Showing posts with label Phone. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Phone. Show all posts

December 7, 2014

CHP Officer Stole Nude Photos of DUI Suspect from Her Phone

I remember as a kid being told to find a police officer if I was ever in trouble, the idea being that we, as citizens, should be able to trust that law enforcement will protect and serve our best interests. As a child, I had no reason to question my parent’s advice. However, as an adult, I find it increasingly difficult to follow my parents’ words of wisdom.

So what is the latest transgression in, what seems like, an ever-increasing upsurge of law enforcement transgressions?

According to court documents obtained by the Contra Costa Times, a California Highway Patrol officer is alleged to have gone into the phone of a DUI suspect whom he pulled over and sent nude images to himself of the DUI suspect.

Sean Harrinton, a five-year veteran of the California Highway Patrol, and his partner pulled over a woman on August 29th of this year for making an unsafe lane change in Northern California. The woman allegedly failed field sobriety tests and was determined to have a blood alcohol content of 0.29 percent. She was subsequently arrested and taken to the local county jail for booking.  

While at the county jail, Harrington secretly went into the woman’s phone and sent himself images of the woman, both nude and in a bikini.

Although the District Attorney’s office and the CHP declined to comment on the case, the Contra Costa Times has reported that a Contra Costa District Attorney investigator has recommended felony computer theft charges against Harrington.

Harrington has been assigned to desk duties pending the investigation.

"We think it’s a horrendous breach of the public trust," said Rick Madsen, a private Danville attorney representing the woman. "We believe Officer Harrington committed a clandestine and illegal intrusion into her privacy which is unspeakable considering his sworn duty to protect the public. My client remains understandably distraught as we await further information about who else may possess the photos and what further investigation may uncover."

Although Harrington’s search of the phone may not have been for the purpose of obtaining evidence against the woman, the breach of privacy is nonetheless disturbingly illegal.

The United States Supreme Court recently unanimously held in Riley v. California, 573 U.S. ___ (2014), that warrantless searches and seizures of digital contents of a cellphones during an arrest are unconstitutional.

“Modern cellphones are not just another technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans ‘the privacies of life,’ wrote the Court. “The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of protection for which the Founders fought. Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple – get a warrant.”

The woman apparently had given Harrington the password to her phone for the purpose of obtaining a number from the phone. The scope of her consent was to the phone number and only the phone number, nothing more.

According to court records, the woman’s DUI case has since been dismissed as a result of the investigation into Harrington’s actions. And rightly so. If Harrington was willing to violate the woman’s privacy rights, what else was he willing to do to taint the DUI investigation?

Share This entry was posted on Monday, October 27th, 2014 at 7:48 am and is filed under Duiblog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Continue Reading...

February 21, 2011

Police Seek Dorchester Burglary Suspect Who’s Phone May Turn Him In - Attorney Sam’s Take

An unnamed gentleman was apparently going about his business in Dorchester Monday. Said business is known as "home invasion".

The break-in was on Beaumont Street and took place on Monday morning while the occupants were out. One was at work and the other...coincidentally enough...was on jury duty

The burglar took an awful lot of stuff, including all the electronics that he could find. This would include a laptop computer, television set and Nintendo Wii game system as well as other goods. The rooms were found, according to police, . “in disarray, draws (sic) opened, closets opened, items ransacked.”

However, the mystery thief apparently left a gift behind.

His blackberry cell phone. It was found on the bathroom floor. Near the broken window.

As a result of the helpful device, a warrant has issued for the arrest of the mysterious gentleman.

A mailman also told investigators that he saw two suspects climb into a white vehicle with “a loud engine” and take off. Another witness told police she saw two men carry a large object down the driveway and put it into what looked like a white hatchback.

While the phone is aiding law enforcement in tracking down one of the alleged suspects, the police may have to rely on eye witness identification to charge the second man.

As an experienced Boston defense attorney, I have handled many cases wherein the government’s case involves either eyewitness testimony or circumstantial evidence. Each type of evidence brings about its own strengths and weaknesses.

The cell phone has apparently already helped the Commonwealth arrive at a chief suspect, namely, the owner of that phone. However, the fact that said phone was left at the scene of the crime and was not there when the occupants left earlier in the morning is not conclusive of the issue of whether the owner was either one of the burglars or even at the scene of the crime. Perhaps the owner had previously been robbed of his cell phone. Perhaps it had been taken by someone who wanted the police to believe that the owner was the culprit.

After all, the leaving of a cell phone is not necessarily the result of carelessness. It could be the result of an evil plan to shed suspicion onto someone else.

And then there are the eyewitnesses. Well, clearly, there will be all kinds of issues to bring about regarding their ability to observe. Further, if they had indeed seen what looked like a robbery, why didn’t they call the police?

In other words, while the leaving behind of the cell phone might bring about a chuckle, it does not spell “game over” for the future defendant(s). Neither do the eyewitnesses even if they identify suspects.

The only question is….with the defense attorney(s) have the experience or talent to make the best out of these, and other, issues?

Well, I guess that will be for whoever is arrested in this case to decide.

Might I suggest , if you someday find yourself in their position, that you opt for a lawyer with talent and expertise? It might be more expensive…in terms of money. However, it might be much cheaper in terms of years in obligatory Commonwealth housing.

If you would like to discuss a criminal case with me, please feel to call me to arrange a free initial consultation at 617-492-3000.

To view the original story, please go to : http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1314030


View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Links

Developed in partnership with SanFran Coders.

Blogroll

The acronyms DUI, DWI, OMVI and OVI all refer to the same thing: operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The most commonly used terms are DUI, an acronym for Driving Under the Influence, and DWI, an acronym for Driving While Impaired.
© Copyright 2010 - 2015 MY OVI | Developed by San Fran Coders