For all you swine loving sheep, you should go out and celebrate as they wipe their fat azzez with our constution

http://www.policecrimes.com/forum/vi...php?f=3&t=9531

 

And for anyone who says corrupt cops are "just doing their job" then so were the Nazis, so would you say anyone who followed Hitler was right?

 

Why are you jumping all over cops, when you should be mad at the judges that allowed this "search" to happen?

 

How to Godwin your own thread in 1 post.

 

Zig Heil?

 

I don't agree with it, just asking you a question.

 

Just past cases with the "system" that cops own the judges and not the other way around. For examples you should see the shit that went down in AZ reguarding Arpayo or wtf ever his name is.

 

 

Im not worried

 

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions...ts/S166600.PDF

Page 8
"We hold that the cell phone was “immediately associated with
[defendant‟s] person” (Chadwick, supra, 433 U.S. at p. 15), and that the
warrantless search of the cell phone therefore was valid. As the People explain,
the cell phone “was an item [of personal property] on [defendant‟s] person at the
time of his arrest and during the administrative processing at the police station.”
In this regard, it was like the clothing taken from the defendant in Edwards and the
cigarette package taken from the defendant‟s coat pocket in Robinson, and it was
unlike the footlocker in Chadwick, which was separate from the defendants‟
persons and was merely within the “area” of their “ „immediate control.‟ ”
(Chadwick, supra, 433 U.S. at p. 15.) Because the cell phone was immediately
associated with defendant‟s person, Fazio was “entitled to inspect” its contents
without a warrant (Robinson, supra, 414 U.S. at p. 236) at the sheriff‟s station 90
minutes after defendant‟s arrest, whether or not an exigency existed."