Youth Indiana

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Disabled Vet

Well-Known Member
I have searched and found where indiana has passed a law for teen drivers using cell phone or texting while driving. What I can't find is if a Police Officer can demand a teen's cell phone during a traffic stop or accident.

A friend of mine son had a accident, the police officer that came asked him for his cell phone and reviewed the cell phone history to see if the kid (16) was using the phone or texting at the time of the accident. The officer checked everything on the phone because he wasn't for sure how to check it.

Is this allowed? Can the police take the cell phone and check it?

In this case the kid wasn't on the phone and it wasn't his fault. But I would like your thoughts because I also have a son 16. Of course I have told my son there is to be no use of cell phone while driving as well. Lets hope they listen

Thanks
Michael
 
Yes they can look through the cell phone. It's called an accident investigation. If this was under question on using the cell during the accident, the insurance company can get a court sopena for those records.
 
Disabled Vet said:
I have searched and found where indiana has passed a law for teen drivers using cell phone or texting while driving. What I can't find is if a Police Officer can demand a teen's cell phone during a traffic stop or accident.

A friend of mine son had a accident, the police officer that came asked him for his cell phone and reviewed the cell phone history to see if the kid (16) was using the phone or texting at the time of the accident. The officer checked everything on the phone because he wasn't for sure how to check it.

Is this allowed? Can the police take the cell phone and check it?

In this case the kid wasn't on the phone and it wasn't his fault. But I would like your thoughts because I also have a son 16. Of course I have told my son there is to be no use of cell phone while driving as well. Lets hope they listen

Thanks
Michael
Click to expand...

A police officer is not permitted to interview a minor without a parent or guardian being present. The minor should be instructed by the parent to make no statement until the parent or guardian is present.

The decision as to allow an officer to review the cell phone should come from the parent and not the child!
 
agreed Army

Army,

I agree, If the youth has someone else in the car with them and that person could have been using the cell phone instead. To me alot of gray area on this one. I have told my son to call me if this ever happens. Lets pray it doesn't. He wouldn't have to worry about what the law would do to him. I can promise you this, If my son was to drive and use his phone my punishment would be way worst then the justice system. :no:

Thanks
Michael
 
The police can inquire about the circumstances of the accident from minor just like anyone else. They do not have to wait at the scene of accident for parents. Checking the cell phone is a gray area, true... But it's better to be cooperative with the cops on scene.
 
vfielder said:
The police can inquire about the circumstances of the accident from minor just like anyone else. They do not have to wait at the scene of accident for parents. Checking the cell phone is a gray area, true... But it's better to be cooperative with the cops on scene.
Click to expand...

The police do many things that cause cases to be tossed. There is not one state in this nation that permits the police to interrogate a minor or even question one without a parent present. The police can only inquire as to name, address, age, and parent or guardian. A minor must produce a drivers license and insurance information, if driving.

I know! I've beaten dozens of cases where the police didn't do as the law requires. The police win, when the parent isn't involved or don't know their rights.
 
There is no state or federal law which prohibits police from questioning a minor or taking a statement without parental consent - but whether or not statements obtained from minors during interviews conducted without parental consent can be used against minors in court might be another matter.
 
vfielder said:
There is no state or federal law which prohibits police from questioning a minor or taking a statement without parental consent - but whether or not statements obtained from minors during interviews conducted without parental consent can be used against minors in court might be another matter.
Click to expand...

Is that what you think?

Interesting.

The State of Texas says otherwise.
 
That's simply not true. The police ARE allowed to question minors without parental consent or presence, as long as the minor is free to leave. An arrest is a different matter.
 
irish223 said:
That's simply not true. The police ARE allowed to question minors without parental consent or presence, as long as the minor is free to leave. An arrest is a different matter.
Click to expand...

I will not argue or debate you on this. We disagree.
 
I am not a lawyer

So I don't seek statute.
But should I bother?

Major continet in se minus (The greater contains the less)


If they can't use the statements of a minor they questioned without parental consent,why did they question the minor? Quod vanum et inutile est, lex non requirit (The law does not require what is vain and useless.)

Minors are legal incompetents.

In what capacity a police officer ,would interrogate/question/ legal incompetent who is presumed not to be able to care for him/her self?Who is presumed not to know and protect her/his rights?

WHY would he question without consent from guardian?

Because he can?

Police officer is a civil servant and should respect the fact that if he wants statement from the minor he needs to go the guardian.The minor is legal incompetent.

If police officer no longer affirms the rights and freedom of citizens, I wonder exactly what would he view as the purpose of his profession.
 
