Search Warrent

[Ozark_Sophist]

A dated source (2002) but provides good information on police search of electronic devices subsequent to an arrest:

http://www.cybercrime.gov/s&smanual2002.htm#_IC4_

 

[CdwJava]

Why would the police be suspicious?

Because you are not their peers, you are not their family, and you have nothing in common with them except for biology and natural urges. Either you are very immature, or there are some other mental health issues that compel you to kick it with kids almost half your age. Do you associate with people your own age very well?

It IS weird, and it IS something the police would look into. I'd flog my officers if they didn't at least investigate the matter to find out what the girls had to say. I suspect they said something to export this from a run-of-the-mill stop to a child molest investigation.

Do you ever drive your siblings around?

These were NOT your siblings.

Do you suspect every man with young children in a car?

No. Not unless they are 26 years old and traveling with two teenage girls that are only casual acquaintances.

They could have easily have been a sister/s.

But they weren't.

Our society has changed so much that you can't do anything nice for anyone without there being a motive.

That's the world we live in - perverts around every rock.

A random act of kindness can be of no good anymore. I was trying to be a big brother and a positive role model, not a boyfriend. Yes, there are disgusting pigs out there, but I am not one.

Then you should be applauding the attentiveness of the police instead of deriding it. What IF you had been intent on taking them off for immoral purposes? What IF you were a lecherous pig? You should thank the cops for looking into the wellbeing of your "friends".

I know of children recovered from the possession of men intent on doing them harm in almost the exact same set of circumstances you describe. And I have personally retrieved children from men in like situations.

Personally, I would be allowing my 14 year old daughter (if I had one) to take rides from 26-year-old men who are neither family nor close family friends, but I guess I'm a prude. Heck! I won't allow my 13-year-old SON ride with someone who is neither family nor a close friend!

- Carl

 

[>Charlotte<]

Can't you see how the police would be very suspicious of this?

Plus the fact that Carl had to practically pull that information out of him with a winch.

a cop is going to have his "HMMM detector redline

Well that's not what I call my detector, but it's redlining just the same.

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

5. Inventory Searches

Law enforcement officers routinely inventory the items they have seized. Such "inventory searches" are reasonable -- and therefore fall under an exception to the warrant requirement -- when two conditions are met. First, the search must serve a legitimate, non-investigatory purpose (e.g., to protect an owner's property while in custody; to insure against claims of lost, stolen, or vandalized property; or to guard the police from danger) that outweighs the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment rights. See Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640, 644 (1983); South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 369-70 (1976). Second, the search must follow standardized procedures. See Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 374 n.6 (1987); Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1, 4-5 (1990).

It is unlikely that the inventory-search exception to the warrant requirement would support a search through seized computer files. See United States v. O'Razvi, 1998 WL 405048, at *6-7 (S.D.N.Y. July 17, 1998) (noting the difficulties of applying the inventory-search requirements to computer disks); see also United States v. Flores, 122 F. Supp. 2d 491, 493-95 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (finding search of cellular telephone "purely investigatory" and thus not lawful inventory search). Even assuming that standard procedures authorized such a search, the legitimate purposes served by inventory searches in the physical world do not translate well into the intangible realm. Information does not generally need to be reviewed to be protected, and does not pose a risk of physical danger. Although an owner could claim that his computer files were altered or deleted while in police custody, examining the contents of the files would offer little protection from tampering. Accordingly, agents will generally need to obtain a search warrant in order to examine seized computer files held in custody.

From the link I posted above (DOJ). It would appear a search warrant would be necessary. State law may differ.

Edit: But I suppose it could be a search incident to arrest. Any comments?

 

[CdwJava]

There were 2 teens, me, and my uncle. He could have easily been their father, and I their brother.

And you could have all been part of a bizarre snuff film crew, too. What COULD have been is not what truly was.

The fact is that they were NOT your family, so trying to say they could have been is irrelevant.

Only AFTER the one said we talk online did they seem interested in the computers.

Of course. Any cop who has been out of the academy for more than a month knows that pedophiles often meet their prey online and then arrange to hook up with them. Very often, the on-line persona is NOT real, and the person is NOT interested in a "friendship", but, instead, wants to perform a less noble act.

So if anyone of you talks to friends online who are under 18, are you pedafiles?

Nope. But, I don't go giving them rides around town, either. Plus, the ONLY "kids" I chat with online are family members - nieces and nephews. Even then, I am NOT chatting as a friend, and they know that.

My wife has a friend who lives in Brazil who she has been talking to when he was 15 til the present. They shared a common interest and that is what they talked about. They talked about Japanese music. Is she a pedafile for this?

Of course not.

And if you have not been sexually involved with these girls, you are not a pedophile either. However, this does not mean that the police were without cause to investigate the matter since the circumstances ARE suspicious - whether you can see that or not.

- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

From the link I posted above (DOJ). It would appear a search warrant would be necessary. State law may differ.

