CA Governor Lets Police Search Your Smartphones At Traffic Stops

from the shameful dept

Tue, Oct 11th 2011 6:58am — Mike Masnick

While it had been rumored it's unfortunately now confirmed that California governor Jerry Brown has sold out your privacy to law enforcement. After a bad court ruling gave law enforcement the ability to search your mobile phone during a traffic stop, the California legislature realized the ridiculousness of the situation and passed the bill requiring a warrant pretty quickly.

But, unfortunately, despite widespread support for it, Governor Brown has vetoed the bill, meaning that your mobile phones are fair game for searches without a warrant. Not only that, but he couldn't even make a statement to stand up for what he believes in about this, apparently only arguing that he vetoed the bill because "the issue is too complicated for him to make a decision about" and that it's better for the courts to decide.

Governor Brown knows better than this and he's being intentionally misleading. The courts are supposed to interpret the will of the legislature and make sure it's in line with the Constitution. Here, the legislature is clearly saying that it thinks such searches need a warrant. Leaving it for "the courts" to resolve is punting, and failing to take a stand for basic privacy rights. It's a weak move.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: 4th amendment, california, jerry brown, mobile phones, privacy, searches

98 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Jay (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 7:05am

No conflict of interest...
Brown�s veto also shores up support with police unions and the Peace Officers Research Association of California, a police union that opposed the legislation and recently donated $38,900 to Brown�s campaign coffers. �Restricting the authority of a peace officer to search an arrestee unduly restricts their ability to apply the law, fight crime, discover evidence valuable to an investigation and protect the citizens of California,� the association said in a message.

That support would be key if Brown decides to seek a second term.

In the last year alone, at least seven police unions donated more than $12,900 each to Brown. Those unions, including the California Association of Highway Patrolmen and the Sacramento County Deputy Sheriff�s Association, had given Brown more than $160,000 in combined contributions

No conflict of interest at all...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 9:12am
  
  Re: No conflict of interest...
  > No conflict of interest at all...
  
  There's not a union in the state that Jerry Brown doesn't grease up and bend over for.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymous, 11 Oct 2011 @ 7:14am

he is in CA, after all, the epicenter of the entertainment industries. what does anyone expect? sense and justice? dont think so! what really amazes me is how anyone was actually twat enough to vote him into office in the first place? was he THAT good a liar during election time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 8:17am
  
  Re:
  This is the same state that allowed Schwarzenegger and Davis before him.
  
  If there were ever a state that needs better ways to vote, from being the epicenter of learning in the 80s, to the Hollywood police force of today, it's California.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 7:14am

Another governor..
who doesn't care about the rights of the people in his state. Some are simply bought outright by businesses, while others are under the control of special interest groups.

Are there any governors in the U.S. that truly care about their citizens?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2011 @ 7:19am

"Governor Brown knows better than this and he's being intentionally misleading. The courts are supposed to interpret the will of the legislature and make sure it's in line with the Constitution. "

I am sort of amazed here by the way you phrase this. You make it sound like there are no existing laws or court decisions already existing that cover this "in theory". Do we really need another law to muddy the waters? There are plenty of existing laws, and the courts are still not clear based on existing law how to handle smart phones.

Gov Brown is doing exactly the right thing: Let the courts work with the current laws, see where they fail based on judgements, and then move forward to address the issues that the courts bring into the game.

What is so hard to understand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2011 @ 7:41am
  
  Re:
  " Do we really need another law to muddy the waters? "
  
  Yes a law that would make it clear that you need a warrant to search phones at a traffic stop would really muddy things up. Best we just leave it unclear then to prevent it from being muddied.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DCX2, 11 Oct 2011 @ 7:43am
  
  Re:
  The courts have already ruled (see Mike's second link). The legislature didn't like that ruling, and made a new law. This is how The System is supposed to work.
  
  What is so hard to understand?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2011 @ 7:55am
    
    Re: Re:
    It isn't hard to understand. What is hard to understand is why it is a "bad court ruling". It doesn't appear to be, it appears to be entirely in line with all other normal in car search procedures.
    
    Let it run it's course (up to SCOTUS is they so desire) and then act. For the moment, this appears to be well within caselaw for all other searches. It's only a "bad court ruling" because Mikey doesn't like it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Incoherent One (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 8:00am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      They need a warrant to search my computer, they should need one to search my phone. It's a computer that fits in my pocket. It has personal data/banking/photos/work related items which is none of their business, and if they want it then they can get a damn warrant for it. PERIOD.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2011 @ 8:06am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      " It's only a "bad court ruling" because Mikey doesn't like it." Well Mikey and the people of California and the state legislature, but whatever.
      
