XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.mobile.android   
   From: bashley101@gmail.com   
      
   On 01/04/2016 02:27 PM, Savageduck wrote:   
   > On Jan 4, 2016, PAS wrote   
   > (in article ):   
   >   
   >> "Jolly Roger"wrote in message   
   >> news:devqebF4fotU3@mid.individual.net...   
   >> > On 2016-01-04, Jolly Roger wrote:   
   >> > > (PeteCresswell)wrote:   
   >> > > > Per Lewis:   
   >> > > > > > That if anyone finds his phone laying on a desk or table etc they   
   >> > > > > > can cause   
   >> > > > > > it to self-destruct in just five touches.   
   >> > > > >   
   >> > > > > What the fuck are you talking about>   
   >> > > >   
   >> > > > I think he is referring to phone security systems that initiate data   
   >> > > > deletion if/when somebody attempts to log on with the wrong PW.   
   >> > >   
   >> > > What does that have to do with a law that prevents cops from   
   >> > > accessing a   
   >> > > device without a court order?   
   >> >   
   >> > More to the point: Since the law prohibits cops from accessing devices   
   >> > without a court order, the need for wiping the device after a certain   
   >> > number of failed attempts is diminished rather than increased.   
   >>   
   >> It's not safe to assume that the cops will obey the law.   
   >   
   > Regardless of the integrity of this “cop”, all this new California Law   
   > does ultimately is address admissibility. If the cop/investigator (this also   
   > applies to DA investigators) gains access to the phone with a valid court   
   > order/warrant, any found incriminating data/evidence is then admissible for   
   > prosecution purposes. If the cop/investigator violates the law and accesses   
   > the phone without that Court order/warrant, all data found from the illegal   
   > search is now inadmissible. This can lead to a failed prosecution, and   
   > confirmation there was a dumb cop/investigator on the job.   
   >   
   > Personally I have known cops that stupid, most DA investigators I know are   
   > far too good at what they do to go down that road.   
   > As in all walks of life stupid cops exist.   
   >   
   >> For example,   
   >> it's Constitutionally protected under the 1st Amendment to   
   >> photograph/record the police in public. That hasn't stopped the police   
   >> from arresting people for doing it at worst, harassing them for doing it   
   >> at best.   
   > As in all walks of life stupid cops exist.   
      
   It doesn't seem unreasonable that law enforcement people perform an   
   illegal search and then do a legal search based on what they found   
   illegally.   I would assume that if you could prove that the legal   
   evidence was the result of the illegal search you could get it thrown   
   out.  Or not,   
      
      
   --   
   Cheers, Bev   
   = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =   
   "I read about this syndrome called hypochondria in a   
     magazine. I think I've got it."               -- DA   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)