<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_15_1818216</id>
	<title>Cell Phone Searches Require Warrant</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1260905220000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>schleprock63 writes <i>"The Ohio state supreme court has decided that a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/12/15/us/AP-US-Cell-Phone-Searches.html">cell phone found on a suspect cannot be searched without a warrant</a>. The majority based this decision on a federal case that deemed a cell phone not to be a 'closed container,' and therefore not searchable without a warrant. The  argument of the majority contended that a cell phone does not contain physical objects and therefore is not a container. One dissenting judge argued that a cell phone is a container that simply contains data. He argued that the other judges were 'needlessly theorizing' about the contents of a cell phone. He compared the data contained within an address book that would be searchable."</i> The article notes that this was apparently the first time the question has come up before any state supreme court.</htmltext>
<tokenext>schleprock63 writes " The Ohio state supreme court has decided that a cell phone found on a suspect can not be searched without a warrant .
The majority based this decision on a federal case that deemed a cell phone not to be a 'closed container, ' and therefore not searchable without a warrant .
The argument of the majority contended that a cell phone does not contain physical objects and therefore is not a container .
One dissenting judge argued that a cell phone is a container that simply contains data .
He argued that the other judges were 'needlessly theorizing ' about the contents of a cell phone .
He compared the data contained within an address book that would be searchable .
" The article notes that this was apparently the first time the question has come up before any state supreme court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>schleprock63 writes "The Ohio state supreme court has decided that a cell phone found on a suspect cannot be searched without a warrant.
The majority based this decision on a federal case that deemed a cell phone not to be a 'closed container,' and therefore not searchable without a warrant.
The  argument of the majority contended that a cell phone does not contain physical objects and therefore is not a container.
One dissenting judge argued that a cell phone is a container that simply contains data.
He argued that the other judges were 'needlessly theorizing' about the contents of a cell phone.
He compared the data contained within an address book that would be searchable.
" The article notes that this was apparently the first time the question has come up before any state supreme court.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449198</id>
	<title>Re:Not not?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260869040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; If I had a 4 liter tin cookie can when I was arrested, it could potentially contain knives, guns, maybe even a bomb. It is reasonable for a police officer to be able to search such a container when they take you into custody. It could be dangerous.</p><p>Yeah, and you could also have a hand grenade up some orifice where the sun don't shine. You're going to suggest they search there without a warrant as well, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; If I had a 4 liter tin cookie can when I was arrested , it could potentially contain knives , guns , maybe even a bomb .
It is reasonable for a police officer to be able to search such a container when they take you into custody .
It could be dangerous.Yeah , and you could also have a hand grenade up some orifice where the sun do n't shine .
You 're going to suggest they search there without a warrant as well , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; If I had a 4 liter tin cookie can when I was arrested, it could potentially contain knives, guns, maybe even a bomb.
It is reasonable for a police officer to be able to search such a container when they take you into custody.
It could be dangerous.Yeah, and you could also have a hand grenade up some orifice where the sun don't shine.
You're going to suggest they search there without a warrant as well, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30450056</id>
	<title>Good argument to lock your phone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260872700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Phone locking is not really secure, but at least it will stop an officer on the street from going on a causal fishing expedition through your phone.</p><p>They would either have to make a court compel you to give up the password or call in forensics to crack the phone.  Either way the, there will be more oversight and more time for you to get a lawyer involved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Phone locking is not really secure , but at least it will stop an officer on the street from going on a causal fishing expedition through your phone.They would either have to make a court compel you to give up the password or call in forensics to crack the phone .
Either way the , there will be more oversight and more time for you to get a lawyer involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Phone locking is not really secure, but at least it will stop an officer on the street from going on a causal fishing expedition through your phone.They would either have to make a court compel you to give up the password or call in forensics to crack the phone.
Either way the, there will be more oversight and more time for you to get a lawyer involved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30450418</id>
	<title>Re:makes sense given the original rationale</title>
	<author>KC7JHO</author>
	<datestamp>1260874020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ya, the recording devices... hmm. The interrogation should be recorded and the suspect's lawyer has a right to that recording. Never heard of dening the suspect the right to a recording device. Perhaps in your state? Interesting, yet I can not think of a reason why not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ya , the recording devices... hmm. The interrogation should be recorded and the suspect 's lawyer has a right to that recording .
Never heard of dening the suspect the right to a recording device .
Perhaps in your state ?
Interesting , yet I can not think of a reason why not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ya, the recording devices... hmm. The interrogation should be recorded and the suspect's lawyer has a right to that recording.
Never heard of dening the suspect the right to a recording device.
Perhaps in your state?
Interesting, yet I can not think of a reason why not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448802</id>
	<title>Re:Not not?</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1260910080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd think that answering a call from a client would constitute probable cause anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd think that answering a call from a client would constitute probable cause anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd think that answering a call from a client would constitute probable cause anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449646</id>
	<title>Searches "without a warrant"</title>
	<author>Monkeyman334</author>
	<datestamp>1260871020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I see all these slashdot stories that complain about government searches "without a warrant," and they all often very misleading. There are plenty of reasons the government can do a "search" without a warrant that are for very legitimate purposes. There are two categories of this misinformation being spread.

The first category is like this one, where a search is valid where one of the exemptions apply, which are: in cases of an emergency, if the person gives consent, a search incident to arrest, and an inventory. If a shooting is in progress the police can kick down your door and try to save the people inside without a warrant. They have just "searched" a home without a warrant, big deal. The issue here is a search incident to arrest. If you get arrested the police can search all your belongings and within a reasonable distance to look for evidence of whatever they're arresting you for. There are very legitimate reasons for this. If the police take your car, they conduct an inventory of the vehicle without a warrant (although this isn't really a search, and they can't take apart the doors and things).

The second type of misleading information on slashdot is when police get information using a subpoena or court order and Slashdot proclaims "cops conduct search of \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ without warrant!" Which, while true, ignores the fact that the "search" was subject to judicial oversight, but just didn't rise to the need getting a warrant.

This is like telling non-technies that their computer is broadcasting an ip address and trying to scare them. You have to understand the 4th amendment more to understand the issues in these decisions. Here, judges are trying to say that the potential evidence of crimes that you carry in your cell phone get more protection than a briefcase with the same information (photos, ledgers, address book, etc.). Which, in my opinion, is hard to justify, and might be taken the Supreme Court.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see all these slashdot stories that complain about government searches " without a warrant , " and they all often very misleading .
There are plenty of reasons the government can do a " search " without a warrant that are for very legitimate purposes .
There are two categories of this misinformation being spread .
The first category is like this one , where a search is valid where one of the exemptions apply , which are : in cases of an emergency , if the person gives consent , a search incident to arrest , and an inventory .
If a shooting is in progress the police can kick down your door and try to save the people inside without a warrant .
They have just " searched " a home without a warrant , big deal .
The issue here is a search incident to arrest .
If you get arrested the police can search all your belongings and within a reasonable distance to look for evidence of whatever they 're arresting you for .
There are very legitimate reasons for this .
If the police take your car , they conduct an inventory of the vehicle without a warrant ( although this is n't really a search , and they ca n't take apart the doors and things ) .
The second type of misleading information on slashdot is when police get information using a subpoena or court order and Slashdot proclaims " cops conduct search of \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ without warrant !
" Which , while true , ignores the fact that the " search " was subject to judicial oversight , but just did n't rise to the need getting a warrant .
This is like telling non-technies that their computer is broadcasting an ip address and trying to scare them .
You have to understand the 4th amendment more to understand the issues in these decisions .
Here , judges are trying to say that the potential evidence of crimes that you carry in your cell phone get more protection than a briefcase with the same information ( photos , ledgers , address book , etc. ) .
Which , in my opinion , is hard to justify , and might be taken the Supreme Court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see all these slashdot stories that complain about government searches "without a warrant," and they all often very misleading.
There are plenty of reasons the government can do a "search" without a warrant that are for very legitimate purposes.
There are two categories of this misinformation being spread.
The first category is like this one, where a search is valid where one of the exemptions apply, which are: in cases of an emergency, if the person gives consent, a search incident to arrest, and an inventory.
If a shooting is in progress the police can kick down your door and try to save the people inside without a warrant.
They have just "searched" a home without a warrant, big deal.
The issue here is a search incident to arrest.
If you get arrested the police can search all your belongings and within a reasonable distance to look for evidence of whatever they're arresting you for.
There are very legitimate reasons for this.
If the police take your car, they conduct an inventory of the vehicle without a warrant (although this isn't really a search, and they can't take apart the doors and things).
The second type of misleading information on slashdot is when police get information using a subpoena or court order and Slashdot proclaims "cops conduct search of \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ without warrant!
" Which, while true, ignores the fact that the "search" was subject to judicial oversight, but just didn't rise to the need getting a warrant.
