There is a very good public safety reason for the prohibition of jammers. The Communications Act of 1934 broadly prohibits jamming devices, including cell phone jammers, and the FCC cannot waive this statutory prohibition. However, that's not easy, not preferable, and not legal. Well, some argue, just jam the cell phones. And, it's a problem the FCC is committed to help solve. This is a national problem that has been of concern for state and local law enforcement and department of corrections officials for sometime. An inmate's illegal activity may involve discussions with fellow criminals outside the prison walls about drug trafficking, money laundering or intimidating witnesses - or worse, plotting their murders. Despite federal and some state laws prohibiting their possession, today, thousands of prisoners nationwide are in possession of contraband cell phones and are conducting illegal enterprises despite serving time for other crimes. Today, prisons across the nation are reportedly confiscating thousands of cell phones from inmates, yet this contraband is still being used by inmates daily.Ĭell phones in the hands of prisoners present a serious threat to public safety. And, it seems, neither can the nation's inmates. ![]() Just last month, Georgia inmates are reported to have used them to coordinate a work strike across a number of the state's prisons.Ī cell phone these days is apparently something the average American cannot live without. Corcoran, California Prison authorities confirmed that Manson had been in contact with people outside the prison walls, and for some time. 109 (1984) (inspection of package opened by private freight carrier who notified drug agents).A few weeks ago a cell phone was found in Charles Manson's California prison cell. 765, 771 (1983) (locker customs agents had opened, and which was subsequently traced). 321 (1987) (police lawfully in apartment to investigate shooting lacked probable cause to inspect expensive stereo equipment to record serial numbers).ģ48 Illinois v. 1 (1932) (officers observed contraband in plain view in garage, warrantless entry to seize was unconstitutional).ģ47 Arizona v. 498 (1925) (officers observed contraband in view through open doorway had probable cause to procure warrant). 128 (1990) (in spite of Amendment’s particularity requirement, officers with warrant to search for proceeds of robbery may seize weapons of robbery in plain view).ģ46 Steele v. There is no requirement that the discovery of evidence in plain view must be “inadvertent.” See Horton v. 106 (1986) (evidence seen while looking for vehicle identification number). 730 (1983) (contraband on car seat in plain view of officer who had stopped car and asked for driver’s license) New York v. 325 (1990) (items seized in plain view during protective sweep of home incident to arrest) Texas v. 23 (1963) (officers entered premises without warrant to make arrest because of exigent circumstances seized evidence in plain sight). 234 (1968) (officer who opened door of impounded automobile and saw evidence in plain view properly seized it) Ker v. ![]() 38 (1976) (“plain view” justification for officers to enter home to arrest after observing defendant standing in open doorway) Harris v. 1 (1982) (officer lawfully in dorm room may seize marijuana seeds and pipe in open view) United States v. The Court has analogized from the plain view doctrine to hold that, once officers have lawfully observed contraband, “the owner’s privacy interest in that item is lost,” and officers may reseal a container, trace its path through a controlled delivery, and seize and reopen the container without a warrant. 346 The plain view doctrine is limited, however, by the probable cause requirement: officers must have probable cause to believe that items in plain view are contraband before they may search or seize them. “Plain View”.-Somewhat similar in rationale is the rule that objects falling in the “plain view” of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure without a warrant 345 or that, if the officer needs a warrant or probable cause to search and seize, his lawful observation will provide grounds therefor. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |