I think we should all be sick of all vertical power structures and the arbitrary hypocrisy they always practice. The one in question here is capitalism.
It was set up this way for a reason. To give you the illusion of freedom. But the masters had to make sure their will could always be enforced. So they gave their agents, the judges, the power to “interpret” the law. Laws could be written and enforced in such a way that leaves little to interpretation. But, then those on top could not bend the rules for themselves or change them at will. The so-called founding fathers were extremely clever, and they wanted to make sure the wealthiest citizens always retain the power. Most of the freedom, privilege and protection the law affords is a illusion. It only applies to the lower classes, but it is ethereal and meaningless when it comes to those with real pull.
But can use hard attacks to break it with the help of modern computing capabilities. Plus they can access the stuff inside the same methods the repairmen do it when they recover data for various clients who's phones met with a bad ending.
I'm 46 years old and have moved all over the 48 states every year. I have seen nothing but Fascism from coast to coast my whole life. So what do you mean awfully close to?
surprising enough they did just make a good free speech ruling.... MEINECKE vs Seattle street preacher assaulted by antifa, cops arrest preacher....didn't turn out so well for the city.
You should try the 5th circuit. Anything IP related, forget the facts, just rule in the favor of the one claiming the IP. Anything with the people vs government actors (police, etc) with video proof, the video is lying; the word of an officer is more reliable and trustworthy than the video evidence.
*This is why I don’t use any biometric features on any devices. I use a custom alpha-numeric password that I tend to forget when I get a little stressed out. Call me “old fashioned”* 🤷🏼
Exactly. For most people, a phone knows more about you than a spouse does. Cops are also so fkn untrustworthy now, they'd check through the phones of girls just to see what thay can see.
I can agree to that to a point, however, why the hell would anyone keep any sort in incriminating evidence on their phone anyway? You can take my phone right now and look through it, there's nothing on there that would get me on trouble or cause embarrassment either. Naturally, why the hell would there be?
@@MysticKnight7 I mean why would anyone keep illegal substances inside their place of residence? Its convenient and people working within the law shouldnt be able to just randomly search your shit because of a cosmetic choice (Window Tint)
@@MysticKnight7 We would expect you to acknowledge that just because you seem to think you don't have incriminating things does not mean that you don't. Unjust laws are a thing for all you know you could have a website of sexual material that you are under the assumption is completely legal but offends the sensibilities of the cop and you get arrested under the obscenity law. You could literally be writing down your emotions in a notepad that is on your phone because that's just what you do or writing down scary stories and they would try to use it to frame you for a crime.
They’re super lawyers How wouldn’t they not be ? They’re not even peers, they’re people the system works for and always worked for. And how many more laws they gonna make ? New laws every year ??
Maybe read a little before only taking this video as your source. His terms of parole, signed by him, allowed searches of electronic devices without cause. That point didn’t seem to be made clear here
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" The ninth circus must have missed that part
The person here was on court supervision, and as a provision of that was required to provide access to electronic devices. These kinds of provisions are part and parcel of supervision (probation and parole). Searches of the person and their residence are standard as well as submitting to random drug screens. For some offenses, access to electronic devices may make sense. So on the whole, this has no bearing on anyone other than those on some kind of supervision by the Court.
When involved with police. For iPhone, You can hold the power button and volume button to enter the restart screen then cancel and your phone will REQUIRE a passcode and biometrics can’t be used to unlock. Then you can access your camera app to film the police without unlocking your phone.
ya with android you can just reboot your phone normally, but when it boots up, same things bio won't work, you must enter code. pro tip: when you see them lights behind you, reboot your phone and forget about it, or just turn it off. also make sure your phone memory and sd card are both encrypted.
Really.. Name one judge, cop, DA, politician, general, etc.. that has not failed to obey, support and defend the constitution against all enemies.. 😂😂😂
Why stop there, the Supreme Court is literally exchanging rulings for gifts and cash. Often they argue literal reading and intent of the founding fathers to next weeks “interpretation” of intent. In a capitalist based society everything is for sale including your rights and freedoms. Vote blue vote red but for christs sake vote freedom!
Not here. Note that the guy that determined this case was out on parole. Meaning he has essentially no Constitutional rights when it comes to random searches since he gave them up as a condition of parole. I seriously doubt this decision applies to the average citizen not on parole or probation.
FYI most phones have a security settings called lock down mode you hold the power button like you're turning it off then it goes into this mode that requires you're pass code not fingerprint
The moment he said 9th I had to laugh. It'll be overturned by SCOTUS. Just like the overwhelming majority of decisions the r3t@rds in CA's 9th Circuit had rendered.
Blood draw tells you only whats in a person's blood, searching their phone reveals someone's entire life. If a blood draw requires a warrant this absolutely should.
Federal judges do not have to be bar members to sit on the bench anyway. It's a lifetime job, try to name something more pointless than going after their bar status, lol.
Also, as a part police accountability community, the tint as the reason for the stop rings all sorts of bells in my head. Im almost surprised there was no resisting or obstruction thrown at him for good measure.
Getting a warrant while they wait along the side of the road opens it up to even more abuse. Imagine having a judge on standby waiting to sign a warrant for the most trivial reasons.
There is one judge in CA that was drunk driving and killed a guy. The guy was walking down the side of the road in a poorly lit area. The judge swerved and hit him than fled the scene. 3 Hours later he called the police to go find the guy and come give him a breath test, no blood draw was taken. At that time the judge still blew .12 so who knows what he was when he hit the guy. In court the judge got off completely free after he somehow argued the death was the result of the guy walking at night without proper protective gear.
Minnesota supreme court just decided recently that the inside of your car is considered public property when you're driving on public property. Zero trust in the courts to do the right thing.
That is a really stupid argument. So they are saying personal property becomes public property when it is no longer on private property. How can they enforce any theft charged with such a claim. It would be really nice if judges were actually required to have a brain outside of their ass.
And their houses, don't forget that part, as long as there is evidence to justify the search after the fact. It's guilty till proven innocent in their court room, hold them to it too.
Smart folks use HOME phones for conversations that they want to keep private, as cell phones are NOT private, as they are radio transmitting and receiving devices, and the radio waves are PUBLIC DOMAIN.
I just served on a jury for a murder case. The cops had access to the phone belonging to the state's star witness--she gave them permission--and didn't even try to retrieve deleted messages from her phone even after she admitted she'd deleted some of the defendant allegedly threatening her. The cop who testified said that it's possible to retrieve them but that they'd need an upgraded version of the program they're using or another program they aren't currently using. They got access to the defendant's phones a few days later when he was arrested. They didn't retrieve anything from them. No real explanation for that That wasn't the only problem with the investigation but it was a big one.
They may not tell the jury that information. I think hearings to suppress evidence are done without the jury present. The most absurd thing in our judicial system is the court can decide to keep information from the jury.
@@DS-lt7fw Well, the grand jury, as a member of that, you are responsible for interviewing the cops/witnesses and looking into the evidence, your job is to determine if there is sufficient evidence to even go to trial. So look out for it there. We threw out a case about drug possession, because the cop claimed it was x amount of y drug, but it turns out they never even tested it while in their possession and it disappeared before it made it to the lab...you bet your ass we didn't go ahead with that case regardless of his testimony. It was fun to ask him questions about it though. The attorney even thanked us after the fact, because she had no idea how she could try such a case. There were more like that, but that one stuck with me.
@@williamharshman9572 That's one way to permanently get removed from jury duty. I mentioned it way back in the 90s and got 60 days for polluting the jury pool for mentioning when questioned.
Biometric unlocking never has been a security feature, it's a convenience function. Just use a Pin and don't make online backups, that is what gives law enforcement access.
Power corrupts, while actions maybe might be born out of good intentions like trying to locale a child by doing this to a child molester it just doesn't really justify taking away our freedoms. Yeah it might suck for the police that they have to investigate instead of just jumping over where the fence is lowest, but frankly I am not willing to give up my freedoms for anybody or anything.
