You ever hear of a "Sneak and Peak Warrant"?

Well,they are here and they are legal....got it straight from an Asst US Atty.You are driving along minding your own business,and you get stopped for some minor traffic BS...all of a sudden,out of the bushes pops a dude with a warrant for your CELL PHONE...they hook it up,download it and"Thank you sir,have a nice day"...youre done...in more ways than one if you have bad stuff on your cell...serious biz...new tactic they are using to get at suspects phones....Have a nice day

reply to post by gandamack2


umm dude, that's not a sneak and peek warrant, and they have been "legal" since the patriot act.

A sneak and peek allows them to enter your home, vehicle, whatever, without your knowledge or consent, gather information and evidence, and they never have to tell you they have been there.

"Thank you sir,have a nice day"...youre done...in more ways than one if you have bad stuff on your cell...serious biz...new tactic they are using to get at suspects phones....Have a nice day

That's something entirely different and some states are doing this without any warrant or oversight, you can find plenty of articles about the device they are using here and on various other sites

reply to post by phishyblankwaters


The Asst US Atty I was listening to called it a sneak and peek....those roadside checks are not legal if you refuse...with the warrants you CANT refuse....they closed the loophole

People don't seem to grasp the fact that the gov't OWNS them, we are their property as long as you're in their system, with a SS number and what not. Under this mutual agreement, we agree to any and all rules and statutes they invent and change. Becoming a sovereign is our only hope to get out of the corrupt system.

Oh America... What is wrong with you? Why destroy your own people's freedom? It's so unfortunate.

Well best of luck out there, Americans.

Despite any patriot act or anything other. If you do not give consent to be searched then they have to secure a search warrant. That has been held up in the Supreme Court for decades.

All you have to do is say, "No, you can't search my property." and that is all there is to it. For them to cite some crazy law that goes against every ruling stating that a warrant must be obtained to search if consent isn't given isn't going to change that.

and here I thought the 4th Amendment was expanding and becoming more restrictive to law enforcement.

Curtilage, for instance, now includes a backyard on a knock and talk (even though a suspect could then blast out the back door and head for the hills).

Search incident to arrest has been reduced. Ex: guy gets pulled over for traffic offense, checks and queries indicate a bench warrant, so he's arrested. 5.0 can only search the areas of the vehicle that were accessible - in the person's reach. No more tossing the car after the fact.

This info is based on recent 4th Amend training, and guidance from counsel.

reply to post by gandamack2


Goes right along with the CIA goon joining the NYPD and teaching them advanced spy techniques. CIA Teaches Spy Tricks to NYPD

I am convinced that NYC was a "Pilot Run" Fits right in with: DHS Giving $2.1B in 'Preparedness Grants' to Cities, Indian Tribes, Non-Profits, Etc.

The Government in this country is really creeping me out!

i thought a sneak and peak was like a tap and wrap.

where the cops come and knock on your door, and if you open it they suddenly smell marijuana and let themselves in.

best opposition to this technique is to not open the door. in fact go ahead and lock the deadbolt so they get the picture.

Unfortunately, long before the Patriot Act was around the Supreme Court and other courts have pretty much said that covert entry into a persons home, as long as it was pursuant to a search warrant, did not violate the 4th:

1967 Katz v. United States
1979 United States v. Dalia
1986 United States v. Freitas


The courts have failed time and again to keep government off our backs and out of our homes...why do I even continue to live here.

With the Patriot Act, however, the sneak and peeks or "Delayed Notice Search Warrants" have gotten to be easier and more common. In 2009, a whopping 77% of these warrants were for drug crimes. (From wtae.com).

reply to post by capod2t


You are incorrect about search incident to arrest....Az v Gant pretty much did away with that...the idea of the search is officers safety...if you arrest the guy and put him in the patrol car(as in Gant) them he cant access any weapon in the car,therefore "incident to arrest" doesnt hold....now you have to inventory...no area of the cab searches....if you let them its your fault because its also been held that refusal to serach isnt grounds to serach...as in not enough probable cause in itself....know your alw if you are dealing with the law