      I mean a device with every communication you have had in the last 2 years is the same thing as a wallet.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btr1701 (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 9:15am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      > What is hard to understand is why it is a
      > "bad court ruling". It doesn't appear to be,
      > it appears to be entirely in line with all
      > other normal in car search procedures.
      
      No, it isn't because a smart phone is qualitatively unlike anything else one would carry in a car. A glove box and an iPhone are hardly the same thing for a variety of different reasons, so the rules that apply to the former can't reasonably be applied to the latter.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2011 @ 9:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But is an Iphone and a box of files on your passenger seat really different? They are, in the end, just a box full of information. If the box can be searched, why not your phone?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2011 @ 10:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You don't have to carry around a box full of files that has all your communications for the last 2 years all the time. Most people do need a phone for work and/or are dependent on it for their daily lives. If you had a box full of private documents you would choose whether or not to have that in the car at the time, its not something you would just lug around all the time, and would only bring it if you needed it at the moment. Plus if you lock the box they need a warrant to open it while, iirc, their phone scan software goes around password screen locks.
        
        Really you could lock your phone in your glove box, which would also decrease the number of jackasses driving around while talking on their phone but for those of us that use it for GPS and/or a music player that wouldn't really work.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btr1701 (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 10:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > But is an Iphone and a box of files on your
        > passenger seat really different? They are,
        > in the end, just a box full of information.
        > If the box can be searched, why not your phone?
        
        The entire basis and justification for allowing the search of the box is officer safety. They cans search the box to ensure that it doesn't contain weapons or explosives but they can't sit there and pour over the contents of the files and make copies for themselves for further investigation.
        
        There's absolutely no officer safety justification for seaching the contents of an iPhone. That's the difference between the phone and the box of files. The box could possibly contain a gun. The iPhone cannot.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2011 @ 3:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        A box full of information is not a computer with all your life history in it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chris Rhodes (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 10:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        just a box full of information
        
        More like an Acme portable hole that contains your entire life history.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Boost (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 10:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Untrue. Why? Because it is your personal, private property and the 4th amendment says that you don't have to submit to a search of your personal, private property without a warrent.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 10:24am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Let's have a look at the specs for my phone (the HTC Sensation):
      
      1.2GHz dual-core processor
      768 MB RAM
      8MP camera
      1080p multitouch screen
      
      I'd say that's old Laptop specs to me. Compare with my SO's Notebook:
      
      1.6GHz dual-core processor
      2GB RAM
      1.3MP camera
      576i screen (1440x900 resolution)
      
      I'm pretty sure it's FUBAR when the former can be searched without a warrant, whilst the latter can't.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Viln (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 7:54am
  
  Re:
  Sorry, but that was a ridiculous post made for no other reason than to continue to contradict Masnick regardless of the topic at hand. There's a point where the humor wears off.
  
  The legislature made a specific clarification to protect the people from an overall outrageous misinterpretation of police rights. Removing this clarification muddies the water. Police will continue to abuse this overreaching interpretation to violate individual privacy rights when there is no physical threat, and citizens will have to pursue legal means after their rights have been violated, at their own expense and time, when legislation was already in place to prevent the process to begin with.
  
  Jerry Brown has been doing a bang-up job lately of making people miss Arnold Schwarzenegger.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2011 @ 8:58am
  
  Re:
  The fact that the legislature decided that the existing laws had already failed based on judgment, then moved forward to address the issue doesn't count.
  
  All Brown had to do was sit on his hands. Instead he took an active effort to block the will of the legislature to correct a perceived wrong. And can't even explain why.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- HrilL, 11 Oct 2011 @ 9:17am
  
  Re:
  We already had a ruling at the appeals level that allowed Police to do these searches. The legislature thought they should create a new Law to make it so they need a warrant. Brown is an ass hat that was owned by special interest and corporations. We knew this the first time he was governor. Concluding that everyone that voted for him is a waste of oxygen.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- A Monkey with Atitude, 11 Oct 2011 @ 10:03am
  
  Re:
  its easy to understand... Follow the money...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2011 @ 11:47am
  
  Re:
  The lack of protection for citizens rights while courts take years to come to decisions... that is what is hard to understand.
  
  My phone is password protected, and I will refuse to provide that password, even under threat of arrest. And I have nothing there to hide.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2011 @ 2:29pm
  
  Re:
  What don't you understand the law already failed and people were trying to correct it.
  