Our branches are supposed to be civic minded and working against each other to preserve liberty and freedom. Unfortunately our tripod has been a monopole for the past century.
When someone is on parole, they don't have any more rights than if they were still in prison. Unless something has changed, since the OJ incident, the average citizen can not be compelled to unlock their cell phones.
A court has already decided years ago that forcing a person to unlock their phone violates a person's right against self-incrimination. So how does another court decide you must self-incriminate?
There's a huge difference between fingerprinting someone for database cataloging to keep track of prisoners and identify them, and forcibly using their digits to unlock their personal device to provide evidence against them. Definitely needs a warrant. That judge needs to be removed.
No need for a warrant to open your safe right? We will just mash your thumb on it if its got a fingerprint scanner... And you better hope you don't have a fingerprint lock on your house. We will just mash your finger anywhere it'll grant us access right?
I'd say, using his thumb to unlock the phone is the = fingerprinting is the equivalent to taking a suspects car key and searching the car = terry frisk
@@wurgel1 Id argue it's worse... Taking keys and opening a car with them is still an illegal search but its a illegal search with no physical contact, Using a fingerprint is the same search without consent or a warrant but it's also a search with forceful physical contact.
@@wurgel1 Keys are almost never on the person unless they have a newer car with remote start, and even still they are often in a bag or cupholder. getting the keys to unlock a car is a weird uncommon situation, so let me change the narrative and say the police want to search the locked trunk instead. They need the keys and the keys are more than likely not on the person, Means the only physical contact is the act of detaining them which in this story would have already happened.
@@yoretabio4537 People really have this thing on the brain too much, mostly due to Hollywood movies. They don't realize the mentality that is in America isn't Nazi Germany but Bolshevik Russia and Stasi Germany.
The judiciary is getting out of control with activist judges exercising their ideological beliefs in their court rooms instead of being impartial triers of fact.
None of these places had the technology to surveil you like modern governments have, Gestapo, Stasi and KGB could only dream of have so much insight in peoples private affairs.
That ruling is akin to allowing evidence found in a home without a warrant. That judge should be removed for blatantly violating the constitution. Or at least given a blanket party.
Your honor, the defendant reluctantly signed the confession. The defendant reluctantly opened the door to his house and then reluctantly showed us where the contraband was.
"Was this before or after the defendant reluctantly broke his right orbital bone and three teeth against the poor defenseless fists of the arresting officer?"
He was on parole. The terms and conditions he agreed to allow them to search anything he owns any time of day or night with or without a warrant. It usually called a 5 way search. Person, home, vehicle, place of work, electronic devices.
That may have been how this started, but now that the circuit court has ruled that its no different than them being Fingerprinted, Anyone under arrest could be subjected to this. That's the point.
There’s a difference between submitting a device to them and actively participating in the search of that device. In this case the officers overstepped by forcing the man’s “cooperation”
Provisions of Parole people!!! He's on Parole!!! I am not at all for giving up rights , but with felony convictions you do end up losing your rights! So stay clean!
The difference between getting your fingerprints taken for identification and using your fingerprint for opening your phone is gigantic. The judge needs to be barred from any courtroom.
To be able to use biometrics, and to avoid this from happening, you should also be able to use it together with a screen 3×3 grid pattern code, so only the fingerprint does not open, and the pattern does not open the phone without fingerprint, it is more annoying than just a fingerprint, but is safer against cases like these. Since the pattern requires cognitive thoughts. (Also using just the fingerprints could unlock just the hidden notifications, for convenience.
@@kiefgaming1701 That's easier said than done dude. Finger print access is a nice alternative to passwords, cause most ppl nowadays can't remember their password.
Nothing in my phone is illegal , but that doesn't mean I am obliged to allow access to prove it. No court muppet is going to rummage through my personal information.
That’s the point tho. With over 7000 laws on the federal register one can’t possibly know which law if any has been broken. Then, while in custody for say doing a 1A audit, LE forces you to unlock your phone and you inadvertently tell on yourself for god knows what 😮
If you’re on parole, as this guy, you would have ‘literally’ signed away that right of privacy and in fact could be searched anytime and anywhere and for no reason at all.
It gets worse. If you leave the U.S. and return the CBP can require you to hand over your cellphone & password. They can copy it, download anything & it is perfectly legal without a warrant. Happens to Muslim Americans & many journalists often, particularly between Canada & Detroit. Consider buying a burner phone overseas or before travel. They can also detain you. They're conflating customs functions with suspension of Constitution based on whether you are formally in or outside of U.S. So much must be fixed after we vote to keep democracy.
Parolees are fundamentally different from non-sentenced individuals because Parolees are still in the custody of the State. Parolees are merely in the community but still serving their Sentence.
if you look at the court's opinion, they mention that his parole conditions included that police and parole officers could search him and his property at any time without a warrant or probable cause. They often handcuff a person when they do this (the now-famous "officer safety")
@@TimothyWelty because it's still a popular opinion that "once a criminal, always a criminal." And that doing your legally-mandated time is somehow not enough. We've decided that any criminality means that it's ok to strip people of their rights. They can't vote, they can't have privacy, they are not entitled to minimum wage even when they are loaned out to private companies and receiving pay. It's all part of the larger plan to make being X illegal. They did it to liberals, hispanics, blacks, and the impoverished with weed. Take something that is legal from marginalized groups, make it illegal, and render that whole demographic as 'criminal' to silence them, stripping them of their rights and ways to fight back :/
I feel the main fact that is being overlooked by many here is only because it was a previous condition of his release from jail, out now on parole, providing the reason that the warrantless right to search could be upheld. Technically he was not a free citizen, being a parolee, until his full sentence is fulfilled. Normal citizens should never be subjected to such unwarranted searches.
As a former police officer, I always said, "When in doubt, get a warrant", I agree there However, an average citizen not on parole can refuse this forcible violation of the 4th amendment. A warrant points out probable cause, items you are looking for, and shields you from the friuts of the poisonous tree. In addition, there is no reasonable articulate suspension that I have committed a crime, besides the traffic violation.
On an iPhone to temporarily disable biometrics, press and hold both the power button and volume up buttons until the power-off screen pops up. Or press the power button 5 times in quick succession (note: this will most likely start an Emergency Call, that you should quickly cancel). Both of these will require your passcode for the next unlock, and then biometrics will be re-enabled.
Should be and hopefully will be. Sadly police can lie to us, but even now seemingly in reports, depositions, and testimony it is not only accepted, but applauded. "Reluctantly agreed" (while cuffed}, I'm losing all faith we can survive as a Republic.
@@W1ldt1m seems extreme, my daughters B-in-L was violated for making a phone call to his ex (dumb move, could cost him over 4 years back in prison), but window tint??
There is a HUGE difference between being finger printed once arrested and forcing someone to unlocke their phone without being under arrest! This is a horrible violation of our constitutional rights.
On an I-phone, going to the shut down screen (even if it's canceled) will disable all biometrics (fingerprint or facial recognition) until the (alpha-) numeric pass code is entered. Not sure how others work.
I believe that Steve Lehto mentioned this on a previous post. When crossing the US Border the law is considerably different. US Border Patrol / Homeland Security doesn't need a search warrant within 100 miles of the border. You are required to turn over your phone and unlock it if requested by US Customs / Border Patrol / Homeland Security. Even if you are a US citizen returning from abroad. They may confiscate your phone and they don't have to give it back but from various reports it may be months before they return it. They have been known to board trains in that 100 mile border zone and shake down suspicious individuals potentially transporting contraband or cash.
The supreme Court ruled on this a couple years ago and said that they do have to have a warrant to look into your phone. It is considered personal private property and therefore falls under protection just as your house does.