This is like telling non-technies that their computer is broadcasting an ip address and trying to scare them.
You have to understand the 4th amendment more to understand the issues in these decisions.
Here, judges are trying to say that the potential evidence of crimes that you carry in your cell phone get more protection than a briefcase with the same information (photos, ledgers, address book, etc.).
Which, in my opinion, is hard to justify, and might be taken the Supreme Court.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448738</id>
	<title>Re:Persons, papers and effects...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260909780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a very good point. I'd like to hear an attorney's view. Certainly there are enough on Slashdot.</p><p>But that's not the first time I see this. Hell, even Law and Order has episodes where they go through the suspect's address book. I guess putting everything under encryption would work, as you could probably plead the 5th and not share the password.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a very good point .
I 'd like to hear an attorney 's view .
Certainly there are enough on Slashdot.But that 's not the first time I see this .
Hell , even Law and Order has episodes where they go through the suspect 's address book .
I guess putting everything under encryption would work , as you could probably plead the 5th and not share the password .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a very good point.
I'd like to hear an attorney's view.
Certainly there are enough on Slashdot.But that's not the first time I see this.
Hell, even Law and Order has episodes where they go through the suspect's address book.
I guess putting everything under encryption would work, as you could probably plead the 5th and not share the password.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449436</id>
	<title>Re:What if...</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1260870120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think the Courts have been trying to differentiate far too much.  If it's OK to search your physical papers, address books, and mail you might have, why should a computer, cell phone, or netbook be any different?  It's just data in 1's and 0's instead of ink and paper.</p></div><p>These days, devices like a cell phone often don't even technically contain the data, they're just the device for accessing the data stored "in the cloud" (i.e. in some datacenter somewhere).  If your view is to be taken seriously, one of two things must obtain: (1) you must insist that officers be able to tell the difference, a technical detail that even the owner might not know, or (2) you believe a police officer, upon arresting you, can not only look at everything you have in your possession, but use such items to access any accounts or other information you might be able to access, including viewing data stored on computers in other countries, assuming you were carrying a device that allowed you to access it (which, in today's internet-connected age, is quite common and includes pretty much everything, e.g. your back account records can be accessed from your phone).</p><p>(1) requires near omniscience on the part of officers, (2) is essentially throwing away the need for warrants to access anything.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the Courts have been trying to differentiate far too much .
If it 's OK to search your physical papers , address books , and mail you might have , why should a computer , cell phone , or netbook be any different ?
It 's just data in 1 's and 0 's instead of ink and paper.These days , devices like a cell phone often do n't even technically contain the data , they 're just the device for accessing the data stored " in the cloud " ( i.e .
in some datacenter somewhere ) .
If your view is to be taken seriously , one of two things must obtain : ( 1 ) you must insist that officers be able to tell the difference , a technical detail that even the owner might not know , or ( 2 ) you believe a police officer , upon arresting you , can not only look at everything you have in your possession , but use such items to access any accounts or other information you might be able to access , including viewing data stored on computers in other countries , assuming you were carrying a device that allowed you to access it ( which , in today 's internet-connected age , is quite common and includes pretty much everything , e.g .
your back account records can be accessed from your phone ) .
( 1 ) requires near omniscience on the part of officers , ( 2 ) is essentially throwing away the need for warrants to access anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the Courts have been trying to differentiate far too much.
If it's OK to search your physical papers, address books, and mail you might have, why should a computer, cell phone, or netbook be any different?
It's just data in 1's and 0's instead of ink and paper.These days, devices like a cell phone often don't even technically contain the data, they're just the device for accessing the data stored "in the cloud" (i.e.
in some datacenter somewhere).
If your view is to be taken seriously, one of two things must obtain: (1) you must insist that officers be able to tell the difference, a technical detail that even the owner might not know, or (2) you believe a police officer, upon arresting you, can not only look at everything you have in your possession, but use such items to access any accounts or other information you might be able to access, including viewing data stored on computers in other countries, assuming you were carrying a device that allowed you to access it (which, in today's internet-connected age, is quite common and includes pretty much everything, e.g.
your back account records can be accessed from your phone).
(1) requires near omniscience on the part of officers, (2) is essentially throwing away the need for warrants to access anything.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448932</id>
	<title>Re:Persons, papers and effects...</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1260867600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTA:</p><blockquote><div><p>The trial court admitted the call records and phone numbers, citing a 2007 federal court decision that found that a cell phone is similar to a closed container found on a suspect and therefore subject to search without a warrant.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>''We do not agree with this comparison, which ignores the unique nature of cell phones,'' Lanzinger wrote. ''Objects falling under the banner of 'closed container' have traditionally been physical objects capable of holding other physical objects.</p></div></blockquote><p>As someone else said, an address book would be considered a "container" as it can contain other items between the pages. They can search the address book for other items.</p><p>Interestingly, I am not sure the data contained in the address book would be admissible under the theory put forth. This could have interesting side effects.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTA : The trial court admitted the call records and phone numbers , citing a 2007 federal court decision that found that a cell phone is similar to a closed container found on a suspect and therefore subject to search without a warrant .
...''We do not agree with this comparison , which ignores the unique nature of cell phones,' ' Lanzinger wrote .
''Objects falling under the banner of 'closed container ' have traditionally been physical objects capable of holding other physical objects.As someone else said , an address book would be considered a " container " as it can contain other items between the pages .
They can search the address book for other items.Interestingly , I am not sure the data contained in the address book would be admissible under the theory put forth .
This could have interesting side effects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTA:The trial court admitted the call records and phone numbers, citing a 2007 federal court decision that found that a cell phone is similar to a closed container found on a suspect and therefore subject to search without a warrant.
...''We do not agree with this comparison, which ignores the unique nature of cell phones,'' Lanzinger wrote.
''Objects falling under the banner of 'closed container' have traditionally been physical objects capable of holding other physical objects.As someone else said, an address book would be considered a "container" as it can contain other items between the pages.
They can search the address book for other items.Interestingly, I am not sure the data contained in the address book would be admissible under the theory put forth.
This could have interesting side effects.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30450492</id>
	<title>Re:Persons, papers and effects...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260874320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p> He compared the data contained within an address book that would be searchable.</p></div><p>How is an address book not "papers" as in the 4th ammendment's person, papers and effects?</p></div><p>lololololol</p><p>A cell phone is not made of paper, so the 4th doesnt apply.</p><p>lolololol</p><p>Welcome to fascist america.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>He compared the data contained within an address book that would be searchable.How is an address book not " papers " as in the 4th ammendment 's person , papers and effects ? lolololololA cell phone is not made of paper , so the 4th doesnt apply.lololololWelcome to fascist america .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> He compared the data contained within an address book that would be searchable.How is an address book not "papers" as in the 4th ammendment's person, papers and effects?lolololololA cell phone is not made of paper, so the 4th doesnt apply.lololololWelcome to fascist america.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448616</id>
	<title>What if...</title>
	<author>vvaduva</author>
	<datestamp>1260909120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't read TFA since I don't have a NYT account, but what if the suspect had a laptop or netbook on his person; wouldn't the police need a separate search warrant to search that specific machine?  A cell phone is not different, is it? It sounds like a good decision to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't read TFA since I do n't have a NYT account , but what if the suspect had a laptop or netbook on his person ; would n't the police need a separate search warrant to search that specific machine ?
A cell phone is not different , is it ?
It sounds like a good decision to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't read TFA since I don't have a NYT account, but what if the suspect had a laptop or netbook on his person; wouldn't the police need a separate search warrant to search that specific machine?
A cell phone is not different, is it?
It sounds like a good decision to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449102</id>
	<title>Re:makes sense given the original rationale</title>
	<author>amRadioHed</author>
	<datestamp>1260868440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Recording devices? Why should the police care if the suspect had a recording device? But if fear of recording devices is a legitimate concern that warrants a search, certainly electronic devices would be potential recording devices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Recording devices ?
Why should the police care if the suspect had a recording device ?
But if fear of recording devices is a legitimate concern that warrants a search , certainly electronic devices would be potential recording devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Recording devices?
Why should the police care if the suspect had a recording device?
But if fear of recording devices is a legitimate concern that warrants a search, certainly electronic devices would be potential recording devices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449566</id>
	<title>Re:Not not?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260870660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Either submitter has their double negatives mixed up, or I'm really confused here:</p><p> <i>The majority based this decision on a federal case that deemed a cell phone not to be a 'closed container,' and terefore not searchable without a warrant</i> </p><p>Does that mean that a "closed container" is searchable without a warrant?  How can that be deemed reasonable?</p></div><p>Thank god I'm not the only one, thought the radiation for the computer monitor had finally gotten to me after i read that line 5 times trying to figure out why it didn't make sense.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Either submitter has their double negatives mixed up , or I 'm really confused here : The majority based this decision on a federal case that deemed a cell phone not to be a 'closed container, ' and terefore not searchable without a warrant Does that mean that a " closed container " is searchable without a warrant ?