  So I don't really see the point of your comment.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jogt, 11 May 2012 @ 3:55pm
  
  Re:
  Everything is obvious. Especially that you are a treacherous toady.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AJ, 11 Oct 2011 @ 7:19am

Password protect your phone, you should be doing it anyway. If they try to force you to unlock it, ask if you are being detained, or if your free to go. If they say your being detained, ask for a lawyer and plead the 5th. Nothing good can ever come of giving the authorities access to any personal device you own.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9834495-38.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- HrilL, 11 Oct 2011 @ 9:19am
  
  Re:
  This was my thought exactly. But you have to be willing to go and spend a day/night in jail. Sadly most people would rather give their rights up then do that. Plus your car could also be towed depending on where you were pulled over.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - AJ, 11 Oct 2011 @ 9:43am
    
    Re: Re:
    Yeah, sometimes it's not easy..... but people have to start understanding that rights are like muscles, either exercise them, or lose them.
    
    I have a CC permit so I've done some extensive research on my rights at a traffic stop, and when stopped on foot in public, especially when I'm carrying. I was very surprised at what I learned. I think the key is, never consent to anything, stay polite and calm, and keep your mouth shut.
    
    http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform-immigrants-rights-racial-justice/know-your-rights-what- do-if-you
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - hothmonster, 11 Oct 2011 @ 10:03am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "I was very surprised at what I learned. I think the key is, never consent to anything, stay polite and calm, and keep your mouth shut."
      
      Yeah, really when talking to a cop you only should use 4 phrases: Yes sir, No sir, I do not consent to any searches and am I being detained?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Almost Anonymous (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 11:08am
  
  Re:
  I'm tired of googling it, so I'm not providing links. Rest assured that law enforcement doesn't care about your password or swipe pattern or whatever, they can copy your phone's data wholesale. It's *possible* that whole phone encryption might make a difference, but I really doubt it. And by the way, they won't be deleting their copy of your data, and what are you going to do about it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - AJ, 11 Oct 2011 @ 11:34am
    
    Re: Re:
    I was under the impression that you could set your phone to disable the mini usb plug when the phone is locked. If this is not the case, then you are absolutely correct, encrypt your data... probably not a bad idea even if the lock thing works....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 11:41am
  
  Re:
  There's one problem. If I hadn't mangled my earlier post, then you should be able to understand it.
  
  If you decided to record the police with your phone, then it's left open. So any evidence you may have of wrong doing on the phone, the officer can go through and delete without anything to back up what you say. So it may be better to have a camcorder or fight for this right in court.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2011 @ 2:31pm
  
  Re:
  Even though pin numbers for smartphones can be broken in minutes by bruteforce attempts it still helps if you don't use:
  
  0000
  1234
  9999
  5678
  
  as passwords.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hulser (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 7:31am

Misleading headline
"CA Governor Lets Police Search Your Smartphones At Traffic Stops"

As I understand it, the issue is whether the police can search someone's cell after they've been arrested, not just during a traffic stop. I'm not saying that what they're doing is OK, but based on the headline and all of the text of the post, it makes it sound like the cops are demanding that people hand over their cell phones when they get pulled over for speeding or having a tail light out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Shel10 (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 10:01am
  
  Re: Misleading headline
  Police may not ask for your cell phone when they stop you for speeding, but they still have the option and you never know when it will become standard operating procedure. Also, if you are arrested, there is a presumption that you have 5th amendment rights. However, when you are driving certain rights are considered to be waived.
  
  The danger is that law enforcement will make the assumption that rights are waived and they can use the information found in your cell phone to launch additional investigations.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2011 @ 10:05am
  
  Re: Misleading headline
  I'm pretty sure if it is on your person and they get you out of the car then they are allowed to search it, as they are allowed to search you and anything on your person for their own safety. Its a good thing the actaully get to look in the phone too because my phone is full of dangerous weapons, like an app that makes shotgun sounds, and the internet...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 7:35am

Phone security
Password protection of a phone does not encrypt the contents, and current phone scraping tools bypass that directly. What is needed are phones that have strong encryption of the contents and REQUIRE a proper password/key to access in any manner, other than to receive a call.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 7:41am
  
  Re: Phone security
  Pretty sure it's been done.
  
  But, most people do not care enough to take personal responsibility and learn to do things like that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 10:00am
  
  Re: Phone security
  > Password protection of a phone does not
  > encrypt the contents, and current phone
  > scraping tools bypass that directly.
  