I never used them because I know how easy it is to burn my thumb making French fries, welding or poking a campfire, but now biometric tech is so good, it can be used pretty reliably even through all that. Yes I know there has always been passcode backup for if you do burn your finger but it was never a perfect system in my opinion and could even be tricked by clever criminals. Now that it has become super reliable and mostly safe, there’s _THIS_ crap happening. So I still don’t use it. Too bad, too, because I love experimenting with new tech but in this case it’s just not worth the problems caused by a whole different set of criminals.
Here in Denmark the police will always try to push the boundaries for what they can get away with, they keep innocent peoples fingerprints even though the human rights courts has rules it was illegal, the police stated that now they had them so there was no reason to delete them. At one point they hunted a child molester and took over 1200 innocent citizens DNA, to bad now they are stuck in a database for life. Then we had a couple of instances of brinks being thrown down on the freeway and then cameras were placed on more or less every bridge over the freeways. Funny enough in one instance it turned out that it was 3 immigrant kids but instead of punish them for bring others in danger the local municipality wanted to give the poor kids money for cinema and other "positive" activities, while the rest of us have to accept more government surveillance. Governments and police are corrupt by nature, because even if they mean well, the idea of taking away a whole populations rights just to catch a murderer/terrorist or whatever else faster or to save a little money seems extremely insane. Sadly most people get brainwashed by media, like my mother who now thinks it would be okay if the government made a database of all citizens fingerprints/DNA, I've never done anything illegal so I will not accept being treated like a criminal by the ruling class.
The sad thing is that they know what it says and they knowingly lie to get around it. I am a firm believer in supporting law enforcement, but I will never support liars.
What are they going to do when I refuse? Torture me? Beat me to death? Call me bad names? Charge me with something? I would never use biometrics for exactly that reason. It's a no-brainer. Never, ever use biometrics for anything important.
Not only didn't they get Warrant for his Phone, but they also searched his House (according to the Read story) WITHOUT a Warrant. using the Keys they took off the man's Person. The 9th Circuit is the most overturned Circuit in the U.S. Legal System, cause MOST of those Judges refuse to follow the U.S. Constitution.
@@khatdubellthat sounds correct. I don’t remember the exact wording but you do lose some rights when on parole. Warrantless searches and seizures are not unconstitutional for parolees. I think it’s primarily the 4th that you lose. I need to look into that
Dude, he was on parole. A condition of parole is the cops can come and search your house day or night, any time, without any warrant. You are out on conditional release, and one of those conditions you agree to is giving up your right to privacy. Same for your phone. You agree to give them all passwords and everything when you go on parole.
The ability to gain access does not equal the permission to do so. If the door to my house is unlocked, that does not give the officer permission to search the house. Just because I got pulled over for rolling thru a stop sign, does not grant permission to search the trunk of my car. I don't see how this is any different. Digital property is still private property just like the trunk of your car or the interior of your house. I don't understand why it should be treated any differently.
Being on parole, on condition that you allow lawful searches, is the permission. Also, just like the trunk of your car, if the police turn up with a warrant to search your phone, you can unlock your phone or get arrested.
@@himagainstill That's a fair point. I didn't make this clear but, while I feel some lines may be blurred with the handling of this by the officers I don't have too much issue with the case itself. It's the distinction the judge made of gaining access to the phone's data like this being no different than taking the man's fingerprint. This feels like a bit of a dangerous elaboration.
@@atsernov Maybe I misunderstood this part, but my understanding is that the judge predicated that, along with most of the rest of the decision, on the suspect being a parolee, and that very little of what was decided was general.
Which rights? A judge deemed forcing a fingerprint on anything is Constitutional. I don't agree with it on phones, so I think there needs to be distinguishment in law. However, there's an argument to be made that taking a fingerprint could tie you to a crime so therefore could be considered self-incriminating evidence, and fingerprinting could be considered free speech.
@@watamatafoyu so, hypothetically, if you had a biometric lock on your house, the police could force your thumb onto it and search your home without a warrant? I don't think so. I think the key here is that he was on parole, and the us justice system doesn't believe criminals have rights.
I've read about this issue before, that customs at the airport can compel you to unlock with biometrics too. The trick is to always reboot your phone before interacting with law enforcement. On reboot, you have to put in your password to unlock, and courts have ruled that you cannot be compelled to put in passwords. Of course, this sucks if you also want to be recording your police interaction.
Being a parolee is being a convict serving your time on the street. You ARE subject to searches by law enforcement at anytime without a warrant as a condition of release!
Both parties just renewed 911 removal of privacy and indefinite incarceration for precrime. I voted with my feet and left the USA for good. Best decision of my life!
Excellent point. The Constitution merely states rights we would have had regardless of it, or any of its amendments, being enacted. Our Constitution merely makes it very hard for our governments to abridge those rights.
This is sickening. As you pointed out, our phones these days have soooo much info on us. GPS tracking, contacts, photos, search history, etc. To think that any judge would think, "Eh, who needs a warrant?" is beyond incompetent.
@@patrickfurlong4276 Lot's of people have their banking info on their phones, I have to do a great deal of work from my phone. I would say most people's banking data is on their phones to include cards and financial apps, as well as nudes various men/women sent them. The cops are simply the biggest gang of criminals, I wouldn't trust them with a pic of my grandmother.
You can use the 9 dot-line unlock method, and remember you can go between the dots to reach other dots (top middle can connect to right middle, for example). It might also be worth putting something on your phone the wipes the whole thing, after like 50 failed attempts? That way you can say "hand me my phone", implying you will unlock it, then force the deletion.
Should be a 4th amendment violation. They're searching without a warrant, and most likely without probable cause. In the case of Payne, they were fishing, and found evidence of wrongdoing and then went to his house and opened the door with his keys. No warrant for any of it.
I would argue that it’s not like taking my finger print. It’s like breaking into my house without a warrant. The government is getting to big and needs to be downsized by whatever means necessary.
Read the book INCOME TAX shattering the myths by Dave champion. Amazing book. Shows you how corrupt the government is and how we got here. Also shows you how to fix it Atleast as far as your personal life. He hasn’t paid income tax in 31 years. The government duped everyone into believing they owe an income tax. Thatsss how they are so big and so bloated now. They make trillions illegally off us every year.
Moral of the story is to disable facial unlock and fingerprint unlock. Law enforcement, as of 4-26-2024, cannot compel you to unlock your phone if you use a passcode or password.
You're forgetting that in this specific instance his parole terms required him to turn over any electronic devices and their password(s). Mind you, they still should've gotten a warrant, and it would've been a slam-dunk warrant due to the nature of those parole terms, so I would say that this case is not representative of most normal circumstances.
@@Razmoudahany attempt to open my phone results in about 5 seconds or less for it to erase itself. You need my password to shut it down. The battery does not remove. We need to get rid of this mindset that you need to have something to hide in order to want your privacy and security I have it backed up to an encrypted system at a location that is not at my house. It takes one wrong entry of my passcode. It also knows if somebody's trying to open it with any software or hardware that the police typically use. There are people that know a lot about phones everyone should find one and they should make sure people encrypt their devices to the highest possible modern encryption.
"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." How could any court not consider a phone as papers and effects?
Under long established precedent, a search immediately after arrest is considered a reasonable search, regardless of whether there is a warrant. The defense didn't even argue 4th amendment issues. The issue in the case was the 5th amendment prohibition on compelled self-incrimination. It would be nice if the search incident to arrest exemption were limited to making sure the arrestee didn't have anything dangerous on his or her person when being taken into custody, but alas the courts have never supported that idea.
@@nightbreed7222 I mean.. Many stops are targeted. They use whatever reason they want, you think you're talking to a traffic cop, but it's really a narcotics cop who believes you have ties to XYZ drug activities. Traffic law is so convoluted that any driver could be pulled over for any number of reasons. It's created a system in which a fishing expedition is entirely legal when they pull you over for other reasons despite the fact that it should be illegal to pull you over under what amounts to trumped up charges. All they need is you doing 36 in a 35 and they can harass you endlessly for their drug bust.