How can that be deemed reasonable ? Thank god I 'm not the only one , thought the radiation for the computer monitor had finally gotten to me after i read that line 5 times trying to figure out why it did n't make sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Either submitter has their double negatives mixed up, or I'm really confused here: The majority based this decision on a federal case that deemed a cell phone not to be a 'closed container,' and terefore not searchable without a warrant Does that mean that a "closed container" is searchable without a warrant?
How can that be deemed reasonable?Thank god I'm not the only one, thought the radiation for the computer monitor had finally gotten to me after i read that line 5 times trying to figure out why it didn't make sense.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30450214</id>
	<title>Re:Not not?</title>
	<author>fluffy99</author>
	<datestamp>1260873240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does that mean that a "closed container" is searchable without a warrant?  How can that be deemed reasonable?</p></div><p>Yes. In Ohio, a closed container found on the arrestee or within reach can be searched without a warrant.  The argument being made is that a cell phone is more like a computer which would require a warrant to search, and not a box containing physical items.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does that mean that a " closed container " is searchable without a warrant ?
How can that be deemed reasonable ? Yes .
In Ohio , a closed container found on the arrestee or within reach can be searched without a warrant .
The argument being made is that a cell phone is more like a computer which would require a warrant to search , and not a box containing physical items .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does that mean that a "closed container" is searchable without a warrant?
How can that be deemed reasonable?Yes.
In Ohio, a closed container found on the arrestee or within reach can be searched without a warrant.
The argument being made is that a cell phone is more like a computer which would require a warrant to search, and not a box containing physical items.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448756</id>
	<title>Re:Not not?</title>
	<author>Drasham</author>
	<datestamp>1260909900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the article:<p><div class="quote"><p>The trial court admitted the call records and phone numbers, citing a 2007 federal court decision that found that a cell phone is similar to a closed container found on a suspect and therefore subject to search without a warrant. Smith was convicted of all charges and sentenced to 12 years in prison.
<br> <br>
A state appeals court upheld the trial ruling in a 2-1 decision. The dissenting judge based his opposition on a different federal court case, which found that a cell phone is not a ''container'' as the term had been used previously.</p></div><p>
It sounds to me as if the article itself is worded ackwardly.
<br>
later in the article Supreme Court Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger is quoted saying:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>''We do not agree with this comparison, which ignores the unique nature of cell phones,'' Lanzinger wrote. ''Objects falling under the banner of 'closed container' have traditionally been physical objects capable of holding other physical objects. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has stated that in this situation, 'container' means 'any object capable of holding another object.'
<br> <br>
''Even the more basic models of modern cell phones are capable of storing a wealth of digitized information wholly unlike any physical object found within a closed container,''</p></div><p>
A simple solution to the everyday person should be to use the pin feature available in most, if not all, modern cell phones to prevent \_casual\_ inspection by anyone who picked up your device.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : The trial court admitted the call records and phone numbers , citing a 2007 federal court decision that found that a cell phone is similar to a closed container found on a suspect and therefore subject to search without a warrant .
Smith was convicted of all charges and sentenced to 12 years in prison .
A state appeals court upheld the trial ruling in a 2-1 decision .
The dissenting judge based his opposition on a different federal court case , which found that a cell phone is not a ''container' ' as the term had been used previously .
It sounds to me as if the article itself is worded ackwardly .
later in the article Supreme Court Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger is quoted saying : ''We do not agree with this comparison , which ignores the unique nature of cell phones,' ' Lanzinger wrote .
''Objects falling under the banner of 'closed container ' have traditionally been physical objects capable of holding other physical objects .
Indeed , the United States Supreme Court has stated that in this situation , 'container ' means 'any object capable of holding another object .
' ''Even the more basic models of modern cell phones are capable of storing a wealth of digitized information wholly unlike any physical object found within a closed container,' ' A simple solution to the everyday person should be to use the pin feature available in most , if not all , modern cell phones to prevent \ _casual \ _ inspection by anyone who picked up your device .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article:The trial court admitted the call records and phone numbers, citing a 2007 federal court decision that found that a cell phone is similar to a closed container found on a suspect and therefore subject to search without a warrant.
Smith was convicted of all charges and sentenced to 12 years in prison.
A state appeals court upheld the trial ruling in a 2-1 decision.
The dissenting judge based his opposition on a different federal court case, which found that a cell phone is not a ''container'' as the term had been used previously.
It sounds to me as if the article itself is worded ackwardly.
later in the article Supreme Court Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger is quoted saying:''We do not agree with this comparison, which ignores the unique nature of cell phones,'' Lanzinger wrote.
''Objects falling under the banner of 'closed container' have traditionally been physical objects capable of holding other physical objects.
Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has stated that in this situation, 'container' means 'any object capable of holding another object.
'
 
''Even the more basic models of modern cell phones are capable of storing a wealth of digitized information wholly unlike any physical object found within a closed container,''
A simple solution to the everyday person should be to use the pin feature available in most, if not all, modern cell phones to prevent \_casual\_ inspection by anyone who picked up your device.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30453376</id>
	<title>Re:The ruling sounds right</title>
	<author>KiahZero</author>
	<datestamp>1260891480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which is why searches incident to arrest no longer include cars when the person arrested doesn't have access to the car.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona\_v.\_Gant" title="wikipedia.org">Arizona v. Gant, 129 S.Ct. 1710 (2009)</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is why searches incident to arrest no longer include cars when the person arrested does n't have access to the car.Arizona v. Gant , 129 S.Ct .
1710 ( 2009 ) [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is why searches incident to arrest no longer include cars when the person arrested doesn't have access to the car.Arizona v. Gant, 129 S.Ct.
1710 (2009) [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30451420</id>
	<title>funny,</title>
	<author>jtgd</author>
	<datestamp>1260878280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just find it interesting that whether or not a cell phone is a container that holds objects -- something one might discuss with their two-year old -- is being debated in a state supreme court.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just find it interesting that whether or not a cell phone is a container that holds objects -- something one might discuss with their two-year old -- is being debated in a state supreme court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just find it interesting that whether or not a cell phone is a container that holds objects -- something one might discuss with their two-year old -- is being debated in a state supreme court.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449522</id>
	<title>4th Amendment</title>
	<author>YesDinosaursDidExist</author>
	<datestamp>1260870540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The search and seizure you are all thinking about is only inside a car, or motor home licensed for road travel. In that case an Officer may search a "closed container" to check for dangerous objects etc. without a warrant.  Otherwise, a closed container MAY NOT be searched.  A cookie jar inside your house may not be searched without a warrant because its contents are not in the open, thus a "closed container" and thus you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.  The same thing applies to your computers, they are a closed container and need a warrant to be searched.

In this case, even if your phone is in your car, where your expectation of privacy is diminished, your phone may not be searched without a warrant because it cannot contain anything dangerous, unlike a suitcase in your car may (which may be searched if its inside your car).

A little commonsense goes a long way....</htmltext>
<tokenext>The search and seizure you are all thinking about is only inside a car , or motor home licensed for road travel .
In that case an Officer may search a " closed container " to check for dangerous objects etc .
without a warrant .
Otherwise , a closed container MAY NOT be searched .
A cookie jar inside your house may not be searched without a warrant because its contents are not in the open , thus a " closed container " and thus you have a reasonable expectation of privacy .
The same thing applies to your computers , they are a closed container and need a warrant to be searched .
In this case , even if your phone is in your car , where your expectation of privacy is diminished , your phone may not be searched without a warrant because it can not contain anything dangerous , unlike a suitcase in your car may ( which may be searched if its inside your car ) .
A little commonsense goes a long way... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The search and seizure you are all thinking about is only inside a car, or motor home licensed for road travel.
In that case an Officer may search a "closed container" to check for dangerous objects etc.
without a warrant.
Otherwise, a closed container MAY NOT be searched.
A cookie jar inside your house may not be searched without a warrant because its contents are not in the open, thus a "closed container" and thus you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
The same thing applies to your computers, they are a closed container and need a warrant to be searched.
In this case, even if your phone is in your car, where your expectation of privacy is diminished, your phone may not be searched without a warrant because it cannot contain anything dangerous, unlike a suitcase in your car may (which may be searched if its inside your car).
A little commonsense goes a long way....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449368</id>
	<title>Re:makes sense given the original rationale</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260869820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Phewee, look at the replies.  That "recording devices" sure unleashed a wave of righteous Slashdot indignation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Phewee , look at the replies .
That " recording devices " sure unleashed a wave of righteous Slashdot indignation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Phewee, look at the replies.
