tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post7038595127258081889..comments2023-12-12T03:19:42.467-05:00Comments on CYB3RCRIM3: Blackberry Seized Lawfully . . . ?Susan Brennerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17575138839291052258noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-36299528999173770202010-11-21T13:49:33.366-05:002010-11-21T13:49:33.366-05:00Skip all the mumbo jumbo and cut to the chase. Di...Skip all the mumbo jumbo and cut to the chase. Did anyone do a simple cross-check of the send/receive records on the Blackberry and Galgano's cell phone? If Galgano's number shows up on the Blackberry at the same time as his phone shows the Blackberry's number being called, simple probability would favor the conclusion that the Blackberry was the stolen item. Not rocket science.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-48452040997350989222010-10-28T08:49:16.149-04:002010-10-28T08:49:16.149-04:00For Anonymous #1,
As to your second point -- abou...For Anonymous #1,<br /><br />As to your second point -- about the phone being stolen -- see my previous comment responding to JW and Anonymous #2.<br /><br />As to the presumptive facts that the officer COULD have determined whose phone it was after seizing it (in any of a variety of scenarios) . . . that isn't a viable option here. As I explained in the post, the detective had to have a valid 4th Amendment authorization (a warrant or a valid exception to the warrant requirement) IN ORDER TO DO WHAT HE DID IN THIS CASE. Courts only look at what actually happened . . . not what might have happened if things had been done differently.Susan Brennerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17575138839291052258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-30076728802423759982010-10-28T08:45:34.840-04:002010-10-28T08:45:34.840-04:00For JW & Anonymous #2,
As to whether Starks h...For JW & Anonymous #2,<br /><br />As to whether Starks had standing/a valid possessory interest in the stolen laptop . . . I think that's a good issue to raise (for the prosecution, that is).<br /><br />I didn't address the issue for two reasons: The primary reason is that I wanted to address the Hicks search/plain view issue raised, IMHO, by the detective's calling the phone. <br /><br />The other reason is that in Hicks, the U.S. Supreme Court and two Arizona courts held that the evidence obtained by moving the turntable had to be suppressed even though the turntable was stolen property. I assume if the Supreme Court can get away with doing that in a case, I can get away with doing it in a post.Susan Brennerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17575138839291052258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-12076168049611496022010-10-28T02:44:53.060-04:002010-10-28T02:44:53.060-04:00I just read your post below about the VI case afte...I just read your post below about the VI case after I made my comments to this post. In your VI post you state "a seizure of property such as the Blackberry at issue in this case occurs when law enforcement officers “meaningfully interfere” with an individual’s possessory interests in their property. Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56 (1992)." Do thieves have a 'possessory interest' in the property that they have stolen? I tend to think that they do not. In fact, in Texas law (TX Code of Criminal Procedure article 18.16, ANY PERSON has a right to prevent the consequences of theft <br />by seizing any personal property that has been stolen and bringing <br />it, with the person suspected of committing the theft, if that <br />person can be taken, before a magistrate for examination, or <br />delivering the property and the person suspected of committing the <br />theft to a peace officer for that purpose.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-65145364927947745282010-10-28T02:38:18.173-04:002010-10-28T02:38:18.173-04:00I do not follow your reasoning, either.
Plus, it ...I do not follow your reasoning, either.<br /><br />Plus, it makes no sense that the cop would have taken the phone without also looking at its screen first. When someone calls my phone the incoming number appears or the name of the person ("mom", wife, etc. if their profiles are in the phone already).<br /><br />Cop walks in, sees phone in perp's hand. Q: Is that your phone? A: No. Cop calls vic phone number and the phone in perp's hand starts ringing. Cop grabs phone, looks at screen and sees his phone number displayed as the 'incoming' number. Case solved.<br /><br />Plus, once the cops take the phone it would be easy enough to find out who the real owner is: the perp or the vic. I am assuming that since the prosecutor accepted the charges and this went to trial that the vic was the true owner of the phone.<br /><br />If something is stolen property, how can a perp have any 4th Amendment protections?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-36734841475557140082010-10-27T12:04:19.722-04:002010-10-27T12:04:19.722-04:00Susan, I don't understand how anyone has stand...Susan, I don't understand how anyone has standing in stolen property. Please explain.JWnoreply@blogger.com