Never in life is this constitutional, and would never happen in life, if they need a warrant to come into my home than they need a warrant to access my phone as well, my car, anything dealing with my personal property, they do not own me or my property, yes a cop has a right to finger print someone as long as they consent, if an officer can force you to unlock your phone, that is pretty much confirming that they can use force against you at any time, The ninth circuit is a joke... a judge can only judge on what's in front of them, I do like your assessment on this one, I agree with you on this one,
I’m so sick of judges picking and choosing which parts of the constitution they want to enforce.
Sick enough to do anything?
Activist judges (a.k.a. DEMs) have always hated the Constitution and the Bill of Rights so will do anything to undermine them.
I think we should all be sick of all vertical power structures and the arbitrary hypocrisy they always practice. The one in question here is capitalism.
It was set up this way for a reason. To give you the illusion of freedom. But the masters had to make sure their will could always be enforced.
So they gave their agents, the judges, the power to “interpret” the law.
Laws could be written and enforced in such a way that leaves little to interpretation. But, then those on top could not bend the rules for themselves or change them at will.
The so-called founding fathers were extremely clever, and they wanted to make sure the wealthiest citizens always retain the power.
Most of the freedom, privilege and protection the law affords is a illusion. It only applies to the lower classes, but it is ethereal and meaningless when it comes to those with real pull.
Not me I love this government and this administration so happy😢@@jayrowe6473
They can try. I won't use biometrics for security for this reason. They cannot get my pass code out of my head.
when u get a tyrant cop you will change your way of thinking
Yea unfortunately some aps i have to use for work need the thumb confirmation, so i cant really remove this type of authentication from my options :(
Really.. But what's in your head if you played the STUPID game of VOTING for gangsters to be your masters repeatedly?? 😂😂😂
@@jpnewman1688 I did not vote for these gangsters. What's in your head?
But can use hard attacks to break it with the help of modern computing capabilities.
Plus they can access the stuff inside the same methods the repairmen do it when they recover data for various clients who's phones met with a bad ending.
The 9th Circuit needs a refresher course in Constitutional Law.
Can you imagine how bad they will get when lawyers don't have to pass the bar exam there?
They don’t care.
Man, between the courts and the cops, we are skirting awfully close to fascism.
@michaelgarrity6090, skirting? We are almost there. It's just haven't revealed itself.
I'm 46 years old and have moved all over the 48 states every year. I have seen nothing but Fascism from coast to coast my whole life. So what do you mean awfully close to?
Nah, we’re full blown there
It's not fascism and it's not communism, it's anarcho-tyranny.
The ninth circuit is a fucking circus.
Kangaroo court
surprising enough they did just make a good free speech ruling.... MEINECKE vs Seattle
street preacher assaulted by antifa, cops arrest preacher....didn't turn out so well for the city.
here in my country The Free Repulic of Arifkknzona.... we strain under the boot of the 9th CIRCUS
You should try the 5th circuit. Anything IP related, forget the facts, just rule in the favor of the one claiming the IP. Anything with the people vs government actors (police, etc) with video proof, the video is lying; the word of an officer is more reliable and trustworthy than the video evidence.
It's better than it was, thanks to recent appointments to its bench. Maybe this was an unlucky draw for a three judge panel.
People forget judges are just as guilty of treason as police.
Much much worse. They have ACTUALLY studied the law.
Were the elements for treason met, that may be correct. Yet, they're not and it isn't.
People would be surprised at how many judges have child porn on their computers.
Treason? That's absolutely ridiculous. Do you even know what it means?
And should face the penalty for doing so.
*This is why I don’t use any biometric features on any devices. I use a custom alpha-numeric password that I tend to forget when I get a little stressed out. Call me “old fashioned”* 🤷🏼
4Sure
Cellphones are so personal and private they should be covered under the 5th amendment. It’s like compelling a spouse to testify.
Exactly. For most people, a phone knows more about you than a spouse does. Cops are also so fkn untrustworthy now, they'd check through the phones of girls just to see what thay can see.
I can agree to that to a point, however, why the hell would anyone keep any sort in incriminating evidence on their phone anyway? You can take my phone right now and look through it, there's nothing on there that would get me on trouble or cause embarrassment either. Naturally, why the hell would there be?
@@MysticKnight7 It's simply none of their fkn business more than anything.
@@MysticKnight7 I mean why would anyone keep illegal substances inside their place of residence? Its convenient and people working within the law shouldnt be able to just randomly search your shit because of a cosmetic choice (Window Tint)
@@MysticKnight7
We would expect you to acknowledge that just because you seem to think you don't have incriminating things does not mean that you don't.
Unjust laws are a thing for all you know you could have a website of sexual material that you are under the assumption is completely legal but offends the sensibilities of the cop and you get arrested under the obscenity law.
You could literally be writing down your emotions in a notepad that is on your phone because that's just what you do or writing down scary stories and they would try to use it to frame you for a crime.
Abolish judicial immunity. Judges are more corrupt than ever!
It's called treason at this point. And it needs to be addressed in a public hearing.
They’re super lawyers
How wouldn’t they not be ?
They’re not even peers, they’re people the system works for and always worked for.
And how many more laws they gonna make ? New laws every year ??
USA starting to feel like Nazi Germany
Like the whole system.@@UncleSam-7.62
Maybe read a little before only taking this video as your source. His terms of parole, signed by him, allowed searches of electronic devices without cause. That point didn’t seem to be made clear here
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
The ninth circus must have missed that part
The person here was on court supervision, and as a provision of that was required to provide access to electronic devices. These kinds of provisions are part and parcel of supervision (probation and parole). Searches of the person and their residence are standard as well as submitting to random drug screens. For some offenses, access to electronic devices may make sense. So on the whole, this has no bearing on anyone other than those on some kind of supervision by the Court.
They miss nearly everything. They are the most reversed circuit.
Reasonableness is almost entirely dependent upon how society views the victim.
I is the ninth circuit after all..:)
Not under the current SCOTUS
I suggest the courts start publishing these rulings in Russian, since they are so fond of the legal practices of the former Soviet Union.
When involved with police. For iPhone, You can hold the power button and volume button to enter the restart screen then cancel and your phone will REQUIRE a passcode and biometrics can’t be used to unlock. Then you can access your camera app to film the police without unlocking your phone.
Or, how about this, don't do anything that leads to having to deal w/ cops. 😅 In 29 years of driving I think I was pulled over 3 times, 2 at least.
@@MysticKnight7 And how do you know when you might get stopped by a cop for nothing you did? You never know.
ya with android you can just reboot your phone normally, but when it boots up, same things bio won't work, you must enter code. pro tip: when you see them lights behind you, reboot your phone and forget about it, or just turn it off. also make sure your phone memory and sd card are both encrypted.
Also, you can press the power button 6 times and it will require the passcode.
When your phone is locked this way, it is ENCRYPTED
@@MysticKnight7that’s a very naive idea in this day and age of government thugs run amok
The ninth circuit needs to be disbanded, disbarred, and replaced by judges that have read, understood, and desire to follow the Constitution.
Really.. Name one judge, cop, DA, politician, general, etc.. that has not failed to obey, support and defend the constitution against all enemies.. 😂😂😂
@@JP-ho6zcso replace them all?! Great idea!
With the exception of Saint Benitez.
Btw, the 9th Circuit is the most overturned of all the Circuit courts.
Why stop there, the Supreme Court is literally exchanging rulings for gifts and cash. Often they argue literal reading and intent of the founding fathers to next weeks “interpretation” of intent. In a capitalist based society everything is for sale including your rights and freedoms. Vote blue vote red but for christs sake vote freedom!
It’s not those who hold the seats that are the problem. It’s the existence of that seat of power that is the problem
We are losing all of our Constitutional Rights every day.
If someone can take them away, they're not rights. Simply privileges from your rulers. Time to wake up.
