icoco3

techprod1gy said:

What I know is reading a book or cellphone while driving is bad for the motoring public. It needs to stop so what is the solution to this? I see people saying constitution blah blah blah...and all the reasons why they can't do certain things. What is the solution to the problem then?

Get a warrant.  Then, there is no questions.  Besides, if the phone is secured at the scene then entered as evidence upon execution of a warrant, what is the issue?  No matter how people view it, it is covered and can't come back to bite the police later on.

lkrupp said:

Rosyna said:

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.

So all existing law regarding refusal to take a breathalyzer test and then being ‘punished’ by losing driving privileges is unconstitutional? The SCOTUS disagrees and has determined it is lawful to do so. You are wrong. And if the SCOTUS says it’s constitutional it is. They are the ones who decide, no one else.

Go back to comment 23...

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?

How about, they just go get the warrant then we don't have to play these games.  You don't even have to talk to them at the scene of an accident.

I other news, Apple sells a ton of iPhones through partners as well as its own store and website.

adambravo said:

icoco3 said:

Please name a pizzeria that actually refused someone some pizza because they were gay.

Google's really handy for this sort of thing: http://www.eater.com/2015/4/1/8325219/indiana-pizza-parlor-public-deny-service-lgbt-gay-law-discrimination

From the article...

"However, the O'Connors said they would not deny service to any individual who walked in for a pizza. What they disagree with is gay marriage. Memories Pizza refuses to cater gay weddings or celebrations. Crystal's father Kevin O'Connor defended his position: "I choose to be heterosexual. They choose to be homosexual. Why should I be beat over the head to go along with something they choose?" "

No one actually asked them to cater a wedding.  It was a question proposed by a news group.  In bold above, you can see what they actually said.  They would not refuse service to anyone, they just would not cater to gay weddings or celebrations.  So, they did not actually refuse service to anyone so still waiting for the pizzeria that actually refused someone because they were gay. (Far fetched anyone would actually have pizza catered for a wedding anyway but who knows.)

Stop confusing gay people receiving regular service in bakeries, flower shops, pizzerias, etc with the business owners catering to a gay wedding or celebration.  The way in which it is constantly discussed/mentioned is that all service is being refused which is not true at all.