That "recording devices" sure unleashed a wave of righteous Slashdot indignation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448830</id>
	<title>Re:Persons, papers and effects...</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1260910260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How is an address book not "papers" as in the 4th ammendment's person, papers and effects?</p></div></blockquote><p>It is. The basis on which they could be reviewed in a search incident to arrest is not that they are an exception to the reasonableness requirement (which admits to no exception), but an exception to the implied warrant requirement. You'll note that the language of the amendment doesn't ever explicitly requires warrants for searches, it requires reasonableness and it limits the conditions in which warrants can be issued.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is an address book not " papers " as in the 4th ammendment 's person , papers and effects ? It is .
The basis on which they could be reviewed in a search incident to arrest is not that they are an exception to the reasonableness requirement ( which admits to no exception ) , but an exception to the implied warrant requirement .
You 'll note that the language of the amendment does n't ever explicitly requires warrants for searches , it requires reasonableness and it limits the conditions in which warrants can be issued .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is an address book not "papers" as in the 4th ammendment's person, papers and effects?It is.
The basis on which they could be reviewed in a search incident to arrest is not that they are an exception to the reasonableness requirement (which admits to no exception), but an exception to the implied warrant requirement.
You'll note that the language of the amendment doesn't ever explicitly requires warrants for searches, it requires reasonableness and it limits the conditions in which warrants can be issued.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30455066</id>
	<title>Re:What if...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259661300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>If it's OK to search your physical papers, address books, and mail you might have, why should a computer, cell phone, or netbook be any different? It's just data in 1's and 0's instead of ink and paper.</i></p> </div><p>If it <i>was</i> OK to search for physical papers, address books and mail without a warrant, sure.<br>But it's <i>not</i>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's OK to search your physical papers , address books , and mail you might have , why should a computer , cell phone , or netbook be any different ?
It 's just data in 1 's and 0 's instead of ink and paper .
If it was OK to search for physical papers , address books and mail without a warrant , sure.But it 's not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If it's OK to search your physical papers, address books, and mail you might have, why should a computer, cell phone, or netbook be any different?
It's just data in 1's and 0's instead of ink and paper.
If it was OK to search for physical papers, address books and mail without a warrant, sure.But it's not.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448648</id>
	<title>Persons, papers and effects...</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1260909300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> He compared the data contained within an address book that would be searchable.</p></div><p>How is an address book not "papers" as in the 4th ammendment's person, papers and effects?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>He compared the data contained within an address book that would be searchable.How is an address book not " papers " as in the 4th ammendment 's person , papers and effects ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> He compared the data contained within an address book that would be searchable.How is an address book not "papers" as in the 4th ammendment's person, papers and effects?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448858</id>
	<title>Re:Persons, papers and effects...</title>
	<author>IndustrialComplex</author>
	<datestamp>1260910440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>How is an address book not "papers" as in the 4th ammendment's person, papers and effects?<br></i></p><p>That's what happens when people forget that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, and mistake it for a permission slip for the people.</p><p>But mostly it's a byproduct of the concept that Reasonable means "Everything as long as it didn't involve a nightstick up your rear".  We just regained that last clause recently, but only just.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is an address book not " papers " as in the 4th ammendment 's person , papers and effects ? That 's what happens when people forget that the Constitution is a limitation on the government , and mistake it for a permission slip for the people.But mostly it 's a byproduct of the concept that Reasonable means " Everything as long as it did n't involve a nightstick up your rear " .
We just regained that last clause recently , but only just .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is an address book not "papers" as in the 4th ammendment's person, papers and effects?That's what happens when people forget that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, and mistake it for a permission slip for the people.But mostly it's a byproduct of the concept that Reasonable means "Everything as long as it didn't involve a nightstick up your rear".
We just regained that last clause recently, but only just.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448656</id>
	<title>Re:Not not?</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1260909300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was confused about that too.  It does appear from TFA that a closed container is searchable without a warrant.</p><p>So... anything besides a closed container requires a warrant or what?  I'm assuming an "open container" would not require a warrant.  Then again, I usually find logic has no place in the legal system.</p><p>I'm also confused about the case.  Was the searching the cell phone superfluous to the case?  TFA states the defendant answered the phone when a coke user acting as informant called and then police searched it.  Is it somehow against the law to answer the phone?  Like maybe he was under probation and barred from talking to his old clients or something?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was confused about that too .
It does appear from TFA that a closed container is searchable without a warrant.So... anything besides a closed container requires a warrant or what ?
I 'm assuming an " open container " would not require a warrant .
Then again , I usually find logic has no place in the legal system.I 'm also confused about the case .
Was the searching the cell phone superfluous to the case ?
TFA states the defendant answered the phone when a coke user acting as informant called and then police searched it .
Is it somehow against the law to answer the phone ?
Like maybe he was under probation and barred from talking to his old clients or something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was confused about that too.
It does appear from TFA that a closed container is searchable without a warrant.So... anything besides a closed container requires a warrant or what?
I'm assuming an "open container" would not require a warrant.
Then again, I usually find logic has no place in the legal system.I'm also confused about the case.
Was the searching the cell phone superfluous to the case?
TFA states the defendant answered the phone when a coke user acting as informant called and then police searched it.
Is it somehow against the law to answer the phone?
Like maybe he was under probation and barred from talking to his old clients or something?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448834</id>
	<title>Why would an address book be searchable?</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1260910320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>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.</i></p><p>Seems quite plain to me that someone's address book is part of a person's "papers and effects", and therefore would require a warrant to search.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>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.Seems quite plain to me that someone 's address book is part of a person 's " papers and effects " , and therefore would require a warrant to search.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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.Seems quite plain to me that someone's address book is part of a person's "papers and effects", and therefore would require a warrant to search.-jcr</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448960</id>
	<title>Re:Not not?</title>
	<author>HTH NE1</author>
	<datestamp>1260867720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>IANAL, but maybe if they found some sort of a closed box on the suspect, the police could open it to see if there is, for example, a gun inside.</p></div><p>I believe that's for the safety of the officer. Cell phone data though is not an imminent threat to anyone. At most they could disassemble the phone physically such as removing its battery, but that should not extend to the data on the phone.</p><p>This is often why an officer will walk you around your car so that the whole car can be seen as being within your reach giving them authority to search for weapons.</p><p>It sounds like the officers in this case were seeking confirmation of the phone call of which they monitored the other end with their informant, but forgot to or could not get a warrant for the phone or the records from the phone company beforehand.  Or seeking to ID a suspect by making a call to the phone and have the phone confirm the call and thus the ID, seeking an exigent circumstances exception before the suspect ditches the phone or clears the memory.</p><p>I wonder if it matters whether or not it is a flip-phone or had a locked control panel/screen.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAL , but maybe if they found some sort of a closed box on the suspect , the police could open it to see if there is , for example , a gun inside.I believe that 's for the safety of the officer .
Cell phone data though is not an imminent threat to anyone .
At most they could disassemble the phone physically such as removing its battery , but that should not extend to the data on the phone.This is often why an officer will walk you around your car so that the whole car can be seen as being within your reach giving them authority to search for weapons.It sounds like the officers in this case were seeking confirmation of the phone call of which they monitored the other end with their informant , but forgot to or could not get a warrant for the phone or the records from the phone company beforehand .
Or seeking to ID a suspect by making a call to the phone and have the phone confirm the call and thus the ID , seeking an exigent circumstances exception before the suspect ditches the phone or clears the memory.I wonder if it matters whether or not it is a flip-phone or had a locked control panel/screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAL, but maybe if they found some sort of a closed box on the suspect, the police could open it to see if there is, for example, a gun inside.I believe that's for the safety of the officer.
Cell phone data though is not an imminent threat to anyone.
At most they could disassemble the phone physically such as removing its battery, but that should not extend to the data on the phone.This is often why an officer will walk you around your car so that the whole car can be seen as being within your reach giving them authority to search for weapons.It sounds like the officers in this case were seeking confirmation of the phone call of which they monitored the other end with their informant, but forgot to or could not get a warrant for the phone or the records from the phone company beforehand.
Or seeking to ID a suspect by making a call to the phone and have the phone confirm the call and thus the ID, seeking an exigent circumstances exception before the suspect ditches the phone or clears the memory.I wonder if it matters whether or not it is a flip-phone or had a locked control panel/screen.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30452556</id>
	<title>If a cell phone is not a container</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1260884760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>then a computer is not a container. Neither is a hard drive. Neither is anything containing data.</p><p>OTOH, if it is a closed container, you would have to surrender necessary keys (in the case of data, to decrypt it) if a warrant is present.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>then a computer is not a container .
Neither is a hard drive .
Neither is anything containing data.OTOH , if it is a closed container , you would have to surrender necessary keys ( in the case of data , to decrypt it ) if a warrant is present .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>then a computer is not a container.
Neither is a hard drive.
Neither is anything containing data.OTOH, if it is a closed container, you would have to surrender necessary keys (in the case of data, to decrypt it) if a warrant is present.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448824</id>
	<title>Re:Persons, papers and effects...</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1260910260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is, but the 4th amendment only prohibits "unreasonable" searches. In the general case, a "reasonable" search is one authorized by a warrant, but the courts have held that some kinds of warrantless searches are presumptively reasonable. Search of an arrestee incident to arrest is one of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is , but the 4th amendment only prohibits " unreasonable " searches .
In the general case , a " reasonable " search is one authorized by a warrant , but the courts have held that some kinds of warrantless searches are presumptively reasonable .
Search of an arrestee incident to arrest is one of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is, but the 4th amendment only prohibits "unreasonable" searches.
In the general case, a "reasonable" search is one authorized by a warrant, but the courts have held that some kinds of warrantless searches are presumptively reasonable.
Search of an arrestee incident to arrest is one of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449564</id>
	<title>Re:What if...</title>
	<author>Thinboy00</author>
	<datestamp>1260870660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because you might well be carting around several Libraries of Congress worth of data on the computer, but not in ink and paper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because you might well be carting around several Libraries of Congress worth of data on the computer , but not in ink and paper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because you might well be carting around several Libraries of Congress worth of data on the computer, but not in ink and paper.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30450198</id>
	<title>Re:Not not?</title>
	<author>Anachragnome</author>
	<datestamp>1260873240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"TFA states the defendant answered the phone when a coke user acting as informant called and then police searched it."</p><p>THAT sounds like the cops knew they could not search the data on the phone unless they had some valid reason attributable to the case.</p><p>So what do they do? They instruct an informant(someone working with them...) to call the phone, someone they knew was a coke user, and thus CREATED a connection between the phone and they case they were pursuing.</p><p>Sounds like they knew exactly what the limitations of the law were and simply devised a way AROUND them. Stinks like entrapment to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" TFA states the defendant answered the phone when a coke user acting as informant called and then police searched it .
" THAT sounds like the cops knew they could not search the data on the phone unless they had some valid reason attributable to the case.So what do they do ?
They instruct an informant ( someone working with them... ) to call the phone , someone they knew was a coke user , and thus CREATED a connection between the phone and they case they were pursuing.Sounds like they knew exactly what the limitations of the law were and simply devised a way AROUND them .
Stinks like entrapment to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"TFA states the defendant answered the phone when a coke user acting as informant called and then police searched it.
"THAT sounds like the cops knew they could not search the data on the phone unless they had some valid reason attributable to the case.So what do they do?
They instruct an informant(someone working with them...) to call the phone, someone they knew was a coke user, and thus CREATED a connection between the phone and they case they were pursuing.Sounds like they knew exactly what the limitations of the law were and simply devised a way AROUND them.
Stinks like entrapment to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449002</id>
	<title>I broadly agree with the disenting opinion</title>
	<author>91degrees</author>
	<datestamp>1260867960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just see the conclusion as backwards.  Why do the police have the right to search an address book without a warrant?  Doesn't that violate the 4th amendment?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just see the conclusion as backwards .
Why do the police have the right to search an address book without a warrant ?
Does n't that violate the 4th amendment ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just see the conclusion as backwards.
Why do the police have the right to search an address book without a warrant?
Doesn't that violate the 4th amendment?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30453894</id>
	<title>I have an observation/comment</title>
	<author>joocemann</author>
	<datestamp>1260897300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the device and system didn't even exist when the laws were written, then how in the hell can the laws apply at all?</p><p>I'm simply saying that the law and intent of the law had no knowledge of this device and/or its components, systems, data, etc, and thus there is no way to interpret or discern from the law that it had any purpose in this matter.</p><p>I'm also not saying that anything new should be lawless.  Quite possibly I am suggesting that our laws should be kept modernized, in current language, and reauthorized by necessary powers (like congress, etc --- whoever passed/made the older version).</p><p>I'm sick and tired of seeing all these crazy incidents where strange and outright wrong interpretations and charges are being made.  That myspace harassment case was one of them.  This case, regarding search and seizure, also seems to apply.</p><p>Get with it lawmakers and officers! Let us know what you expect and plan to do before charging us and impacting our lives in unexpected ways simply because you've been too lazy to keep your job and duties CURRENT.   Yes, I can call cops and lawmakers lazy.  I was in service to our country, too, but I didn't go home when more work was needed; I did my effin job!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the device and system did n't even exist when the laws were written , then how in the hell can the laws apply at all ? I 'm simply saying that the law and intent of the law had no knowledge of this device and/or its components , systems , data , etc , and thus there is no way to interpret or discern from the law that it had any purpose in this matter.I 'm also not saying that anything new should be lawless .
Quite possibly I am suggesting that our laws should be kept modernized , in current language , and reauthorized by necessary powers ( like congress , etc --- whoever passed/made the older version ) .I 'm sick and tired of seeing all these crazy incidents where strange and outright wrong interpretations and charges are being made .
That myspace harassment case was one of them .
This case , regarding search and seizure , also seems to apply.Get with it lawmakers and officers !
Let us know what you expect and plan to do before charging us and impacting our lives in unexpected ways simply because you 've been too lazy to keep your job and duties CURRENT .
Yes , I can call cops and lawmakers lazy .
I was in service to our country , too , but I did n't go home when more work was needed ; I did my effin job !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the device and system didn't even exist when the laws were written, then how in the hell can the laws apply at all?I'm simply saying that the law and intent of the law had no knowledge of this device and/or its components, systems, data, etc, and thus there is no way to interpret or discern from the law that it had any purpose in this matter.I'm also not saying that anything new should be lawless.
Quite possibly I am suggesting that our laws should be kept modernized, in current language, and reauthorized by necessary powers (like congress, etc --- whoever passed/made the older version).I'm sick and tired of seeing all these crazy incidents where strange and outright wrong interpretations and charges are being made.
That myspace harassment case was one of them.
This case, regarding search and seizure, also seems to apply.Get with it lawmakers and officers!
Let us know what you expect and plan to do before charging us and impacting our lives in unexpected ways simply because you've been too lazy to keep your job and duties CURRENT.
Yes, I can call cops and lawmakers lazy.
I was in service to our country, too, but I didn't go home when more work was needed; I did my effin job!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449082</id>
	<title>Re:makes sense given the original rationale</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260868320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Recording devices? Recording your own interrogation is a physical threat to the arresting officer?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Recording devices ?
Recording your own interrogation is a physical threat to the arresting officer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Recording devices?
Recording your own interrogation is a physical threat to the arresting officer?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30454180</id>
	<title>Analogy: An Address Book?</title>
	<author>zigmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1260900900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I couldn't be arsed to read the other comments to see if anyone already addressed (harr harr) this, but did that other judge seriously compare a cellphone to an address book? I have a couple problems with this.</p><p>An address book can contain: a list of people you know, their contact information, their place of residence, a schedule or planner, some offhand notes and a couple local maps. Most address books of friends and family I have ever seen are never this complete or detailed. Typically, all the people he or she knows are not in there, what people are in their perhaps only an address is given or only a phone number and so forth. Also I have never seen nor been aware of an address book sold commercially to the consumer market that was lockable by the user with a unique passcode, nor an address book that could participate in a communications network.</p><p>A cellphone, and I'm going to go with the highest common denominator here* (i.e. a very well powered and feature packed device such as an iPhone or Blackberry) can contain a list of people you know, both on the phone hardware and through network services, their contact information, place of residence, other extensive information about them, a record of your communications with them, via phone, text, email, chat and other various services, a record of where you've been, a record of what you have searched for on the 'net, and various images and videos which may be user-created. A very good deal of contact with said people and the various networks takes place through this device, and a lot of contact that doesn't is still viewable and searchable through it. Some consumer devices, and various services on it separately, are lockable with a unique password (i.e. this isn't software only available to the CIA director, it is cheaply and widely available), are much more fragile than a dead paper book, and could and can be much more central to the operation of a family or business than an address book ever was, and overall can currently contain up to 32GB of data compared to the paltry amount that could be reasonably contained by an address book. Also, data on the various people known by the owner tends to be more extensive (e.g. through Facebook, instead of individual entry on each phone) and more people tend to be included in the lists of "known contacts." So how the hell are they comparable?</p><p>*I'm going with the "highest common denominator" because if you're going to set a precedent, it would probably be wise to set one that is relatively future-proof, and doesn't assume anything about the limitations of the device that would be unreasonable. In other words, it's somewhat unreasonable to assume that a phone wouldn't be able to use a IM service just because there are good deal of phones that can't, phones which are probably going to become more rare (at least in terms of functionality) and some can, so the issue should be addressed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could n't be arsed to read the other comments to see if anyone already addressed ( harr harr ) this , but did that other judge seriously compare a cellphone to an address book ?