Our rights are not constitutional rights, they are God given, unalienable rights and our governments are self serving POS.
James Madison warned us but we didn't listen.
WE ARE GIVING IT AWAY.
Not here. Note that the guy that determined this case was out on parole. Meaning he has essentially no Constitutional rights when it comes to random searches since he gave them up as a condition of parole. I seriously doubt this decision applies to the average citizen not on parole or probation.
FYI most phones have a security settings called lock down mode you hold the power button like you're turning it off then it goes into this mode that requires you're pass code not fingerprint
Is anyone surprised? The 9th Circuit is a kangaroo court.
9th Circus you mean.
Don't tell me, you trust the SCOTUS though? The whole legal/court system is a "kangaroo court", it isn't just one facet or section.
The moment he said 9th I had to laugh. It'll be overturned by SCOTUS. Just like the overwhelming majority of decisions the r3t@rds in CA's 9th Circuit had rendered.
@@scipher99 The 9th Circuit is a court which will do whatever possible to avoid obeying the Supreme Court.
@@richinoregon Yes I 100% aware of that and it is run just like a circus of the likes P.T. Barnum would be proud. Full of clowns.
Blood draw tells you only whats in a person's blood, searching their phone reveals someone's entire life. If a blood draw requires a warrant this absolutely should.
You can probably access their medical records from the phone including blood draw history.
Stop putting aps on your phone. At least put them on your home computer.
@@alanrogs3990that makes no sense for many of us. I have a phone for the apps. I don’t even have a computer 😂
Yes well said ty❤
not a good idea to take pics of your stash as well
Impeach these judges...
Great content & presentation! Thank you.
That judge needs to be disbarred
Federal judges do not have to be bar members to sit on the bench anyway. It's a lifetime job, try to name something more pointless than going after their bar status, lol.
Paris 1793
Never because YOU dont pick these judges. WE DO. ( The Federalists Society, google us)
By whom?? GODS?? 😂😂😂
@@3OBTPA really.. 😂😂😂
The fact that they lied about "reluctantly" tells you they know it's a bad search.
yes should of been thorn odd when the lie was reveled
Yes! Police lied because they knew what they were doing was wrong and illegal. And Ninth Circuit said, Whoops. No it's not.
Conditions of his parole said he had to give up unlock for his phone. He gave up his rights when he signed the paper.
Also, as a part police accountability community, the tint as the reason for the stop rings all sorts of bells in my head. Im almost surprised there was no resisting or obstruction thrown at him for good measure.
It's all in the way the report is written. We need to hire third parties to write the police reports so that there isn't any bias.
The guy was on parole. He can be searched at any time. So this needs to go to a higher court.
Getting a warrant while they wait along the side of the road opens it up to even more abuse. Imagine having a judge on standby waiting to sign a warrant for the most trivial reasons.
This is not right. The judges should be removed from office and their licenses to practice law revoked.
it was a condition of his parole.
People don't listen?@@kevincornell1439
Basically he was free but had to behave like he was in jail
Judges, law enforcement & lawyers will never turn on even the WORST of their own.
There is one judge in CA that was drunk driving and killed a guy. The guy was walking down the side of the road in a poorly lit area. The judge swerved and hit him than fled the scene. 3 Hours later he called the police to go find the guy and come give him a breath test, no blood draw was taken. At that time the judge still blew .12 so who knows what he was when he hit the guy. In court the judge got off completely free after he somehow argued the death was the result of the guy walking at night without proper protective gear.
@@redtiger7268 another skilled application of blame the v1ct1m.
Minnesota supreme court just decided recently that the inside of your car is considered public property when you're driving on public property. Zero trust in the courts to do the right thing.
Really? Ugh. I'm embarrassed to be a MN resident....
That is a really stupid argument. So they are saying personal property becomes public property when it is no longer on private property. How can they enforce any theft charged with such a claim. It would be really nice if judges were actually required to have a brain outside of their ass.
In most large demorat cities the inside of your vehicle IS public property, easily accessed by breaking a window.
So that means that if I break into a car without causing destruction, I'm not breaking the law?
Holy moly I missed this ty
Americans have every rights to defend themselves against tyranny
All the judges in the 9th circuit should be forced to give up access to their cell phones.
Right there with the Supreme Court.
And their houses, don't forget that part, as long as there is evidence to justify the search after the fact. It's guilty till proven innocent in their court room, hold them to it too.
They should be forced to give up their oxygen privileges.
Are all the judges in the 9th Circuit on active parole?
Smart folks use HOME phones for conversations that they want to keep private, as cell phones are NOT private, as they are radio transmitting and receiving devices, and the radio waves are PUBLIC DOMAIN.
Remember this when you serve on a jury and disregard any evidence obtained that way.
I just served on a jury for a murder case. The cops had access to the phone belonging to the state's star witness--she gave them permission--and didn't even try to retrieve deleted messages from her phone even after she admitted she'd deleted some of the defendant allegedly threatening her. The cop who testified said that it's possible to retrieve them but that they'd need an upgraded version of the program they're using or another program they aren't currently using.
They got access to the defendant's phones a few days later when he was arrested. They didn't retrieve anything from them. No real explanation for that
That wasn't the only problem with the investigation but it was a big one.
They may not tell the jury that information. I think hearings to suppress evidence are done without the jury present. The most absurd thing in our judicial system is the court can decide to keep information from the jury.
Also remember Jury nullification
@@DS-lt7fw Well, the grand jury, as a member of that, you are responsible for interviewing the cops/witnesses and looking into the evidence, your job is to determine if there is sufficient evidence to even go to trial. So look out for it there.
We threw out a case about drug possession, because the cop claimed it was x amount of y drug, but it turns out they never even tested it while in their possession and it disappeared before it made it to the lab...you bet your ass we didn't go ahead with that case regardless of his testimony. It was fun to ask him questions about it though. The attorney even thanked us after the fact, because she had no idea how she could try such a case. There were more like that, but that one stuck with me.
@@williamharshman9572 That's one way to permanently get removed from jury duty. I mentioned it way back in the 90s and got 60 days for polluting the jury pool for mentioning when questioned.
Biometric unlocking never has been a security feature, it's a convenience function. Just use a Pin and don't make online backups, that is what gives law enforcement access.
The Court / Judiciary is wrong! Do not comply to unjust rulings or laws.
THe justice system needs to go at this point, same for the government as a whole.
The constitution will be toilet paper eventually.
Basically there. Today's courts just don't care about a long-held precedent. They just use it as toilet paper just like the Constitution.
Eventually?
Will be? 😂
"Always has been"
Don't insult toilet paper like that. Toilet paper will at least remain useful.
Again I ask, why do so many of our "protectors" spend so much time, effort, and money trying to circumvent our protections.
Because it's not about protecting its about control
Well said.....unfortunately. next stop Berlin
Power corrupts, while actions maybe might be born out of good intentions like trying to locale a child by doing this to a child molester it just doesn't really justify taking away our freedoms. Yeah it might suck for the police that they have to investigate instead of just jumping over where the fence is lowest, but frankly I am not willing to give up my freedoms for anybody or anything.
Our branches are supposed to be civic minded and working against each other to preserve liberty and freedom.
Unfortunately our tripod has been a monopole for the past century.
America!!! land of the lost.
When someone is on parole, they don't have any more rights than if they were still in prison. Unless something has changed, since the OJ incident, the average citizen can not be compelled to unlock their cell phones.
A court has already decided years ago that forcing a person to unlock their phone violates a person's right against self-incrimination. So how does another court decide you must self-incriminate?
There's a huge difference between fingerprinting someone for database cataloging to keep track of prisoners and identify them, and forcibly using their digits to unlock their personal device to provide evidence against them. Definitely needs a warrant. That judge needs to be removed.
No need for a warrant to open your safe right? We will just mash your thumb on it if its got a fingerprint scanner... And you better hope you don't have a fingerprint lock on your house. We will just mash your finger anywhere it'll grant us access right?
