Rosyna

lkrupp said:

Rosyna said:

As I said, there are no exceptions, including exigent circumstances, to when an LEO needs a specific warrant to search a phone. Had you read the article, you would have understood that.

Furthermore, A court cannot legally punish you in any manner, including through harassment, if you refuse to self-incriminate yourself. This has been repeatedly backed up in court.

I don't know why you keep bringing up this "driving is not a right" nonsense as it is unrelated to anything here. You are protected from unreasonable searches regardless of any privilege you're exercising. This has been tested in court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones

And I don’t know how get through to your thick head. You keep wagging on about being forced to turn over your phone. You are NOT BEING FORCED to do anything. The police ask your to let them inspect your phone under this law. You say no and that’s it. What’s unconstitutional about this law? The asking? The police can’t ask you to do this voluntarily? Is that what you are saying? In refusing you lose your driving privileges for 90 days. So again what part of this law is unconstitutional?

You just stated the unconstitutional part, that you'd be punished for exercising your rights…

"Do this or else" is the very definition of being forced.

lkrupp said:

Rosyna said:

The Supreme Court ruled in 2014 that this was unconstitutional. Police need a specific warrant to search a phone.

No exceptions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/26/us/supreme-court-cellphones-search-privacy.html

Can’t you read? This law says you may exercise your rights any time. You are not being forced to submit to anything but your driving privileges will be revoked if you don’t. It’s voluntary and as someone has already stated you agreed to give up your privilege to drive under certain circumstances when you got your drivers license. It all boils down to whether you value your rights more than your privileges. Your choice.

As I said, there are no exceptions, including exigent circumstances, to when an LEO needs a specific warrant to search a phone. Had you read the article, you would have understood that.

Furthermore, A court cannot legally punish you in any manner, including through harassment, if you refuse to self-incriminate yourself. This has been repeatedly backed up in court.

I don't know why you keep bringing up this "driving is not a right" nonsense as it is unrelated to anything here. You are protected from unreasonable searches regardless of any privilege you're exercising. This has been tested in court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones

mike1 said:

Rosyna said:

You have a 4th Amendment right to not be searched in an unreasonable manner (this law violates that) and you have a 5th Amendment right to due process and protection from self-incrimination (this law violates that).

The fact driving is not a constitutional right doesn't trump your actual constitutional rights. And courts cannot punish you if you refuse to waive your constitutional rights.

Absolutely incorrect. You can refuse to take a breathalyzer, that is your right. But in doing so, you give up your privilege to drive. You agreed to that when you received your driver's license.

A breathalyzer is considered non-testimonial evidence. As it is "something you are", you cannot refuse it. The same goes for things like blood tests.

However, being forced to unlock your phone is considered testimonial evidence and is therefore protected by the 5th amendment.

lkrupp said:

tallest skil said:

100% not Constitutional. I’d love to say that means it won’t happen, but of course it will.

Are you saying you have a Constitutional right to drive an automobile? Courts have long ruled that you do not have such a right. You are perfectly free to refuse the proposed textalyzer test. You have that right. You just can’t drive a car for the next ninety days if you do.

You have a 4th Amendment right to not be searched in an unreasonable manner (this law violates that) and you have a 5th Amendment right to due process and protection from self-incrimination (this law violates that).

The fact driving is not a constitutional right doesn't trump your actual constitutional rights. And courts cannot punish you if you refuse to waive your constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2014 that this was unconstitutional. Police need a specific warrant to search a phone.

No exceptions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/26/us/supreme-court-cellphones-search-privacy.html