I have a couple problems with this.An address book can contain : a list of people you know , their contact information , their place of residence , a schedule or planner , some offhand notes and a couple local maps .
Most address books of friends and family I have ever seen are never this complete or detailed .
Typically , all the people he or she knows are not in there , what people are in their perhaps only an address is given or only a phone number and so forth .
Also I have never seen nor been aware of an address book sold commercially to the consumer market that was lockable by the user with a unique passcode , nor an address book that could participate in a communications network.A cellphone , and I 'm going to go with the highest common denominator here * ( i.e .
a very well powered and feature packed device such as an iPhone or Blackberry ) can contain a list of people you know , both on the phone hardware and through network services , their contact information , place of residence , other extensive information about them , a record of your communications with them , via phone , text , email , chat and other various services , a record of where you 've been , a record of what you have searched for on the 'net , and various images and videos which may be user-created .
A very good deal of contact with said people and the various networks takes place through this device , and a lot of contact that does n't is still viewable and searchable through it .
Some consumer devices , and various services on it separately , are lockable with a unique password ( i.e .
this is n't software only available to the CIA director , it is cheaply and widely available ) , are much more fragile than a dead paper book , and could and can be much more central to the operation of a family or business than an address book ever was , and overall can currently contain up to 32GB of data compared to the paltry amount that could be reasonably contained by an address book .
Also , data on the various people known by the owner tends to be more extensive ( e.g .
through Facebook , instead of individual entry on each phone ) and more people tend to be included in the lists of " known contacts .
" So how the hell are they comparable ?
* I 'm going with the " highest common denominator " because if you 're going to set a precedent , it would probably be wise to set one that is relatively future-proof , and does n't assume anything about the limitations of the device that would be unreasonable .
In other words , it 's somewhat unreasonable to assume that a phone would n't be able to use a IM service just because there are good deal of phones that ca n't , phones which are probably going to become more rare ( at least in terms of functionality ) and some can , so the issue should be addressed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I couldn't be arsed to read the other comments to see if anyone already addressed (harr harr) this, but did that other judge seriously compare a cellphone to an address book?
I have a couple problems with this.An address book can contain: a list of people you know, their contact information, their place of residence, a schedule or planner, some offhand notes and a couple local maps.
Most address books of friends and family I have ever seen are never this complete or detailed.
Typically, all the people he or she knows are not in there, what people are in their perhaps only an address is given or only a phone number and so forth.
Also I have never seen nor been aware of an address book sold commercially to the consumer market that was lockable by the user with a unique passcode, nor an address book that could participate in a communications network.A cellphone, and I'm going to go with the highest common denominator here* (i.e.
a very well powered and feature packed device such as an iPhone or Blackberry) can contain a list of people you know, both on the phone hardware and through network services, their contact information, place of residence, other extensive information about them, a record of your communications with them, via phone, text, email, chat and other various services, a record of where you've been, a record of what you have searched for on the 'net, and various images and videos which may be user-created.
A very good deal of contact with said people and the various networks takes place through this device, and a lot of contact that doesn't is still viewable and searchable through it.
Some consumer devices, and various services on it separately, are lockable with a unique password (i.e.
this isn't software only available to the CIA director, it is cheaply and widely available), are much more fragile than a dead paper book, and could and can be much more central to the operation of a family or business than an address book ever was, and overall can currently contain up to 32GB of data compared to the paltry amount that could be reasonably contained by an address book.
Also, data on the various people known by the owner tends to be more extensive (e.g.
through Facebook, instead of individual entry on each phone) and more people tend to be included in the lists of "known contacts.
" So how the hell are they comparable?
*I'm going with the "highest common denominator" because if you're going to set a precedent, it would probably be wise to set one that is relatively future-proof, and doesn't assume anything about the limitations of the device that would be unreasonable.
In other words, it's somewhat unreasonable to assume that a phone wouldn't be able to use a IM service just because there are good deal of phones that can't, phones which are probably going to become more rare (at least in terms of functionality) and some can, so the issue should be addressed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449132</id>
	<title>The ruling sounds right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260868620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but the pattern in rulings related to "Terry stops" seems to be the other way. Florida recently ruled that a search of a car someone just left was approprite "to ensure officer safety", though a search of a house was not.</p><p>I'm trying to figure out how a knife in a car would pose a danger to a police officer when the owner is sitting in the back of a patrol car.</p><p>Sadly: the tendancy for decades seems to be away from protection of the citizen's rights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but the pattern in rulings related to " Terry stops " seems to be the other way .
Florida recently ruled that a search of a car someone just left was approprite " to ensure officer safety " , though a search of a house was not.I 'm trying to figure out how a knife in a car would pose a danger to a police officer when the owner is sitting in the back of a patrol car.Sadly : the tendancy for decades seems to be away from protection of the citizen 's rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but the pattern in rulings related to "Terry stops" seems to be the other way.
Florida recently ruled that a search of a car someone just left was approprite "to ensure officer safety", though a search of a house was not.I'm trying to figure out how a knife in a car would pose a danger to a police officer when the owner is sitting in the back of a patrol car.Sadly: the tendancy for decades seems to be away from protection of the citizen's rights.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448866</id>
	<title>Good.</title>
	<author>TyIzaeL</author>
	<datestamp>1260910440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm glad to see this level-headed decision coming out of my own home state of Ohio. I hope eventually similar rulings will be made regarding laptops.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm glad to see this level-headed decision coming out of my own home state of Ohio .
I hope eventually similar rulings will be made regarding laptops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm glad to see this level-headed decision coming out of my own home state of Ohio.
I hope eventually similar rulings will be made regarding laptops.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30451198</id>
	<title>Re:Not not?</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1260877260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I believe that's for the safety of the officer.</p></div><p>I believe it's also to protect the officer from a later civil suit. If you have an Altoids tin that ends up missing, or you get it back later and claim the priceless diamond that was inside is now missing, it becomes your word against the officer's. If he opens it and checks the contents and sees that there is no priceless diamond and makes a proper note of the actual contents, you can't pull that later.</p><p>The dissenting judge seems to miss the point that you can store razor blades or valuables in a phone book, therefore these types of searches are necessary. You can't do that in a cell phone (except maybe the battery compartment, but that part is most likely not protected by this ruling).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe that 's for the safety of the officer.I believe it 's also to protect the officer from a later civil suit .
If you have an Altoids tin that ends up missing , or you get it back later and claim the priceless diamond that was inside is now missing , it becomes your word against the officer 's .
If he opens it and checks the contents and sees that there is no priceless diamond and makes a proper note of the actual contents , you ca n't pull that later.The dissenting judge seems to miss the point that you can store razor blades or valuables in a phone book , therefore these types of searches are necessary .
You ca n't do that in a cell phone ( except maybe the battery compartment , but that part is most likely not protected by this ruling ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe that's for the safety of the officer.I believe it's also to protect the officer from a later civil suit.
If you have an Altoids tin that ends up missing, or you get it back later and claim the priceless diamond that was inside is now missing, it becomes your word against the officer's.
If he opens it and checks the contents and sees that there is no priceless diamond and makes a proper note of the actual contents, you can't pull that later.The dissenting judge seems to miss the point that you can store razor blades or valuables in a phone book, therefore these types of searches are necessary.
You can't do that in a cell phone (except maybe the battery compartment, but that part is most likely not protected by this ruling).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448668</id>
	<title>Re:Not not?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260909360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IANAL, but maybe if they found some sort of a closed box on the suspect, the police could open it to see if there is, for example, a gun inside.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAL , but maybe if they found some sort of a closed box on the suspect , the police could open it to see if there is , for example , a gun inside .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAL, but maybe if they found some sort of a closed box on the suspect, the police could open it to see if there is, for example, a gun inside.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448762</id>
	<title>The full text of the decision</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260909960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The official text went more like this:  "The Ohio state supreme court has decided that a cell phone found on a suspect cannot be searched without a warrant.   And Michigan still sucks."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The official text went more like this : " The Ohio state supreme court has decided that a cell phone found on a suspect can not be searched without a warrant .
And Michigan still sucks .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The official text went more like this:  "The Ohio state supreme court has decided that a cell phone found on a suspect cannot be searched without a warrant.
And Michigan still sucks.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449294</id>
	<title>Re:Not not?</title>
	<author>lazycam</author>
	<datestamp>1260869400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Looks like I am going to start carrying my cell in a zip lock bag. Wonder if that works?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like I am going to start carrying my cell in a zip lock bag .
Wonder if that works ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like I am going to start carrying my cell in a zip lock bag.