I'd say, using his thumb to unlock the phone is the = fingerprinting is the equivalent to taking a suspects car key and searching the car = terry frisk
@@wurgel1 Id argue it's worse... Taking keys and opening a car with them is still an illegal search but its a illegal search with no physical contact, Using a fingerprint is the same search without consent or a warrant but it's also a search with forceful physical contact.
@@towtruckaj how do you get the keys from the suspect without physical contact?
@@wurgel1 Keys are almost never on the person unless they have a newer car with remote start, and even still they are often in a bag or cupholder. getting the keys to unlock a car is a weird uncommon situation, so let me change the narrative and say the police want to search the locked trunk instead. They need the keys and the keys are more than likely not on the person, Means the only physical contact is the act of detaining them which in this story would have already happened.
1939 Germany is unfolding around us. The Government is Out of Control.
USSR 1922-91, DDR 1948-90
Is it time yet?
@@yoretabio4537 People really have this thing on the brain too much, mostly due to Hollywood movies. They don't realize the mentality that is in America isn't Nazi Germany but Bolshevik Russia and Stasi Germany.
The judiciary is getting out of control with activist judges exercising their ideological beliefs in their court rooms instead of being impartial triers of fact.
None of these places had the technology to surveil you like modern governments have, Gestapo, Stasi and KGB could only dream of have so much insight in peoples private affairs.
That ruling is akin to allowing evidence found in a home without a warrant.
That judge should be removed for blatantly violating the constitution.
Or at least given a blanket party.
It would be overturned in the Supreme Court . Unlawful search and seizure of property.
Not if he's parole.
Your honor, the defendant reluctantly signed the confession.
The defendant reluctantly opened the door to his house and then reluctantly showed us where the contraband was.
Exactly.
Honestly them lying about that should have ended the case. It should taint the evidence that comes after it.
"Was this before or after the defendant reluctantly broke his right orbital bone and three teeth against the poor defenseless fists of the arresting officer?"
“I love this country. And the freedoms we used to have!” - George Carlin
George was not a well-trained law obeying slave.. He didn't want masters to dictate how he was gonna live and die, unlike most people.. 💯💯😂😂
He was on parole. The terms and conditions he agreed to allow them to search anything he owns any time of day or night with or without a warrant. It usually called a 5 way search. Person, home, vehicle, place of work, electronic devices.
I was looking for someone to mention this. I don’t see an issue now.
That may have been how this started, but now that the circuit court has ruled that its no different than them being Fingerprinted,
Anyone under arrest could be subjected to this. That's the point.
There’s a difference between submitting a device to them and actively participating in the search of that device.
In this case the officers overstepped by forcing the man’s “cooperation”
Provisions of Parole people!!!
He's on Parole!!!
I am not at all for giving up rights , but with felony convictions you do end up losing your rights!
So stay clean!
The difference between getting your fingerprints taken for identification and using your fingerprint for opening your phone is gigantic. The judge needs to be barred from any courtroom.
To be able to use biometrics, and to avoid this from happening, you should also be able to use it together with a screen 3×3 grid pattern code, so only the fingerprint does not open, and the pattern does not open the phone without fingerprint, it is more annoying than just a fingerprint, but is safer against cases like these. Since the pattern requires cognitive thoughts. (Also using just the fingerprints could unlock just the hidden notifications, for convenience.
I only use a passcode I've known this for along time
Don't use your finger print for a password whomp whomp
@@kiefgaming1701
That's easier said than done dude. Finger print access is a nice alternative to passwords, cause most ppl nowadays can't remember their password.
correct ,so does thousand , yakking doesn't solve anything
Nothing in my phone is illegal , but that doesn't mean I am obliged to allow access to prove it.
No court muppet is going to rummage through my personal information.
That’s the point tho. With over 7000 laws on the federal register one can’t possibly know which law if any has been broken. Then, while in custody for say doing a 1A audit, LE forces you to unlock your phone and you inadvertently tell on yourself for god knows what 😮
What good is the 4th amendment if I only use it to shield myself from criminal activities? Innocent people have rights too.
If you’re on parole, as this guy, you would have ‘literally’ signed away that right of privacy and in fact could be searched anytime and anywhere and for no reason at all.
It gets worse. If you leave the U.S. and return the CBP can require you to hand over your cellphone & password. They can copy it, download anything & it is perfectly legal without a warrant. Happens to Muslim Americans & many journalists often, particularly between Canada & Detroit. Consider buying a burner phone overseas or before travel. They can also detain you. They're conflating customs functions with suspension of Constitution based on whether you are formally in or outside of U.S. So much must be fixed after we vote to keep democracy.
cowardly preface
Parolees are fundamentally different from non-sentenced individuals because Parolees are still in the custody of the State. Parolees are merely in the community but still serving their Sentence.
With this ruling, we will all have our phones searched during any interaction with Law Enforcement.
What people don't understand is the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the judges.
You mean Judges and Cops don't understand this. Or they do, but don't care.
@@jeffm6342 Both; Judges and cops, and Lawyers are strictly bound by the statues of the state, which is a different from the Constitution.
You are the one who doesn't understand! The Constitution that doesn't exist anymore doesn't send people with guns to kill you!
@@CharlesWilson-zs3vd and who decides what the Constitution says/means?
I feel like you failed high school civics.
Why was he in handcuffs for tinted windows? A vehicle infraction is NOT a parole violation. There is more to this story than we are being told.
if you look at the court's opinion, they mention that his parole conditions included that police and parole officers could search him and his property at any time without a warrant or probable cause. They often handcuff a person when they do this (the now-famous "officer safety")
@adrianmizen5070 and how this isn't harassment is mind boggling.
@@TimothyWelty Because when you are on parole or probation, you inherently give up certain rights, it's how it works.
@@TimothyWelty because it's still a popular opinion that "once a criminal, always a criminal." And that doing your legally-mandated time is somehow not enough. We've decided that any criminality means that it's ok to strip people of their rights. They can't vote, they can't have privacy, they are not entitled to minimum wage even when they are loaned out to private companies and receiving pay. It's all part of the larger plan to make being X illegal. They did it to liberals, hispanics, blacks, and the impoverished with weed. Take something that is legal from marginalized groups, make it illegal, and render that whole demographic as 'criminal' to silence them, stripping them of their rights and ways to fight back :/
@@adrianmizen5070 So this is just clickbait? If he was parole, then yea they should be allowed to search his phone.
I feel the main fact that is being overlooked by many here is only because it was a previous condition of his release from jail, out now on parole, providing the reason that the warrantless right to search could be upheld. Technically he was not a free citizen, being a parolee, until his full sentence is fulfilled. Normal citizens should never be subjected to such unwarranted searches.
As a former police officer, I always said, "When in doubt, get a warrant", I agree there
However, an average citizen not on parole can refuse this forcible violation of the 4th amendment. A warrant points out probable cause, items you are looking for, and shields you from the friuts of the poisonous tree. In addition, there is no reasonable articulate suspension that I have committed a crime, besides the traffic violation.
Need to hold judges criminally accountable
Hire a PI to investigate all of them.
I don't care what these constitutional traitors say. I know my rights.
Good luck with that, but yeah I feel ya.... Fascism, fuck ya!!
Everybody thinks they know their rights but I’m willing to bet they almost always DO NOT.
Your rights are whatever the government currently says they are, and those judges are the ones who can change which rights you have.
First Amendment they don't like at all 😂
@@mackenziepenny1335 it's illegal to change any constitutional & American amendment rights
On an iPhone to temporarily disable biometrics, press and hold both the power button and volume up buttons until the power-off screen pops up. Or press the power button 5 times in quick succession (note: this will most likely start an Emergency Call, that you should quickly cancel). Both of these will require your passcode for the next unlock, and then biometrics will be re-enabled.
Should be "Fruit from the poisonous tree".
The 9th circuit circus.