  Yeah, but the average patrol officer who pulls you over for speeding isn't going to have that sort of equipment on hand.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Almost Anonymous (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 11:13am
    
    Re: Re: Phone security
    """Yeah, but the average patrol officer who pulls you over for speeding isn't going to have that sort of equipment on hand."""
    
    Wrong. This is just one example of the simple equipment used, there are other providers too:
    
    http://www.cellebrite.com/forensic-products/forensic-products.html?loc=seg
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btr1701 (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 11:47am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Phone security
      > Wrong. This is just one example of the simple
      > equipment used
      
      Let me put it this way, I work with cops on a daily basis, and none of the ones I've encountered have such equipment on hand.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2011 @ 11:28am
  
  Re: Phone security
  and for some reason... RIM is struggling in the market? Blackberry full disc encryption FTW. Cellbrite that!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Butcherer79 (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 7:40am

A few questions (forgive me if I missed these in the post)
What happens if you just have a regular cell phone, not a 'smartphone'?
When they say search, are they allowed to delete anything (video for instance) that they find and don't like (for fear of it being used against them)?
Does this search include the memory card on your phone?
Are all officers now going to have to be trained on how to: firstly, establish what is a smartphone, and secondly, know how to operate all smartphones in existance? - Will they be wanting a payrise for this extra qualification?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 7:43am
  
  Re: A few questions (forgive me if I missed these in the post)
  Naw, they'll detain you beside the road for 3 hours while awaiting the "phone expert" if the officer suspects (no proof, mind you) that you may have a smart-phone.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2011 @ 7:47am

Yet another politician selling out the American people for "campaign contributions.". The problems with America's political system begin with the legalized bribery known as "lobbying.". This country will forever be corrupt as long as politicians are able to accept gifts from anyone. Lobbying needs to be viewed as what it really is and be banned outright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
theangryintern (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 7:51am

here's an idea
Don't keep anything incriminating on your phone and you have nothing to worry about. Even better, don't speed and you won't get pulled over and therefore won't give police the opportunity to search your phone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- bjupton (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 8:04am
  
  Re: here's an idea
  Yes.
  
  This is how it is supposed to work in a free society.
  
  You've got it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 8:05am
  
  Re: here's an idea
  The content on your phone doesn't matter. The problem is the fact that they're searching your phone at all, when there's no reason to. If it is true that this is being allowed just for routine traffic stops, the fact that I'm speeding has nothing to do with what's on my phone.
  If an officer pulls me over, and I'm stupid enough to have a bag of weed sitting on my lap, then yes, they may arrest me. I am still however, entitled to a lawyer and to have my belongings searched in a legitimate manner. If I'm arrested for drug possession/speeding/whatever, as far as I can tell, the officer does not have the authority to just then and there search my phone on the spot (if I'm wrong, please correct me people). Such searches, as I understand it, come afterward, once I have access to a lawyer.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jay (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 9:36am
    
    Re: Re: here's an idea
    There's an even worse implication here. Let's say that you are recording with your camera and the officer decides to arrest you. Most smartphones don't have the ability to turn the phone off after you're being arrested. So the officer may have unwarranted access. And what if the officer is corrupt, even the slightest?
    
    Well, after you're detained, he could arrest your data, implicating him! Then, practically any access you have to email, social networks, on your phone, is liable to have you jailed and the police a LOT of access to your friends and family.
    
    This isn't just unconstitutional, this is an invasion of privacy on untold levels.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jay (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 9:39am
      
      Re: Re: Re: here's an idea
      "he could arrest your data"
      
      arrest your = erase any
      
      GRRR...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Incoherent One (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 8:07am
  
  Re: here's an idea
  We are the government and we are here to help you?
  
  Your statement is the classic line of someone who is willing to have his rights stripped away for what? I get pulled over for a burnt out tail like (it actually does happen) and then the officer gets to go through my phone and pull out my banking information, some CC statements,photos of my kids, my wife, access to my work e-mail, private e-mail? Its not about having something to hide. Its about its none of their god damn business.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2011 @ 8:10am
  
  Re: here's an idea
  Moron...
  
  They can pull you over for *anything* if they want to harass you.
  