Wonder if that works?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30451310</id>
	<title>Re:I broadly agree with the disenting opinion</title>
	<author>Lehk228</author>
	<datestamp>1260877860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Why do the police have the right to search an address book without a warrant? Doesn't that violate the 4th amendment?</i> <br> <br>
because the police have a lot of guns and they work for the government which has a military with even more guns.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do the police have the right to search an address book without a warrant ?
Does n't that violate the 4th amendment ?
because the police have a lot of guns and they work for the government which has a military with even more guns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do the police have the right to search an address book without a warrant?
Doesn't that violate the 4th amendment?
because the police have a lot of guns and they work for the government which has a military with even more guns.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448588</id>
	<title>Not not?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260909060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Either submitter has their double negatives mixed up, or I'm really confused here:</p><p><i>The majority based this decision on a federal case that deemed a cell phone not to be a 'closed container,' and terefore not searchable without a warrant</i></p><p>Does that mean that a "closed container" is searchable without a warrant?  How can that be deemed reasonable?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Either submitter has their double negatives mixed up , or I 'm really confused here : The majority based this decision on a federal case that deemed a cell phone not to be a 'closed container, ' and terefore not searchable without a warrantDoes that mean that a " closed container " is searchable without a warrant ?
How can that be deemed reasonable ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Either submitter has their double negatives mixed up, or I'm really confused here:The majority based this decision on a federal case that deemed a cell phone not to be a 'closed container,' and terefore not searchable without a warrantDoes that mean that a "closed container" is searchable without a warrant?
How can that be deemed reasonable?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449154</id>
	<title>From TFA: "acting as a police informant"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260868800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The suspect received a call from "a crack cocaine user acting as a police informant".</p><p>I would have loved to hear that conversation.</p><p>Gotta love poofreaders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The suspect received a call from " a crack cocaine user acting as a police informant " .I would have loved to hear that conversation.Got ta love poofreaders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The suspect received a call from "a crack cocaine user acting as a police informant".I would have loved to hear that conversation.Gotta love poofreaders.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30451342</id>
	<title>Many cell phones are physical containers.</title>
	<author>Khyber</author>
	<datestamp>1260877980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The argument of the majority contended that a cell phone does not contain physical objects and therefore is not a container."</p><p>SIM CARD. BATTERY. MICROPROCESSOR. RAM. PCB. THOSE ARE PHYSICAL OBJECTS.</p><p>Looks like the majority of these judges are ignorant of the very language they are using. How/why are they in the position they hold, again?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The argument of the majority contended that a cell phone does not contain physical objects and therefore is not a container .
" SIM CARD .
BATTERY. MICROPROCESSOR .
RAM. PCB .
THOSE ARE PHYSICAL OBJECTS.Looks like the majority of these judges are ignorant of the very language they are using .
How/why are they in the position they hold , again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The argument of the majority contended that a cell phone does not contain physical objects and therefore is not a container.
"SIM CARD.
BATTERY. MICROPROCESSOR.
RAM. PCB.
THOSE ARE PHYSICAL OBJECTS.Looks like the majority of these judges are ignorant of the very language they are using.
How/why are they in the position they hold, again?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449094</id>
	<title>Re:makes sense given the original rationale</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1260868380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the arresting officer needs to be able to ensure that the suspect is unarmed <strong>and not carrying recording devices</strong></p> </div><p>...wait, what?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the arresting officer needs to be able to ensure that the suspect is unarmed and not carrying recording devices ...wait , what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the arresting officer needs to be able to ensure that the suspect is unarmed and not carrying recording devices ...wait, what?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30450206</id>
	<title>Re:makes sense given the original rationale</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260873240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah - but don't forget... strong encryption is classified as a munition according to US law.  So if the cell phone had any encrypted data, by the letter of the law it indeed contained a weapon...<br>(this is all the more reason to move encryption schemes out of the munitions category)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah - but do n't forget... strong encryption is classified as a munition according to US law .
So if the cell phone had any encrypted data , by the letter of the law it indeed contained a weapon... ( this is all the more reason to move encryption schemes out of the munitions category )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah - but don't forget... strong encryption is classified as a munition according to US law.
So if the cell phone had any encrypted data, by the letter of the law it indeed contained a weapon...(this is all the more reason to move encryption schemes out of the munitions category)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30450288</id>
	<title>Reading comprehension</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1260873540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Seems quite plain to me that someone's address book is part of a person's "papers and effects", and therefore would require a warrant to search.</p></div></blockquote><p>Read the text of the amendment which you posted: the guarantee regarding "papers and effects" is against <i>unreasonable</i>, not <i>warrantless</i> searches. The second clause governs the conditions in which warrants will be issued, but does not state that warrants are required. Warrants are (despite the absence of any express requirement) generally held to be <i>presumptively</i> required for reasonableness, but there are a number of exceptions to the warrant requirement (but these are not exceptions to the reasonableness requirement.) Search of the person and immediate vincinity of an arrestee incident to arrest -- including closed physical containers -- is one of those circumstances that has been established as an exception to the warrant requirement (largely, justified by public safety concerns with the possibility of physically dangerous objects, including those that might be concealed in a closed container.) This ruling is that that concern does not apply to data in a cellphone, so the phone can't be searched without a warrant.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems quite plain to me that someone 's address book is part of a person 's " papers and effects " , and therefore would require a warrant to search.Read the text of the amendment which you posted : the guarantee regarding " papers and effects " is against unreasonable , not warrantless searches .
The second clause governs the conditions in which warrants will be issued , but does not state that warrants are required .
Warrants are ( despite the absence of any express requirement ) generally held to be presumptively required for reasonableness , but there are a number of exceptions to the warrant requirement ( but these are not exceptions to the reasonableness requirement .
) Search of the person and immediate vincinity of an arrestee incident to arrest -- including closed physical containers -- is one of those circumstances that has been established as an exception to the warrant requirement ( largely , justified by public safety concerns with the possibility of physically dangerous objects , including those that might be concealed in a closed container .
) This ruling is that that concern does not apply to data in a cellphone , so the phone ca n't be searched without a warrant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems quite plain to me that someone's address book is part of a person's "papers and effects", and therefore would require a warrant to search.Read the text of the amendment which you posted: the guarantee regarding "papers and effects" is against unreasonable, not warrantless searches.
The second clause governs the conditions in which warrants will be issued, but does not state that warrants are required.
Warrants are (despite the absence of any express requirement) generally held to be presumptively required for reasonableness, but there are a number of exceptions to the warrant requirement (but these are not exceptions to the reasonableness requirement.
) Search of the person and immediate vincinity of an arrestee incident to arrest -- including closed physical containers -- is one of those circumstances that has been established as an exception to the warrant requirement (largely, justified by public safety concerns with the possibility of physically dangerous objects, including those that might be concealed in a closed container.
) This ruling is that that concern does not apply to data in a cellphone, so the phone can't be searched without a warrant.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448620</id>
	<title>except...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260909120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't that with certain exceptions...</p><p>If you're crossing a border.<br>If you're suspected of being a terrorist.</p><p>and maybe soon</p><p>If you're suspected of copyright infringement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't that with certain exceptions...If you 're crossing a border.If you 're suspected of being a terrorist.and maybe soonIf you 're suspected of copyright infringement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't that with certain exceptions...If you're crossing a border.If you're suspected of being a terrorist.and maybe soonIf you're suspected of copyright infringement.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449046</id>
	<title>Re:Persons, papers and effects...</title>
	<author>phantomcircuit</author>
	<datestamp>1260868200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are allowed to search your persons, papers, and effects.</p><p>This ruling makes absolutely no sense.  Under this ruling a physical address book is open to search upon arrest, but the virtual address book in a cell phone is not.</p><p>That they ruled the cell phone to not be a closed container is actually what limits the police.  Kind of crazy, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are allowed to search your persons , papers , and effects.This ruling makes absolutely no sense .
Under this ruling a physical address book is open to search upon arrest , but the virtual address book in a cell phone is not.That they ruled the cell phone to not be a closed container is actually what limits the police .
Kind of crazy , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are allowed to search your persons, papers, and effects.This ruling makes absolutely no sense.
Under this ruling a physical address book is open to search upon arrest, but the virtual address book in a cell phone is not.That they ruled the cell phone to not be a closed container is actually what limits the police.
