XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.mobile.android   
   From: bashley101@gmail.com   
      
   On 01/04/2016 07:32 PM, Savageduck wrote:   
   > On Jan 4, 2016, Jolly Roger wrote (in article   
   > ):   
   >   
   >> Savageduck wrote:   
   >>> On Jan 4, 2016, PAS wrote (in article   
   >>> ):   
   >>>>   
   >>>> 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.   
   >>   
   >> And that's a good thing, since their superiors will frown upon   
   >> their stupidity, which puts pressure on them to avoid stepping on   
   >> the privacy rights of the citizens they are supposedly sworn to   
   >> protect and serve. So it's still unclear to me why a citizen would   
   >> view this law as unfavorable or unwanted, since it dies more to   
   >> protect them.   
      
   I suspect that the word would come down "Don't get caught" rather than   
   "Don't do it".   
      
   > It punctuates, enhances, and emphasizes protections under the Fifth   
   > Amendment.   
      
   Knock wood.   
      
   --   
   Cheers,   
   Bev   
   -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-   
   What if there were no hypothetical questions?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)