Edit: But I suppose it could be a search incident to arrest. Any comments?

Hence the reason I posted a caveat that an argument can be made, but that I did not think it would be one I would want to make.

There are a number of different possibilities that can justify the search. And, for all we know, a search warrant was later obtained. It is also possible they will claim consent based upon whatever conversation transpired between the OP and the police.

However, if he is never charged with a crime, then the issue will be moot.

- Carl

 

[outonbail]

There were 2 teens, me, and my uncle. He could have easily been their father, and I their brother.

Only AFTER the one said we talk online did they seem interested in the computers. So if anyone of you talks to friends online who are under 18, are you pedafiles? My wife has a friend who lives in Brazil who she has been talking to when he was 15 til the present. They shared a common interest and that is what they talked about. They talked about Japanese music. Is she a pedafile for this?

It was 12 noon that this happened.

I have a couple of good friends who have daughters in the same age group as your "friends". I have spoke with them many times when I was over visiting and I have to say, while they are bright attractive young girls, I don't see anything that I would have in common with these girls that would make me want to "hang out" with them. I don't like going to the mall and trying on clothes, looking at boys, sneaking outside to smoke a cigarette or giggling at every stupid little thought one of them has. They listen to different music, wear different styles and view the world in a whole different way than an adult normally does.
So, what is it that you have in common with these young girls that has drawn you to them?

 

[suitechic1979]

So many things to respond to...

time it took place, Noon... on a Monday... after one of the girls was in a local parade.

I do know the familys... I've met their parents, picked them up FROM home, dropped them off AT HOME... their home, not mine... neither of them have ever been to my house. I'm not that stupid.

as for common interests, I'm a computer programmer, and one of the girls is interested in entering that field, so I'm helping her learn some stuff... since both girls are friends before me, I hang out with both. (and btw, outonbail, I am not "drawn" to them... they are just fun to hang out with. takes me back to my childhood, which was unfortunately cut short due to circumstances).

As for my intentions that day, I was taking them out to celebrate the one's birthday (the 7th), for a birthday lunch, then taking them to the other's house, as they were spending the night. (NOT AT MY HOUSE).

CdwJava, all your trying to do is paint an evil picture, while my intentions were not. If all you want to do is try to make me look like a pedo, please don't respond anymore... either reply with something of interest, like case law, or personal experience, or don't post at all. All you've said so far, in summary, is that I was going to rape and kill these two girls... which would have been kind of hard in a town, in the middle of the afternoon, and both girls parents knowing where we were...

And how can the police take something, THEN get a search warrant... that's like them knocking on your door, finding a bloody knife in your living room, taking it, THEN getting a search warrant.

If the police would have asked me if they could look at it, I would have said sure... I would have asked to copy some files off that I needed for work, NOT MOVE, COPY, then allowed them to take their sweet time. As I said, they took the laptop, a video game, but gave me back a USB Pen drive...

I'm just confused on the law CdwJava is trying to state... they can take something, THEN get a search warrant, which they STILL don't have... nor do they have my consent, and the Chief knows this, as per my call to him this afternoon.

 

[suitechic1979]

And you could have all been part of a bizarre snuff film crew, too. What COULD have been is not what truly was.

The fact is that they were NOT your family, so trying to say they could have been is irrelevant.

I COULD have been part of a church group transporting people home from an afternoon mass, or I COULD have been a cult leader, taking the ones who didn't drink the KoolAid to a gas chamber.

Exactly, things don't always SEEM as the APPEAR. But my point is, I've known these girls, and they've known me, for almost a year. We are not strangers, and they didn't look in distress. They were smiling and laughing before the police pulled me over.

Also, it was a 4 door car, so if I was kidnapping them I think they could have gotten out quite easily...

 

[CdwJava]

So many things to respond to...

And so little time ...

I do know the familys... I've met their parents, picked them up FROM home, dropped them off AT HOME... their home, not mine... neither of them have ever been to my house. I'm not that stupid.

But, the officers are not privy to that information, are they? They know they have a 26 year old man with a couple of kids in the car and someone said something that piqued their interest. They followed up on that as they are expected to do.

And, of course, you were driving unlawfully so that gave them a lot of time to chit-chat with the girls as they stood around.

Trust me when I say that from the outside, the situation looks fishy - even if it was purely innocent and benevolent. Though, I would seriously consider getting the whole driver's license thing straightened out before driving someone else's kids.

As for my intentions that day, I was taking them out to celebrate the one's birthday (the 7th), for a birthday lunch, then taking them to the other's house, as they were spending the night. (NOT AT MY HOUSE).

You take CHILDREN (not yours) out for their birthdays?! Okay, that is but one more thing that would trip the meter!

CdwJava, all your trying to do is paint an evil picture, while my intentions were not.

No, I'm not. I'm painting the picture that the officer (and most everyone else) would see from the outside. I have no idea what your intent was, but it does look suspicious. I would hope that you could take a dispassionate look at the situation and actually see that.

