LKN Cruiser

OP, I am glad you are safe and no one was seriously hurt, that looks like a wicked impact.

Anyone watch Live PD? That has been a huge eye opening education for me. The sheer amount of people that are driving on revoked, suspended, no license at all, no insurance, stolen car, crack pipe, drunk, buzzed, high, etc. has been astonishing. TV sensationalism aside, it has just given me a new outlook as to who is on the road next to me, or more importantly behind me (or oncoming). Like others have mentioned, their sheer disregard for laws generally goes hand in hand for the disregard for human life. There is no blood in that turnip to get if you try to hold them personally accountable in any way. The only way to protect yourself in this situation is to have YOUR OWN insurance needs fully covered. Ok, I'm done now.

jbone36

Not going to debate this much more, but this has nothing to do with searching through someone's phone. This case is about using cell tower data to ascertain the location of someone's cell phone. Police do this all the time w/o search warrants when trying to find missing , suicidal or homicidal people. This practice isn't because of any court order, it's because law permits it. To do any searching of data on someone's phone absent consent or emergency exceptions, police need a search warrant, no ifs ands or buts about it. I'm well aware of the types of court orders, but in the context it's being applied in this thread, it's a search warrant.

tboo72

Agreed but its a start.

dodgeman1

Like someone else said, you can sue, win, but that doesn't mean you get paid. She is twenty, and most likely doesn't have any money. Best case is she loses her license, but even then she probably keeps driving. There is also a chance they could order money paid to you out of her pay check, but once again. not that likely. I can almost promise the insurance company won't bother.

David Jones

I'll add my guess.

You'll have another brand new truck before long. That one will be totaled.

paperhanger

How did you get the beans on top of the frank?

E. Manuel

My original replies were in response to a post where someone mentioned that police can't obtain cell phone records without a search warrant. I posted information regarding the SCA and a specific court case and links where it is clearly explained that they can.

Then you responded that "a court order is a search warrant, a search warrant is a court order." I then explained that you were only half correct in that statement, since court orders are NOT necessarily search warrants. Being in "that line of work", I hope you understand that now.

Now you are going into a new subject. That of searching "through someone's phone." Which is a different subject than obtaining a non-search-warrant court order to obtain cell phone records from a third party. I am not sure if you are having trouble following the discussion, or if you just want to change the subject to start a argument about something I didn't post about.

Phil48315

lets move on .....

jbone36

2015F150Platinum4x4

To search through someone’s phone for evidence of text messaging you need consent or a search warrant.

To obtain current cell phone location history during an exigent situation (suicidal, missing endangerd person, etc.) there is a work around to get that without a search warrant (explained above by another poster). However a search warrant must be obtained after the fact (that’s a really simplified explanation).

And it is true that not all court orders are search warrants and vis versa. There are many types of court orders that aren’t search warrants (subpoenas, divorce decrees, parenting plans, restraining orders, etc.).