Last edited:
Lol, the purpose of his job and his and his brothers in blue's job is to give out as many tickets, deserved or otherwise, the object of which is to separate as much of their money from as many of the people as possible in a given 24 hours. Whoever wins gets a free donut. (on friday you get a donut AND COFFEY.:dgrin
 
Irish223

Why do you say " That's simply not true. The police ARE allowed..."

Please explain.Are they "allowed" that simply because there is no (I don't know is there or not,I presume there isn't) statute that forbids such action?

Or,they are allowed because there is statute that "permits" such action?

It is important ,for me,to make that distinction.This is how I see it, (IMO) Citizens delegate their power to their agency, the government, so citizens can ensure that objective rules in the form of objective laws are made to protect their rights .
In order to do that a government must protect them from the initiation of force both by other citizens and by the government itself. The way to accomplish this is to limit the government, via a written constitution, to its proper functions,that among the rest would include the provision of a domestic police force, the provision of a military force, provision of a court system to adjudicate disputes between citizens...etc. By properly limiting government to its essential functions, a constitution delimits and strictly defines what powers are permitted to government officials/ agents...(such for example police officers). That would entail restricting their action to only that which has been granted and leaving the citizens free to take any action that is not forbidden.
To simplify,what I want to say (or ask,because this is just my opinion/mediation here) is - for citizens what is not explicitly/expressly prohibited is permitted,and for government what is not explicitly/expressly permitted is prohibited...Am I right?What do you think? And if you think I am not,please tell me why (don't just say I am simply not right :) )

Thanks
 
Last edited:
john39 said:
Irish223

Why do you say " That's simply not true. The police ARE allowed..."

Please explain.Are they "allowed" that simply because there is no (I don't know is there or not,I presume there isn't) statute that forbids such action?

Or,they are allowed because there is statute that "permits" such action?

It is important ,for me,to make that distinction.This is how I see it, (IMO) Citizens delegate their power to their agency, the government, so citizens can ensure that objective rules in the form of objective laws are made to protect their rights .
In order to do that a government must protect them from the initiation of force both by other citizens and by the government itself. The way to accomplish this is to limit the government, via a written constitution, to its proper functions,that among the rest would include the provision of a domestic police force, the provision of a military force, provision of a court system to adjudicate disputes between citizens...etc. By properly limiting government to its essential functions, a constitution delimits and strictly defines what powers are permitted to government officials/ agents...(such for example police officers). That would entail restricting their action to only that which has been granted and leaving the citizens free to take any action that is not forbidden.
To simplify,what I want to say (or ask,because this is just my opinion/mediation here) is - for citizens what is not explicitly/expressly prohibited is permitted,and for government what is not explicitly/expressly permitted is prohibited...Am I right?What do you think? And if you think I am not,please tell me why (don't just say I am simply not right :) )

Thanks
Click to expand...

Not to argue with or debate anyone, but.... Here are others' opinions and some statutes that should clear it up.

http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/can-a-15-year-old-be-interrogated-by-police-withou-203267.html
http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/can-the-police
http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/p...estion-a-minor-without-a-parent-o-167941.html
http://law.onecle.com/texas/family/51.095.00.html
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...E+ANN.&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari
 
Why not debate are you afraid ?:D

Here is other opinions you say and give links?

Ok,where is your opinion and can you articulate the propositions and conclusions you make in such opinion?

About your links:
1The first link,there is someone I think he is a lawyer,(so what :D,I challenge his opinion) who states that "There is no law that prevents the police from asking a potential witness to identify a suspect without a lawyer or parent present, even if that witness is a minor. The police can and will question a minor without a parent being present - they are allowed to do so ".

His reasoning is that because is not prevented by law (or prohibited) is allowed.I articulated arguments WHY that reasoning is flawed,and explained why the rule that if something is not prohibited is allowed should pertain ONLY for citizens,not for governments.I articulated why for governments,IMO,what is not expressly allowed should be prohibited.That is derived from the fact that the government delimits/restricts,by decree,what is allowed to do.

You follow :) ?

2.the links following that one are broken.

3.Then we have the link with the Texas Family Code - Section 51.095. Admissibility Of A Statement Of A Child.

You did not read it before you posted it,didn't you?If you did,you would see that where it states " (a)
Notwithstanding Section 51.09, the statement of a child is
admissible in evidence in any future proceeding concerning the
matter about which the statement was given if:
(1) the statement is made in writing under a
circumstance described by Subsection (d)

THE D SECTION IS AS FOLLOWS:


(D) the magistrate certifies that the magistrate
has examined the child independent of any law enforcement officer
or prosecuting attorney, except as required to ensure the personal
safety of the magistrate or other court personnel, and has
determined that the child understands the nature and contents of
the statement and has knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily
waived these rights;


I have not examined the last link ....I will and I will post.
 
Last edited:
john39 said:
Irish223

Why do you say " That's simply not true. The police ARE allowed..."

