By: Christopher Barnett
March 18, 2019
(I have no idea why it won't go to the left and it won't stop being centered LOL)
Below is a copy of TFO's open record request sent to the McCurtain County Sheriff's Office on March 18, 2019. The McCurtain County Sheriff's Office raided a legal Medical Marijuana Grower, who not only had their license to grow, but also had their patient card. The Sheriff's Office seized the cell phones of this citizen/victim. In this call, Devon from the McCurtain County Sheriff's Office admits that they do not have a warrant to search the cell phone.
We refer everyone to look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riley_v._California .
The victim is Sharlya Minyard Smith. The victim has both a commercial grow license and a patient card. There is nothing in the laws of Oklahoma that require a grower to have a commercial space to grow. On the phone call, I advised Devon who claims he has no idea who controls the social media for the Sheriff's office that it is illegal to delete any comments from the Government Facebook Page for the McCurtain County Sheriff's Office. I faxed TFO's open record request and am sending it by CERTIFIED MAIL with RETURN receipt today as we always do at TFO. We're investigating and we'll see what kind of lies they come up with in McCurtain County. The audio file is titled "Devon is ignorant" because that is exactly what he is in my personal opinion.
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in California Vs. Riley the following:
Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, concluding that a warrant is required to search a mobile phone. Roberts wrote that it fails the warrantless search test established in Chimel v. California:
Digital data stored on a cell phone cannot itself be used as a weapon to harm an arresting officer or to effectuate the arrestee's escape. Law enforcement officers remain free to examine the physical aspects of a phone to ensure that it will not be used as a weapon--say, to determine whether there is a razor blade hidden between the phone and its case. Once an officer has secured a phone and eliminated any potential physical threats, however, data on the phone can endanger no one.
Although possible evidence stored on a phone may be destroyed with either remote wiping or data encryption, Roberts noted that is "the ordinary operation of a phone's security features, apart from any active attempt by a defendant or his associates to conceal or destroy evidence upon arrest." He then argues that a warrantless search is unlikely to make much of a difference:
Cell phone data would be vulnerable to remote wiping from the time an individual anticipates arrest to the time any eventual search of the phone is completed... likewise, an officer who seizes a phone in an unlocked state might not be able to begin his search in the short time remaining before the phone locks and data becomes encrypted.
Roberts then cites several common examples to turn off or prevent the phone's security features. Furthermore, Roberts argued that cell phones differ both quantitatively and qualitatively from other objects in a person's pocket:
Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans “the privacies of life". The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought."
Copyright © 2018 Transparency for Oklahomans, an open records watchdog group based in Oklahoma, keeping our Government honest - All Rights Reserved.