- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 8th circuit rules legal to seize and scan credit/debit cards during traffic stop
Posted on 6/14/16 at 2:40 pm to Speedy G
Posted on 6/14/16 at 2:40 pm to Speedy G
quote:
They were seized b/c there was probable cause that they were illegal (they were). They were impounded as evidence. While in custody (not on the side of the road), they were scanned to confirm that they were indeed illegal (they were). Charges were filed and the defendant was convicted of possession of illegal cards. On appeal, the defendant tried a hail mary motion to suppress the evidence gleaned from scanning the cards, claiming it was was an unlawful search.
I don't disagree with any of this.
quote:
This case had nothing to do with account balances, and of course no money was siezed. There wasn't any money. They were bogus cards. The scan was simply to identify the cards as counterfeit, by determining that the magnetic strip didn't match the front of the card. IMO, that is something akin to a translation.
If you read my exchange with LSU2006, you'll see my concern was the precedent set by saying LEO can scan your card without a warrant. I think that has the potential to be abused down the road.
quote:
You seem really uninformed about this case, which is frustrating considering you started the thread.
Like I said earlier, if you see where I am mistaken, let me know. I put up the article originally because it was concerning to me. I take an interest in these kinds of cases as a non lawyer.
2
Posted on 6/14/16 at 2:45 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
If you read my exchange with LSU2006, you'll see my concern was the precedent set by saying LEO can scan your card without a warrant. I think that has the potential to be abused down the road.
And if they were to do so to obtain information beyond the cardholder's name, card number, expiration date then we very well would have a different holding. The opinion even stated as such (IIRC).
Posted on 6/14/16 at 2:49 pm to lsu2006
quote:
you'll see my concern was the precedent set by saying LEO can scan your card without a warrant. I think that has the potential to be abused down the road.
Last paragraph of the majority opinion:
quote:
There may be an instance, with facts different from this case, where a court reasonably finds a legitimate privacy interest in information contained in the magnetic strip of a credit, debit, or gift card. In such a case, a motion to suppress may well be proper to further explicate the nature and character of privacy interests, if any, that may reside within the confines of these magnetic strips. However, here, where all of the information in the magnetic strip should have been identical to the information in plain view on the front of the card, and where the cards were lawfully possessed by law enforcement officers and established to be counterfeit, we cannot conclude that De L'Isle had a privacy interest warranting further investigation into potential Fourth Amendment protections.
Posted on 6/14/16 at 3:06 pm to lsu2006
quote:
Last paragraph of the majority opinion:
More specifically the problem I had was the part of the discussion where the court talks about how his card doesn't have an expectation of privacy because the information on it is sent to vendors to make purchases- implying that when you purchase something the vendor verifies that you have sufficient funds to do so(I.e. an account balance).
My problem with that is that this could be turned on its head by arguing that because you're willing to share your account balance with a vendor it's therefore not reasonable to assume its private information, and therefore not subject to any 4th amendment restrictions.
Eta- ony my phone, but I am talking about page 7 of the opinion.
This post was edited on 6/14/16 at 3:10 pm
Posted on 6/14/16 at 3:08 pm to NYNolaguy1
Doesn't the card say it belongs to the bank and not to you?
Posted on 6/14/16 at 3:14 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
I had was the part of the discussion where the court talks about how his card doesn't have an expectation of privacy because the information on it is sent to vendors to make purchases- implying that when you purchase something the vendor verifies that you have sufficient funds to do so(I.e. an account balance).
I don't know why you keep making these implications regarding the account balance. The only information or transmittal thereof mentioned at all in the opinion is that contained on the front of the card which is supposed to match the information contained in the magnetic strips. Yet again, as the opinion stated, there very well would be a different holding altogether if the information obtained and attempted to be used as evidence was something like his account balance, SS#, etc.
Posted on 6/14/16 at 3:32 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Like I said earlier, if you see where I am mistaken, let me know. I put up the article originally because it was concerning to me. I take an interest in these kinds of cases as a non lawyer.
Well, you started out with a thread title ("8th circuit rules legal to seize money on credit/debit cards during traffic stop") that had pretty much nothing to do with this case.
Then, you went on about cops running around scanning people's cards (since that isn't a search) looking for illegitimate funds, ignoring that a warrant or probable cause is required to seize the card in the first place.
Then, you were worried about this poor guy's money, somehow missing the fact that they were fraudulent/counterfeit cards.
Honestly, I don't know how you got so mixed up after reading that article (let alone the opinion, which I don't expect everyone to read), unless you had this spun to you by another source. It is frustrating how many obvious distortions and outright lies get posted on this and other websites. People read these things and come away misinformed. These threads go on for pages with people correcting the story and posting the truth, but you still get dozens of johnny come latelys restating the original lies. It is maddening.
I don't think you did this out of any sort of malicious intent, and I am trying not to be a dick about it. I just think you should have read a little more carefully before starting a thread. Willful ignorance should be everyone's pet peeve.
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News