All you've said so far, in summary, is that I was going to rape and kill these two girls...

Please post where I said either of those things ...

which would have been kind of hard in a town, in the middle of the afternoon, and both girls parents knowing where we were...

Actually, it wouldn't be that hard. I could tell you stories of rape and even murder in a child's own room in the house where their parents were sleeping ... but, that's not the issue here.

And how can the police take something, THEN get a search warrant... that's like them knocking on your door, finding a bloody knife in your living room, taking it, THEN getting a search warrant.

Easy, they can take something to prevent you from destroying or altering it. They seize the computer for safekeeping and then obtain a search warrant for the contents. The alternative, of course, would be for all of you to sit on the side of the road for many hours while they seek the warrant ... but, they don't have to do it that way.

I'm just confused on the law CdwJava is trying to state... they can take something, THEN get a search warrant, which they STILL don't have... nor do they have my consent, and the Chief knows this, as per my call to him this afternoon.

As I said before, my guess is they have forwarded something to the DA or are considering this. In general, in ANY criminal investigation (even if nothing is found), the police are not usually going to release potential evidence without the approval of the DA or the order of the court.

Call the DA's office.


- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

I COULD have been part of a church group transporting people home from an afternoon mass, or I COULD have been a cult leader, taking the ones who didn't drink the KoolAid to a gas chamber.

Exactly, things don't always SEEM as the APPEAR. But my point is, I've known these girls, and they've known me, for almost a year. We are not strangers, and they didn't look in distress. They were smiling and laughing before the police pulled me over.

Also, it was a 4 door car, so if I was kidnapping them I think they could have gotten out quite easily...

Appearances and even laughter does not mean that there was nothing to investigate. The officer can only act on what they see and hear at the time they are there unless they have prior knowledge of you or the kids. Something can appear suspicious even when truly innocent. And the police are not in the habit of looking at something and saying what it COULD be. If that were the case, we wouldn't investigate anything because ANYTHING could be something else.

Plus, as I said, I have come across cases much like this where the driver WAS intending to do harm to the children. And since most kidnappings and rapes involving children are conducted by people who KNOW the victim, the officer's inquiries are certainly justified even more.

Had you not been driving on a suspended license, I suspect things would never have gotten this far ... unless the girls started making comments that piqued the police officer's curiosity right away.

We are expected to investigate crimes and suspicious activity ... we aren't expected to come up with excuses to explain suspicious acts or crimes away.


- Carl

 

[outonbail]

takes me back to my childhood, which was unfortunately cut short due to circumstances).

I guess this reasoning worked well enough for Michael Jackson

And how can the police take something, THEN get a search warrant... that's like them knocking on your door, finding a bloody knife in your living room, taking it, THEN getting a search warrant.

If the police knock on your door, you open it and they see a bloody knife, they are completely within the law to investigate further and of course, to confiscate the knife.

I'm not sure what you were trying to get at with this bloody knife scenario, but I would consider using a bloody knife as an example to parallel the circumstances surrounding the confiscation of your laptop, a bad comparison. Unless there is some form of proverbial "blood" to be found in your computer.

Anyway, have you spoke to the girls parents since this incident and asked them to contact the police on your behalf, to inform them that as a family friend, you had permission to bring their daughters to this parade and out to eat for one's birthday?

 

[Ohiogal]

I was introduced to one of them through a friend, and they are friends. Why would the police be suspicious? It is not like they were bound and gagged or injured. Do you ever drive your siblings around? Do you suspect every man with young children in a car? They could have easily have been a sister/s. Our society has changed so much that you can't do anything nice for anyone without there being a motive. A random act of kindness can be of no good anymore. I was trying to be a big brother and a positive role model, not a boyfriend. Yes, there are disgusting pigs out there, but I am not one.

Your name is suitechic1979 and you are a guy? Okay. They could have been siblings but apparently based on the information given to the police they are not and the police wanted to question them regarding why they were with you -- because most 26 year old guys who hang out with children that young who are NOT related to them are not usually sweet innocent lambs.

 

[suitechic1979]

Suitechic 1979 is my wife's login name. She has used this site before in dealing with wills and estates. She thought that I could try and get some help from this forum so instead of spending the time to register my own name, I just used hers. For your information, Suitechic is a Japanese singer also known as Namie Amuro who is very popular in Japan. It is her favorite singer, so that is why that name is used for her. I don't mean to condemn this forum but I have gotten more slander than help. Try to help people in a more neutral way, as the courts do... innocent until proven guilty.

 

[CdwJava]

I know *I* did not "slander" you, but I HAVE tried to explain to you - as have others - why the police might find the situation suspicious. The fact that you have apparently not been charged with a crime is a good indicator that your story at least appears to pan out.

Again I say that if you cannot see how suspicious the situation looks, then you need to wake up and smell the coffee!

- Carl