Should be and hopefully will be. Sadly police can lie to us, but even now seemingly in reports, depositions, and testimony it is not only accepted, but applauded. "Reluctantly agreed" (while cuffed}, I'm losing all faith we can survive as a Republic.
I want to know how they got from window tint to arrested and in the back of a police car.
@@W1ldt1m seems extreme, my daughters B-in-L was violated for making a phone call to his ex (dumb move, could cost him over 4 years back in prison), but window tint??
All judges should be removed from the bench when 30% or more of their decisions are overturned
There is a HUGE difference between being finger printed once arrested and forcing someone to unlocke their phone without being under arrest! This is a horrible violation of our constitutional rights.
On an I-phone, going to the shut down screen (even if it's canceled) will disable all biometrics (fingerprint or facial recognition) until the (alpha-) numeric pass code is entered. Not sure how others work.
Take your country back people. THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE.
Your country?? 😂😂😂
You first.
That just asking for the chaff to be grinded why you laugh at the minerals.
Vote blue 💙💙💙💙
@@Subject_Keter ITS ON ITS WAY TRUST ME
@@JP-ho6zc YUP I TOOK THE OATH
The job of the courts is as a check and balance to insure the Constitution is followed - NOT TO INVENT WAYS TO CIRCUMVENT IT!
Not in the USSA the land of no freedom!
I believe that Steve Lehto mentioned this on a previous post. When crossing the US Border the law is considerably different. US Border Patrol / Homeland Security doesn't need a search warrant within 100 miles of the border. You are required to turn over your phone and unlock it if requested by US Customs / Border Patrol / Homeland Security. Even if you are a US citizen returning from abroad. They may confiscate your phone and they don't have to give it back but from various reports it may be months before they return it. They have been known to board trains in that 100 mile border zone and shake down suspicious individuals potentially transporting contraband or cash.
The supreme Court ruled on this a couple years ago and said that they do have to have a warrant to look into your phone. It is considered personal private property and therefore falls under protection just as your house does.
The court failed and that judge or judges need to be jailed. Thry absolutely should have a warrant for that.
This is why I never use biometric locks
I always use passwords, and always in a foreign language 👍
Agreed
I never used them because I know how easy it is to burn my thumb making French fries, welding or poking a campfire, but now biometric tech is so good, it can be used pretty reliably even through all that.
Yes I know there has always been passcode backup for if you do burn your finger but it was never a perfect system in my opinion and could even be tricked by clever criminals.
Now that it has become super reliable and mostly safe, there’s _THIS_ crap happening. So I still don’t use it. Too bad, too, because I love experimenting with new tech but in this case it’s just not worth the problems caused by a whole different set of criminals.
@@heatshieldI also do not use face unlock.
If doing away with our biometrics, could they the same make us enter our password?
Was close friends with a retired, 3-letter Agency, employee. He once contemptuously said "I've got no use for the Constitution."
Here in Denmark the police will always try to push the boundaries for what they can get away with, they keep innocent peoples fingerprints even though the human rights courts has rules it was illegal, the police stated that now they had them so there was no reason to delete them. At one point they hunted a child molester and took over 1200 innocent citizens DNA, to bad now they are stuck in a database for life. Then we had a couple of instances of brinks being thrown down on the freeway and then cameras were placed on more or less every bridge over the freeways. Funny enough in one instance it turned out that it was 3 immigrant kids but instead of punish them for bring others in danger the local municipality wanted to give the poor kids money for cinema and other "positive" activities, while the rest of us have to accept more government surveillance. Governments and police are corrupt by nature, because even if they mean well, the idea of taking away a whole populations rights just to catch a murderer/terrorist or whatever else faster or to save a little money seems extremely insane. Sadly most people get brainwashed by media, like my mother who now thinks it would be okay if the government made a database of all citizens fingerprints/DNA, I've never done anything illegal so I will not accept being treated like a criminal by the ruling class.
I'm glad you said "was close friends...". Doesn't sound like a good friend to have.
The sad thing is that they know what it says and they knowingly lie to get around it. I am a firm believer in supporting law enforcement, but I will never support liars.
Sounds like someone I wouldn't want to associate with.
Law Enforcement agents should be charged with treason for violating Constitutional rights.....
That judge messed up. Once someone with money or in a position of power goes through the same thing, a judge willl say no they cannot.
This is unconstitutional. What does the corporation care about the Republic and your rights.
What are they going to do when I refuse? Torture me? Beat me to death? Call me bad names? Charge me with something? I would never use biometrics for exactly that reason. It's a no-brainer. Never, ever use biometrics for anything important.
As Lehto mentioned, once there is a warrant, they can throw you in jail for contempt of court until you comply.
@@adrianmizen5070they can only keep you for 6 months
Contempt of court is truth.
They have voted themselves to be exempt from ALL OF THIS TOO .
It's time we change that.
This is what living in a police state looks like!
Of course they are exempt!
@@harmonicamanrandyhow?
Dude was on parole that is an important piece of information here.
No is a powerful little word!
Not only didn't they get Warrant for his Phone, but they also searched his House (according to the Read story) WITHOUT a Warrant. using the Keys they took off the man's Person. The 9th Circuit is the most overturned Circuit in the U.S. Legal System, cause MOST of those Judges refuse to follow the U.S. Constitution.
Pretty sure parolees don't have to get a warrant to have their homes searched.
Part of the conditions of their release.
@@khatdubellthat sounds correct. I don’t remember the exact wording but you do lose some rights when on parole. Warrantless searches and seizures are not unconstitutional for parolees. I think it’s primarily the 4th that you lose. I need to look into that
How are we ever going to have a true justice system if judges are not held accountable?
Dude, he was on parole. A condition of parole is the cops can come and search your house day or night, any time, without any warrant. You are out on conditional release, and one of those conditions you agree to is giving up your right to privacy. Same for your phone. You agree to give them all passwords and everything when you go on parole.
@@Yerocco lose some Rights? No you basically lose all your rights.
I would 100% donate to appealing this outrageous decision. Those judges ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Judges have god complexes and lack shame
GOA
Equating a thumb scan on a phone to fingerprinting for an Arrest is beyond egregious, it’s completely absurd.
@@carstenrobbins557 ?
No they can’t! Force can’t be used as a form of torture. Period. Can’t make me do anything but go to jail! PERIOD!
This is concerning, to say the least. We can only hope this ruling gets overturned on appeal
The ability to gain access does not equal the permission to do so.
If the door to my house is unlocked, that does not give the officer permission to search the house. Just because I got pulled over for rolling thru a stop sign, does not grant permission to search the trunk of my car. I don't see how this is any different.
Digital property is still private property just like the trunk of your car or the interior of your house. I don't understand why it should be treated any differently.
Right! And don't use your thumb print for unlocking it. Use the 4 digit code. "I forgot the code, guess cause I'm so nervous". 😡
@@mikewillett5076 Use more digits... 😂
Being on parole, on condition that you allow lawful searches, is the permission.
Also, just like the trunk of your car, if the police turn up with a warrant to search your phone, you can unlock your phone or get arrested.
@@himagainstill That's a fair point. I didn't make this clear but, while I feel some lines may be blurred with the handling of this by the officers I don't have too much issue with the case itself. It's the distinction the judge made of gaining access to the phone's data like this being no different than taking the man's fingerprint. This feels like a bit of a dangerous elaboration.
@@atsernov Maybe I misunderstood this part, but my understanding is that the judge predicated that, along with most of the rest of the decision, on the suspect being a parolee, and that very little of what was decided was general.
That's a *HUGE* violation of rights.
He was on parole. We got it. 👍
What rights?
He’s on parole.
To an extent. If he's on parole, he doesn't have many right s as you and I.
Which rights? A judge deemed forcing a fingerprint on anything is Constitutional. I don't agree with it on phones, so I think there needs to be distinguishment in law. However, there's an argument to be made that taking a fingerprint could tie you to a crime so therefore could be considered self-incriminating evidence, and fingerprinting could be considered free speech.