  I've been pulled over for a busted taillight apparently just so I can be interrogated about the age of the female passenger in my vehicle at the time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Angelito (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 8:13am
  
  Re: here's an idea
  You are letting out all the fun...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- el_segfaulto (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 8:13am
  
  Re: here's an idea
  And if you've ever been guilty of being Hispanic whilst driving (I do that remarkably often) what then? What guarantee do I have that I won't be charged with obstruction of justice for encrypting the contents of my phone (the same way I do with my home PC and server).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Aaron *Head* Moss (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 8:51am
    
    Re: Re: here's an idea
    Well, that's entirely your fault. If you weren't so Hispanic, it wouldn't be a problem, now would it. I don't have that problem. 8)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - el_segfaulto (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 9:53am
      
      Re: Re: Re: here's an idea
      I try my best dammit! I stay indoors programming for 8 hours a day! It's not like I'm dark dark, more Ricky Ricardo than George Lopez.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2011 @ 10:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: here's an idea
        hmmm, i would imagine as long as you stay away from white women you should be fine
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bengie, 11 Oct 2011 @ 8:29am
  
  Re: here's an idea
  Damn near everything is illegal now. It's not a matter of not doing illegal stuff as not being in the "right place at the right time" for an officer to "think" you're doing something illegal.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2011 @ 1:21pm
  
  Re: here's an idea
  i assume that this comment was meant as snark?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 3:01pm
  
  Re: here's an idea
  Right. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear. We've seen how that works.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2011 @ 3:32pm
  
  Re: here's an idea
  LoL
  
  What is incriminating?
  Congress doesn't know how many laws are in the books.
  Are you saying that every citizen now needs to be an expert in the law to carry a phone?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
bjupton (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 8:03am

and what about if I am pulled over by the suede denim secret police?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Incoherent One (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 8:09am
  
  Re:
  Please certify that the nerve gas is organic in nature.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2011 @ 8:36am
  
  Re:
  Two points to you good Sir..
  
  Dead Kennedys - "California �ber Alles"
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlvUz6phquo
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2011 @ 3:51pm
    
    Re: Re:
    http://www.jamendo.com/en/track/182367
    
    "Every get the feeling that everything in America is completely fucked up?"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2011 @ 8:36am
  
  Re:
  > and what about if I am pulled over by the suede denim secret police?
  
  you probably don't have to worry.. they're there for your uncool niece.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jello, 11 Oct 2011 @ 11:26am
  
  Response to: bjupton on Oct 11th, 2011 @ 8:03am
  Just give them your uncool neice.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
shmengie (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 8:09am

governor moonbeam
he's turning into the worst governor ever. i have no love for the rebulicans, but gerry's idea of fixing the state is to spend more money on entitlement programs. and, in typical dem fashion, broaden government's powers. now that palin's gone, alaska's looking pretty good. just build a shack in the middle of nowhere, and hopefully get left alone.

wait...crap, isn't that how kazinski started?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2011 @ 8:14am
  
  Re: governor moonbeam
  He started with a boat load of acid, the shack thing was the beginning of the 3rd act.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- el_segfaulto (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 8:14am
  
  Re: governor moonbeam
  I refer you to the case of Douche vs. Turd Sandwich.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
chris (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 8:27am

California �ber Alles
pretty sure the dead kennedys warned us about this in the 70's
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CR2rxRMcTE

just sayin'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- gorehound (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 9:56am
  
  Re: California �ber Alles
  Awesome !!! I have all the Dead Kennedys music.I am now 55 and still play in two punk bands.Been playin since 1972.Here is a youtube link to me playin in boston 1979.Only time The Transplants from Boston were filmed.I am the singer/founder of band.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gD0CDLJ7yzQ
  
  This Governor is just the kind of man we need to throw out of Washington and tar & feather him as an example.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
googly_eyes, 11 Oct 2011 @ 8:33am

Serious question
So what if I have a lock screen on my phone and refuse to unlock it?

Jerry Brown was a fool's choice, but then, I live in a state of fools (yes California).
Somehow the state has convinced itself that it's citizens are highly "enlightened" and should lead the rest of the country.
Fact of the matter is, it's just as full of moral and ethical failings as any other state, and is overrun with 'educated' idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 10:13am
  
  Re: Serious question
  > Jerry Brown was a fool's choice, but then, I
  > live in a state of fools (yes California).
  
  And don't forget-- not only did he veto this cell phone bill, he signed the Dream Act bill, which reaches into the pockets of California citizens and hands it over to illegal aliens.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - S, 11 Oct 2011 @ 11:18am
    
    Re: Re: Serious question
    ". . . each works according to his abilities and gets according to his needs."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btr1701 (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 11:49am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Serious question
      > ". . . each works according to his abilities
      > and gets according to his needs."
      
