Judge: Police can't eavesdrop on a suspect's cell-phone calls

When making arrest officers should go get emergency warrent from judge,identifing phone i question.More work but doable.Especially in prolonged investagation,anticapate that bad guys have cell phones on them.

didnt work for you ya meathead. why dont you go learn how to spell and/or formulate a sentence properly.

In Lisa Redmond's story here, she writes "By answering the defendant's phone, Lowy said, Lynn police intruded into the privacy of the drug dealer and his customer."

I find it very troubling that a Supreme Court Judge would refer to Mr. Diaz as a "drug Dealer" rather than as a Defendant.

I've heard of perversions of Justice before, but that takes the cake. Good editing Lowell Sun!(sarcasm)

in my opion when ur arresed on drug charges all your property .should become property of the police or state including cell phones guns cars ect. get real whe need to get tough on drugs as well as people selling them

Who is monitoring the lowell police cell phone drunk driving drug abuse alcohol abuse,and abusing the public
who is monitoring them half are mentaly and emocionally ill and required some agency to monitor the lowell police.

mike westford wrote:

in my opion when ur arresed on drug charges all your property .should become property of the police or state including cell phones guns cars ect. get real whe need to get tough on drugs as well as people selling them

What about innocent until PROVEN guilty?
Until you are tried and convicted you are still a citizen with rights.

hooked on phonics wrote:

didnt work for you ya meathead. why dont you go learn how to spell and/or formulate a sentence properly.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

lhs mom wrote:

<quoted text>
What about innocent until PROVEN guilty?
Until you are tried and convicted you are still a citizen with rights.

o ya i forgot sorry .innocent with a cop standing thier with a bag of drugs he just took off of somebody o ya thay have rights.may be a one way walk down the train tracks would be easer.for the rights of the drug dealers.

mike westford wrote:

<quoted text> o ya i forgot sorry .innocent with a cop standing thier with a bag of drugs he just took off of somebody o ya thay have rights.may be a one way walk down the train tracks would be easer.for the rights of the drug dealers.

It might have to do with the rights of the person on the other end of the phone too.

mike westford wrote:

<quoted text> o ya i forgot sorry .innocent with a cop standing thier with a bag of drugs he just took off of somebody o ya thay have rights.may be a one way walk down the train tracks would be easer.for the rights of the drug dealers.

How do you know the bag of drugs that the police officer is holding is not planted evidence?..say maybe a sample of the $80,000 worth of pot that the dracut P.D. stole from thier own lockup? Try and be a good citizen mike, don't try and destroy our constitution just because your frightened..life is tough but it's a lot tougher when your stupid.

mike westford wrote:

<quoted text> o ya i forgot sorry .innocent with a cop standing thier with a bag of drugs he just took off of somebody o ya thay have rights.may be a one way walk down the train tracks would be easer.for the rights of the drug dealers.

It's called due process and if you live in this country you get it regardless of what you are accused of.

True Blue wrote:

<quoted text>How do you know the bag of drugs that the police officer is holding is not planted evidence?..say maybe a sample of the $80,000 worth of pot that the dracut P.D. stole from thier own lockup? Try and be a good citizen mike, don't try and destroy our constitution just because your frightened..life is tough but it's a lot tougher when your stupid.

im not against rights nor am i stupid .thanks for the feed back.but when the legal system and our rights as we see it in our constitution. gets so twisted to suit the criminals and our jails are equipped with a revolving door.As for being frightened sorry not the case .

mike westford wrote:

<quoted text> im not against rights nor am i stupid .thanks for the feed back.but when the legal system and our rights as we see it in our constitution. gets so twisted to suit the criminals and our jails are equipped with a revolving door.As for being frightened sorry not the case .

Oh that pesky Constitution.... makes everyone think they have rights.

They should have got a warrent and then checked the voicemail.

Im glad we aren't running this country based on your opinion because we would have worse problems then we do already. Im not a druggie taking up for other druggies. Im just a citizen trying to hold on to the few civil liberties and rights we as citizens have left in the drug war crazied world we live in. We laws already in effect to confinscate the property of "convicted" drug dealers. But isn't the issue in the case. The person in this issue wasn't convicted they weren't even completely booked in. That means the hadnt spoke to a attorney, they weren't shown evidence supporting their charges and they hadn't yet had an oppertunity to challenge their charge before judge or jury. They were or should have been innocent until proven guilty, therefore i agree that the police had no legal right to answer their cell phone. But im very curious how they managed to have a cell in their possession anyway. I would have thought the arresting officers would have searched them and logged their personal property before beginning to book them. I guess it's a good thing they were a drug dealer and not a terrorist, cell phones are getting smaller all the time but are still large enough that alot of other things (weapons,lethal chemicals,etc.) could have been brought into the correctional facility. Imagine the damage that could have done.

mike westford wrote:

<quoted text> im not against rights nor am i stupid .thanks for the feed back.but when the legal system and our rights as we see it in our constitution. gets so twisted to suit the criminals and our jails are equipped with a revolving door.As for being frightened sorry not the case .

Sorry for the harsh words. The point I'm trying to get across is that, since we know that there are criminals on both sides of the fence we need more than ever to adhere to rule of law..imagine a world where the street cop has judicial powers...no thanks.

totally not cool i don't trust cops anymore.

lhs mom wrote:

<quoted text>
What about innocent until PROVEN guilty?
Until you are tried and convicted you are still a citizen with rights.

even if convicted u still have rights thats when u should looseall ur rights serve all your time in jail and opon completion of a jail term. ur rights as u know them are returned.or if ur not a citizen after jail turn u over to you country of origin

mike westford wrote:

in my opion when ur arresed on drug charges all your property .should become property of the police or state including cell phones guns cars ect. get real whe need to get tough on drugs as well as people selling them

Your "opion" is wrong....
Think they should be getting convictions before you forfeit your property....otherwise who is to stop Officer Kelly from arresting you every Thursday night as you come home from the bank with your paycheck?

mike westford wrote:

in my opion when ur arresed on drug charges all your property .should become property of the police or state including cell phones guns cars ect. get real whe need to get tough on drugs as well as people selling them

And what happens if you are found innocent? And if you're married or have kids? "Oh, hello ma'm, we arrested your husband on drug charges, sorry, but we need to take your care, it now belongs to state. Oh, you can't to work now, and won't have a job to support your kids, guess we're taking them too. Say good-bye to your kids and have a nice day."

Getting tough is one thing, and is important, but being stupid, it doesn't help things out. You're idea is a knee-jerk reaction, and if it came to be a law/policy, we could very well see issues like my little conversation above.

Anything you have on your person is kept by the police anyway until you are released on bail, or released from jail. Do we really need to take everything out of the house/apt they live in too?

Innocent until proven guilty, but we're gonna take your stuff anyway.