@@watamatafoyu so, hypothetically, if you had a biometric lock on your house, the police could force your thumb onto it and search your home without a warrant? I don't think so. I think the key here is that he was on parole, and the us justice system doesn't believe criminals have rights.
Then why are these states violating the SCOTUS rulings not held in contempt?
I've read about this issue before, that customs at the airport can compel you to unlock with biometrics too.
The trick is to always reboot your phone before interacting with law enforcement. On reboot, you have to put in your password to unlock, and courts have ruled that you cannot be compelled to put in passwords. Of course, this sucks if you also want to be recording your police interaction.
I foresee a number of cases of suspects being knocked unconscious and their phones magically being found unlocked.
The whole “being a parolee “ is what got him hemmed up.
Our government’s way of instilling fear into its citizens is second to none.
North Korea joins the chat.
Right. Being a parolee alone isn’t a crime. Why would window tint be more than a fine?
Being a parolee is being a convict serving your time on the street. You ARE subject to searches by law enforcement at anytime without a warrant as a condition of release!
Yeah If the guy didn't want to follow the rules of parole he could just stay in jail, Where you also don't have a right to privacy.
Both parties just renewed 911 removal of privacy and indefinite incarceration for precrime.
I voted with my feet and left the USA for good. Best decision of my life!
If you are on probation or parole you are subject to search of person, property, residents
We no longer live in a Free Country, but in a Police State
Yeah I agree, we've been saying that for 400 years. Remember slavery?
They can lawfully order me to do it. They can even get a judge to sign off on it.
But they don't have any right to make me do anything
Excellent point. The Constitution merely states rights we would have had regardless of it, or any of its amendments, being enacted. Our Constitution merely makes it very hard for our governments to abridge those rights.
They can hold you at gunpoint to do it.
@@Loku242 o well FUCK THE ALL !
I think the judge's point is that the man performed no action. He didnt "do anything". Someone else moved him.
if there's a warrant, they do have the right to throw you in jail and keep you there until you comply
What a utterly RIDICULOUS ruling!!! 😡
He is on parol. They do not have the same rights as law-abiding citizens.
@@JayRSwan Understood. And I think it’s spelled “parole”.
@@mumblesbadly7708 lol you right!
It depends. If I got a picture of my “rooster” as the Home Screen I don’t think they wanna be going through it 😂😂😂
I have a BAD feeling the people of this country are about to turn on the government
WE ALREADY KNOW IT IS THEM AGAINST US!!!
This is sickening. As you pointed out, our phones these days have soooo much info on us. GPS tracking, contacts, photos, search history, etc. To think that any judge would think, "Eh, who needs a warrant?" is beyond incompetent.
Yeah it's malicious. Not incompetent.
I don't keep much information on my phone. As for photos, if having lots of photos of my cat is a crime, then I'm guilty as charged lol.
This is why you have a second amendment.
@@patrickfurlong4276 Lot's of people have their banking info on their phones, I have to do a great deal of work from my phone. I would say most people's banking data is on their phones to include cards and financial apps, as well as nudes various men/women sent them. The cops are simply the biggest gang of criminals, I wouldn't trust them with a pic of my grandmother.
So much for the Constitutional Republic we're supposed to live in.
That was overthrown in 2020
He is on parol. They do not have the same constitutional rights anymore
You can use the 9 dot-line unlock method, and remember you can go between the dots to reach other dots (top middle can connect to right middle, for example). It might also be worth putting something on your phone the wipes the whole thing, after like 50 failed attempts? That way you can say "hand me my phone", implying you will unlock it, then force the deletion.
Should be a 4th amendment violation. They're searching without a warrant, and most likely without probable cause. In the case of Payne, they were fishing, and found evidence of wrongdoing and then went to his house and opened the door with his keys. No warrant for any of it.
I would argue that it’s not like taking my finger print. It’s like breaking into my house without a warrant. The government is getting to big and needs to be downsized by whatever means necessary.
Read the book INCOME TAX shattering the myths by Dave champion. Amazing book. Shows you how corrupt the government is and how we got here. Also shows you how to fix it Atleast as far as your personal life. He hasn’t paid income tax in 31 years. The government duped everyone into believing they owe an income tax. Thatsss how they are so big and so bloated now. They make trillions illegally off us every year.
Yeah the finger print part is irrelevant. Even if the phone was unlocked it should be an illegal search.
I agree, By Whatever Means.
Just wait until biometrics unlock locks to a house
@@kfin45 A finger print vs using the finger to unlock a phone is akin to surgery vs a stabbing. Same actions, same tools, very different purposees.
We do not live in the same America any longer. This is a dystopia.
Always has been, we just have better news sources now.
Is it time yet?
You've just now realized what has always been true.
Yes we do. This has happened to Black people all the time. Now it’s everyone!
@@JS-pe7uc It has not always been this way. Try some history.
This is crazy!
This one reason I don’t use biometrics.
Moral of the story is to disable facial unlock and fingerprint unlock. Law enforcement, as of 4-26-2024, cannot compel you to unlock your phone if you use a passcode or password.
You're forgetting that in this specific instance his parole terms required him to turn over any electronic devices and their password(s). Mind you, they still should've gotten a warrant, and it would've been a slam-dunk warrant due to the nature of those parole terms, so I would say that this case is not representative of most normal circumstances.
@@Razmoudahany attempt to open my phone results in about 5 seconds or less for it to erase itself. You need my password to shut it down. The battery does not remove.
We need to get rid of this mindset that you need to have something to hide in order to want your privacy and security
I have it backed up to an encrypted system at a location that is not at my house. It takes one wrong entry of my passcode. It also knows if somebody's trying to open it with any software or hardware that the police typically use.
There are people that know a lot about phones everyone should find one and they should make sure people encrypt their devices to the highest possible modern encryption.
@@Razmoudah I mean, we'll see how quickly it'll set a precedent to affect other people in other circumstances.
@Not_that_Brian_Jones Oh, I agree that the way things are worded in the judgment is very poor and far to open to being abused.
@@Razmoudah what if you really just forgot your pin?
"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."
How could any court not consider a phone as papers and effects?
Because parolees have no papers and effects. They have no rights.
Under long established precedent, a search immediately after arrest is considered a reasonable search, regardless of whether there is a warrant. The defense didn't even argue 4th amendment issues. The issue in the case was the 5th amendment prohibition on compelled self-incrimination.
It would be nice if the search incident to arrest exemption were limited to making sure the arrestee didn't have anything dangerous on his or her person when being taken into custody, but alas the courts have never supported that idea.
@@adrianmizen5070 so he was arrested for dark tint....doesn't make sense....there is more to this
@@nightbreed7222 I mean.. Many stops are targeted. They use whatever reason they want, you think you're talking to a traffic cop, but it's really a narcotics cop who believes you have ties to XYZ drug activities. Traffic law is so convoluted that any driver could be pulled over for any number of reasons. It's created a system in which a fishing expedition is entirely legal when they pull you over for other reasons despite the fact that it should be illegal to pull you over under what amounts to trumped up charges. All they need is you doing 36 in a 35 and they can harass you endlessly for their drug bust.
@@panicwithcompulsion true
Never in life is this constitutional, and would never happen in life, if they need a warrant to come into my home than they need a warrant to access my phone as well, my car, anything dealing with my personal property, they do not own me or my property, yes a cop has a right to finger print someone as long as they consent, if an officer can force you to unlock your phone, that is pretty much confirming that they can use force against you at any time, The ninth circuit is a joke... a judge can only judge on what's in front of them, I do like your assessment on this one, I agree with you on this one,
Just when people thought face ID and fingerprint sensors were created to make unlocking phones easier for yourself. 😂
The way the police worded their report should be proof that they KNEW that they were violating the law.
Yes, the only way to stop this nonsense is prison time, under 18 USC 242.