      It's getting to the point where even that isn't true anymore. You only get according to how much your grievance group gives to the politicians.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jesse Townley (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 11:52am
    
    Re: Re: Serious question
    Are you high? It allows young illegal aliens AND legal residents who are offspring of illegal aliens to go to college to you know, better themselves.
    
    Hmm, should we push to educate more of our residents or should we continue to isolate legal residents whose parents are illegal and young illegals?
    
    It's like the drive to deny drivers licenses to illegals. The result is more unlicensed drivers with no insurance.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
James, 11 Oct 2011 @ 8:34am

What if you don't have a phone?
Or rather, hide your phone underneath your seat when you get pulled over?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- bjupton (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 8:38am
  
  Re: What if you don't have a phone?
  cops love when you look like you are reaching under the seat when they walk up.
  
  this will work out well.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - James, 11 Oct 2011 @ 8:59am
    
    Re: Re: What if you don't have a phone?
    You have a good 3-4 minutes after being pulled over to do stuff. The cop is busy writing down your license and running it in his/her system.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2011 @ 9:07am
      
      Re: Re: Re: What if you don't have a phone?
      and rooting around under your seat is a good way to pass the time and not draw any suspicion
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - jackwagon (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 9:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: What if you don't have a phone?
        and how do I use my camera phone to record him violating my civil rights if the phone is under the seat?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - bjupton (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 9:46am
      
      Re: Re: Re: What if you don't have a phone?
      or, they are just looking busy so that they can see if you are trying to hide something.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2011 @ 9:43am

Another wakeup call for the Tardian nation. Guess what? If the internet doesn't stop at borders, then your liablity as a result of it doesn't stop either.

You can't have it both ways - the internet crosses all borders, which means your content is published in all of those areas too.

Suck it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2011 @ 10:07am
  
  Re:
  you trying to talk about the Thai king? because this makes no sense here
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2011 @ 3:37pm
  
  Re:
  I want to see how all those drug addicts in the music industry will react when they discover that they can't travel to any muslin country or sell anything there because they are offensive to the morals there or they get arrested for something they did or said on the internet.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shel10 (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 9:53am

Brown's Weak Move
Weak move for a weak Governor. Can't wait for his limo to be stopped and some police officer reads all of the Governor's mail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 10:19am
  
  Re: Brown's Weak Move
  > Can't wait for his limo to be stopped and
  > some police officer reads all of the Governor's
  > mail.
  
  You'll be waiting a long time, then. The governor has a CHP escort. No cop is going to pull over a motorcade being escorted by a bunch of other cops.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2011 @ 10:26am

He's a lefty democrat with the courts filled with like minded leftys, of course he wants the courts to do the heavy lifting. It's the reason leftys want leftys on the bench. I serves the lefty will without exposing the elected leftys to unpopular laws that people do not like. This is typical legislating from the bench something the leftys are good at.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2011 @ 11:15am
  
  Re:
  yeah, fuck southpaws
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
PrometheeFeu (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 11:43am

I agree his explanation is BS. The legislature was doing its job here of setting the rules so the courts could interpret them. The thing to remember is Jerry Brown used to be the AG. AGs are not well known for their love of civil liberties. They live and die by their conviction rate and so pretty rapidly, everyone starts looking like a criminal to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jesse Townley (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 11:49am

Cue "California Uber Alles"...
Actually, he's been a helluvalot better than Arnold, Gray Davis, or the parade of grey-faced Republicans who preceded the Dem Gray Davis.

Is he perfect? Does he always do the right thing? Fuck no, but part of that is the ridiculously bollixed up Legislature in California.

But this decision is bullshit. He should've signed it and sucked up to the Police & Prison Guard unions some other way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2011 @ 1:56pm

Remember the dust-up during the campaign when one of Brown's henchmen was overheard suggesting that they call Meg Whitman a whore? And wasn't the special interest in that case a LEO union?

Sieg heil, moon Fuhrer!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2011 @ 3:01pm

The CONstitution does us no good. Far better we would be without it and the government it set up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
joe, 14 Oct 2011 @ 11:38am

Wrong
This article is incorrect. It is incident to arrest, not merely at traffic stop. There is no justification for cell searches without arrest. Step your game up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thebes, 18 Oct 2011 @ 10:39pm

Kalifornia. Uber Alles.
Kaliforniaaa UBER Alles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stk33 (profile), 19 Oct 2011 @ 7:44am

The linked articles mention phones' search during arrest; the title of this article mentions traffic stop. Surely traffic stop isn't an arrest, is it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]