsOver

      Oh boy….it really is over. Both parties could care less about liberty or freedom. Rep dem…divide and conquer

    • Joe Smith

      Posner was appointed by RONALD REAGAN. Not only that, Democrat judges tend to me more protective than Republicans on civil liberties. How can you be so insanely ignorant?

      • DeMouk

        The Dems are all for civil liberty until I want to carry a gun, as is my right. Then the Constitution is really vague.

      • Joe Smith

        Democrat judges tend to be more protective on almost every civil liberty issue. It’s hilarious that someone is blaming Democrat judges for a decision limiting the Fourth Amendment when the judge was appointed by a Republican and is a libertarian.

      • oldcutlas

        they are ignorant because their religion has strived to keep them that way (i.e. christianity)!! the same church who assured everyone that the world was flat and the universe revolves around the earth!!!

blog comments powered by Disqus
The Taz Show

Listen Live