Please explain.Are they "allowed" that simply because there is no (I don't know is there or not,I presume there isn't) statute that forbids such action?

Or,they are allowed because there is statute that "permits" such action?

It is important ,for me,to make that distinction.This is how I see it, (IMO) Citizens delegate their power to their agency, the government, so citizens can ensure that objective rules in the form of objective laws are made to protect their rights .
In order to do that a government must protect them from the initiation of force both by other citizens and by the government itself. The way to accomplish this is to limit the government, via a written constitution, to its proper functions,that among the rest would include the provision of a domestic police force, the provision of a military force, provision of a court system to adjudicate disputes between citizens...etc. By properly limiting government to its essential functions, a constitution delimits and strictly defines what powers are permitted to government officials/ agents...(such for example police officers). That would entail restricting their action to only that which has been granted and leaving the citizens free to take any action that is not forbidden.
To simplify,what I want to say (or ask,because this is just my opinion/mediation here) is - for citizens what is not explicitly/expressly prohibited is permitted,and for government what is not explicitly/expressly permitted is prohibited...Am I right?What do you think? And if you think I am not,please tell me why (don't just say I am simply not right :) )

Thanks
Click to expand...



John, Foolish boy, if the government (including our boys in blue or Cherry Tops as we used to call them in my younger rebellious days and not to infer I have given up on rebellion, I am just more selective about where I indulge in it ) only did what it is entitled to do as opposed to wreaking the havoc they now do, running roughshod over the rights of everyone with one possible exception which is ODDLY enough Illegal Immigrants, they would have nothing to do but eat more donuts. Yes, its true, in some cases its safer to be an illegal immigrant than to be a natural born citizen. IMO. :confused::cool:

I mean, it appears to be acceptable (since its a common practice) to harass the average citizen passing by but everybody knows the NO RACIAL PROFILING allowed proviso don't they? From whence the illegal inherits his right to pass by unfettered and unmolested.
 
Last edited:
"We conclude that, although a reasonable fifteen-year-old in this situation could have felt his freedom of movement was restricted, he would not have felt that his freedom of movement was restrained to the degree associated with a formal arrest."

Ok then.

Your argument is the link of this court decision.

I would be foolish to comment on it.

So I will not.
 
john39 said:
"We conclude that, although a reasonable fifteen-year-old in this situation could have felt his freedom of movement was restricted, he would not have felt that his freedom of movement was restrained to the degree associated with a formal arrest."

Ok then.

Your argument is the link of this court decision.

I would be foolish to comment on it.

So I will not.[/QUOTE

All the world over loves a wise man! Kudos to you!
Click to expand...
 
john39 said:
Why not debate are you afraid ?:D
Click to expand...
Afraid? Hardly. This is a legal site designed to help people with their questions about the law, not to debate the law. I post to clarify the law when I can. If you want to engage in debate, I suggest you start a blog on this site.
Here is other opinions you say and give links?

Ok,where is your opinion and can you articulate the propositions and conclusions you make in such opinion?

About your links:
1The first link,there is someone I think he is a lawyer,(so what :D,I challenge his opinion) who states that "There is no law that prevents the police from asking a potential witness to identify a suspect without a lawyer or parent present, even if that witness is a minor. The police can and will question a minor without a parent being present - they are allowed to do so ".

His reasoning is that because is not prevented by law (or prohibited) is allowed.I articulated arguments WHY that reasoning is flawed,and explained why the rule that if something is not prohibited is allowed should pertain ONLY for citizens,not for governments.I articulated why for governments,IMO,what is not expressly allowed should be prohibited.That is derived from the fact that the government delimits/restricts,by decree,what is allowed to do.

You follow :) ?

2.the links following that one are broken.

3.Then we have the link with the Texas Family Code - Section 51.095. Admissibility Of A Statement Of A Child.

You did not read it before you posted it,didn't you?
Click to expand...
Yes, I did. I read all the information I post, as well as all the posts in a thread.
If you did,you would see that where it states " (a)
Notwithstanding Section 51.09, the statement of a child is
admissible in evidence in any future proceeding concerning the
matter about which the statement was given if:
(1) the statement is made in writing under a
circumstance described by Subsection (d)

THE D SECTION IS AS FOLLOWS:


(D) the magistrate certifies that the magistrate
has examined the child independent of any law enforcement officer
or prosecuting attorney, except as required to ensure the personal
safety of the magistrate or other court personnel, and has
determined that the child understands the nature and contents of
the statement and has knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily
waived these rights;


I have not examined the last link ....I will and I will post.
Click to expand...

The question was whether or not the police can interview a minor without parental presence or consent. You are arguing whether they can interrogate a minor in custody without parental presence or consent. Big difference.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top