evidence

how much of a cell phone record can a drug task force use?after you have been sentenced

They can use anything. There is no right of privacy on a cellphone and none in the records of its use either.

You have GOT to be KIDDING, right??

He wrote 18 words---and you got the entire reply WRONG.

The answer is---your cell phone records ARE PRIVATE and there is an extreme expectation of privacy to those records. THEY CANNOT be obtained without a search warrant or court order pursuant to a criminal prosecution or civil investigation.

Now, lets read the second half of those eighteen words----"after you have been sentenced" means there IS no ongoing investigation. The case is over. So, there IS no reason for them to use, have, obtain, or have any access TO his cell phone records.

The fact he only wrote 18 words clearly implies he left out a lot of details. BUT the correct answer, as he asked the question, considering the information he provided, is..........NONE.

".....these tips will not prevent disclosure of information if a court order is obtained." Protect Your Cell Phone Records

Cell phone records are the records of WHO you call and who has called you and for how long the calls lasted. The last time I looked, the police and Feds and any law enforcement body has the right to look at the RECORDS of your call. Just like they can look at the records for a land line. With a court order.

Since this guy intimated that they had his records and had convicted him of something, we must presume they had them legally. He is just worried that the longer they look at the records, the more chance they will have of finding another charge to level. Sorry, but he cannot limit the use once they have been legally obtained. So why would you assume that ONE conviction clears the use of evidence obtained legally? Dumb assertion.

YOU are off base. For example: If police want to make something out of the fact that this guy phoned a drug dealer (for a meet) and then showed up on the street to meet him, that is within their power. You have to assume they are doing it with probable cause and that they had a warrant to see the records since they were already used to convict him. As for conversations, cell phones are broadcast over air waves. There CAN BE NO PRIVACY.

CELL PHONE RECORDS are NOT broadcast over the air waves.

Where DO you get this crap? He isn't asking if they can LISTEN to his calls , calls that ARE broadcast over opened air waves--he is asking if they can GET HIS RECORDS AFTERRRRRR his case has been adjudicated.

CHECK AGAIN.

PHONE records are NOT public domain. In order to access them WITHOUT a subpoena is to bypass civil laws in place to protect the consumer.
READ about it.
WASHINGTON — Numerous federal and local law enforcement agencies have bypassed subpoenas and warrants designed to protect civil liberties and gathered Americans' personal telephone records from private-sector data brokers.

"......new questions have emerged about whether federal and local law enforcement officials are possibly skirting privacy laws by obtaining phone records from companies that get the information in a questionable manner and then hawk it over the Internet. Some of them use people inside the phone company who are willing to divulge the data. But more commonly, these businesses obtain phone records through an illegal practice known as "pretexting,"


Are the Police Digging into Your Phone Records? - TIME

NOTICE careful application of the word ILLEGAL. You DO know what ILLEGAL is, don't you?

Does it EVER occur to you to actually LOOK UP something before you spout off the wrong answer????

I don't care what the fbis have done except that it abridges my freedom. This is a case about a person who has been convicted using phone records... THUS the phone records had to have been obtained legally and are now in police and prosecutor's hands. He is worried that someone will make further use of them and wants you to say they can't. You would be wrong if you said it again... just like you were the first time.

There is no rule book that prohibits prosecution for a second crime based on evidence from a first crime. In fact, if they are unrelated, it is very difficult to have a guy up simultaneously on two different crimes... most judges would call it a day on one of the cases... so the person being charged would have time to work with his attorney on the case. So your response shows you AGAIN lack basic reading skills and higher order thinking skills.

I just don't see how you think you are going to get there with these two gray areas in your skill repertoire. If all we had to do was look up a definition, we'd be just as good a lawyer as you... which is to say "not at all".

Of course you don't care that your statement saying cell phone records aren't private is wrong----the information I provided states that without a SUBPOENA, it is ILLEGAL to do what YOU called perfectly legal. So you are wrong. I can't read? Did you READ where it is ILLEGAL to obtain cell records without a subpoena? JUST SAY YES OR NO. Type Y for yes, N for no. Can you manage that?
Lets just LOOK at his sentence, shall we?how much of a cell phone record can a drug task force use?after you have been sentenced
The answer is, once the case is SETTLED, and once it has been adjudicated, NONE. They have no basis to obtain his ongoing cell records---he doesnt specify if he means his past records related to the case, or if they are CONTINUING to obtain his records---a distinct possibility since he points out "AFTER THE SENTENCING". His cell phone records that were obtained (you remember those, don't you? the ones YOU said didn't need a subpoena??) aren't going to be used for anything since they are OLD cell phone records---and any "looking into" those records would have been done BEFORE he was convicted, while they were building a case against him. I cannot imagine he cares about the PAST cell records used to convict him---Im sure they went over those with a fine tooth comb before trial---so it makes more sense to assume he is referring to SUBSEQUENT cell records---NOT past ones.
What you just said in this paragraph does not even APPEAR in ANY posting in this thread---what does being tried for another crime have to do with anything?? YOU make up something not even addressed in this thread (double jeopardy--from another thread) THEN CHIDE me for "missing it"---when you just made it up. Good God almighty.

While you are chiding me for 'gray' areas (translation: EVERY single freakin time I point out and provide PROOF of YOUR ERRORS), remember--YOU just got done insisting phone records are NOT PRIVATE.

The INFORMATION provided says OTHERWISE. Gray areas indeed.

Blah blah blah, you arent a lawyer, you look things up, you cant read, you can't read, you can't read.......for the love of Christ, girl, get some new material.
Only a foolish ignorant man or woman--whatever it is you are today---mocks the inherent value in something "looked up"( i.e. researched for accuracy).

This may be a surprise to you, but you DO know that the law is about LOOKED UP things, not MADE UP things, right?? This isn't the law according to DONALLIE, or BOYKIN, or DENNYIT...........

Maybe thats why you keep running afoul of common sense.
I really should get paid for being the place for you to dump all your hatred of not only this country, but also for any authority figure. You hate what I stand for.......all the things you could never do, be, or have..........there is no end to your fixation and madness. You are piteous.

Hey, say that part again about how I cannot read. It is so important---you MUST insert it in EVERY thread. ROFLMAO but while you're at it--be sure to review the laws about subpoena of telephone records----maybe the "last time you checked" was, like, oh........I dunno.........NEVER? Given your most recent comments mocking "looked up" law, figures you never bothered to look it up in the first place.

This article explains subpoenas: Subpoena Lawyers