Kind of crazy, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449022</id>
	<title>mod ukp</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260868080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">Declined in ma8ket stand anymore,</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Declined in ma8ket stand anymore , [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Declined in ma8ket stand anymore, [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448896</id>
	<title>makes sense given the original rationale</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260910620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I recall correctly, the original rationale for concluding that warrantless searches incident to arrest are "reasonable" is that: 1) the arresting officer needs to be able to ensure that the suspect is unarmed and not carrying recording devices; and 2) the police need to be able to inventory the subject's possessions in case a future dispute arises over their proper return.</p><p>I don't see either of those rationales making sense for searching electronic devices. Unlike with a physical container, where the suspect might be concealing a weapon (point 1), a suspect cannot conceal weapons within the data contained on electronic devices (at least for definitions of "weapon" relevant to ensuring a police officer's safety). An arrestee might, I suppose, later claim that the police stole a valuable item that was never in fact there (point 2), but I think this is considerably more far-fetched than with physical containers--- we're not talking about stealing gold coins out of a purse or something, but maybe destroying data that the arrestee claims is valuable and irreplaceable. Is that concern sufficient to allow police to routinely inventory all data on arrestees' devices? And how would they even inventory it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I recall correctly , the original rationale for concluding that warrantless searches incident to arrest are " reasonable " is that : 1 ) the arresting officer needs to be able to ensure that the suspect is unarmed and not carrying recording devices ; and 2 ) the police need to be able to inventory the subject 's possessions in case a future dispute arises over their proper return.I do n't see either of those rationales making sense for searching electronic devices .
Unlike with a physical container , where the suspect might be concealing a weapon ( point 1 ) , a suspect can not conceal weapons within the data contained on electronic devices ( at least for definitions of " weapon " relevant to ensuring a police officer 's safety ) .
An arrestee might , I suppose , later claim that the police stole a valuable item that was never in fact there ( point 2 ) , but I think this is considerably more far-fetched than with physical containers--- we 're not talking about stealing gold coins out of a purse or something , but maybe destroying data that the arrestee claims is valuable and irreplaceable .
Is that concern sufficient to allow police to routinely inventory all data on arrestees ' devices ?
And how would they even inventory it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I recall correctly, the original rationale for concluding that warrantless searches incident to arrest are "reasonable" is that: 1) the arresting officer needs to be able to ensure that the suspect is unarmed and not carrying recording devices; and 2) the police need to be able to inventory the subject's possessions in case a future dispute arises over their proper return.I don't see either of those rationales making sense for searching electronic devices.
Unlike with a physical container, where the suspect might be concealing a weapon (point 1), a suspect cannot conceal weapons within the data contained on electronic devices (at least for definitions of "weapon" relevant to ensuring a police officer's safety).
An arrestee might, I suppose, later claim that the police stole a valuable item that was never in fact there (point 2), but I think this is considerably more far-fetched than with physical containers--- we're not talking about stealing gold coins out of a purse or something, but maybe destroying data that the arrestee claims is valuable and irreplaceable.
Is that concern sufficient to allow police to routinely inventory all data on arrestees' devices?
And how would they even inventory it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449626</id>
	<title>Re:What if...</title>
	<author>fulldecent</author>
	<datestamp>1260870900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; I think the Courts have been trying to differentiate far too much. If it's OK to search your physical papers, address books, and mail you might have, why should a computer, cell phone, or netbook be any different? It's just data in 1's and 0's instead of ink and paper.</p><p>wrong.</p><p>please see above.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; I think the Courts have been trying to differentiate far too much .
If it 's OK to search your physical papers , address books , and mail you might have , why should a computer , cell phone , or netbook be any different ?
It 's just data in 1 's and 0 's instead of ink and paper.wrong.please see above .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; I think the Courts have been trying to differentiate far too much.
If it's OK to search your physical papers, address books, and mail you might have, why should a computer, cell phone, or netbook be any different?
It's just data in 1's and 0's instead of ink and paper.wrong.please see above.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449426</id>
	<title>Somewhat complicated...</title>
	<author>gedrin</author>
	<datestamp>1260870060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems very reasonable that an officer could look through a person's purse or day-timer if they are arrested.  Since phones and digital devices are often similar, it really is just another kind of day-timer.  However, computers are often a great deal more.  It is reasonable for an officer to secure his safety.  It is not reasonable for an officer to search through a suspect's family photos or personal messages.  For evidence gathering, I would hope most judges and DA's are sophisticated enough to include digital records with other targetted records searches.  However, searching a computer at a tarry is unreasonable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems very reasonable that an officer could look through a person 's purse or day-timer if they are arrested .
Since phones and digital devices are often similar , it really is just another kind of day-timer .
However , computers are often a great deal more .
It is reasonable for an officer to secure his safety .
It is not reasonable for an officer to search through a suspect 's family photos or personal messages .
For evidence gathering , I would hope most judges and DA 's are sophisticated enough to include digital records with other targetted records searches .
However , searching a computer at a tarry is unreasonable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems very reasonable that an officer could look through a person's purse or day-timer if they are arrested.
Since phones and digital devices are often similar, it really is just another kind of day-timer.
However, computers are often a great deal more.
It is reasonable for an officer to secure his safety.
It is not reasonable for an officer to search through a suspect's family photos or personal messages.
For evidence gathering, I would hope most judges and DA's are sophisticated enough to include digital records with other targetted records searches.
However, searching a computer at a tarry is unreasonable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30450020</id>
	<title>Re:makes sense given the original rationale</title>
	<author>Shakrai</author>
	<datestamp>1260872580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I recall correctly, the original rationale for concluding that warrantless searches incident to arrest are "reasonable" is that: 1) the arresting officer needs to be able to ensure that the suspect is unarmed and not carrying recording devices;</p></div><p>Actually they can search you for weapons without arresting you, if they have a reasonable suspicion that you are armed.  It's called a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry\_v.\_Ohio" title="wikipedia.org">Terry stop</a> [wikipedia.org].  The search is supposed to be limited to a pat down for weapons but they can seize other contraband if the nature of said contraband is readily apparent to the officer during the course of the frisk, i.e: he's searching you for a knife or firearm but comes across your glass bowl and stash of weed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I recall correctly , the original rationale for concluding that warrantless searches incident to arrest are " reasonable " is that : 1 ) the arresting officer needs to be able to ensure that the suspect is unarmed and not carrying recording devices ; Actually they can search you for weapons without arresting you , if they have a reasonable suspicion that you are armed .
It 's called a Terry stop [ wikipedia.org ] .
The search is supposed to be limited to a pat down for weapons but they can seize other contraband if the nature of said contraband is readily apparent to the officer during the course of the frisk , i.e : he 's searching you for a knife or firearm but comes across your glass bowl and stash of weed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I recall correctly, the original rationale for concluding that warrantless searches incident to arrest are "reasonable" is that: 1) the arresting officer needs to be able to ensure that the suspect is unarmed and not carrying recording devices;Actually they can search you for weapons without arresting you, if they have a reasonable suspicion that you are armed.
It's called a Terry stop [wikipedia.org].
The search is supposed to be limited to a pat down for weapons but they can seize other contraband if the nature of said contraband is readily apparent to the officer during the course of the frisk, i.e: he's searching you for a knife or firearm but comes across your glass bowl and stash of weed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448698</id>
	<title>Re:Not not?</title>
	<author>IndustrialComplex</author>
	<datestamp>1260909480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Does that mean that a "closed container" is searchable without a warrant? How can that be deemed reasonable?<br></i></p><p>If I had a 4 liter tin cookie can when I was arrested, it could potentially contain knives, guns, maybe even a bomb.  It is reasonable for a police officer to be able to search such a container when they take you into custody.  It could be dangerous.</p><p>That is what they mean by a closed container.  A cell phone cannot contain a physical dangerous object within its data.</p><p>However, if the police suspected that the phone was just a shell and contained bullets instead of a battery, they might have authority to search it for bullets, but that doesn't involve turning it on and going through the data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does that mean that a " closed container " is searchable without a warrant ?
How can that be deemed reasonable ? If I had a 4 liter tin cookie can when I was arrested , it could potentially contain knives , guns , maybe even a bomb .
It is reasonable for a police officer to be able to search such a container when they take you into custody .
It could be dangerous.That is what they mean by a closed container .
A cell phone can not contain a physical dangerous object within its data.However , if the police suspected that the phone was just a shell and contained bullets instead of a battery , they might have authority to search it for bullets , but that does n't involve turning it on and going through the data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does that mean that a "closed container" is searchable without a warrant?
How can that be deemed reasonable?If I had a 4 liter tin cookie can when I was arrested, it could potentially contain knives, guns, maybe even a bomb.
It is reasonable for a police officer to be able to search such a container when they take you into custody.
It could be dangerous.That is what they mean by a closed container.
A cell phone cannot contain a physical dangerous object within its data.However, if the police suspected that the phone was just a shell and contained bullets instead of a battery, they might have authority to search it for bullets, but that doesn't involve turning it on and going through the data.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449362</id>
	<title>Re:Not not?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260869760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, they goofed in the article logic.  A closed container requires a warrant, as data is not in "plain sight" by simply looking at the phone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , they goofed in the article logic .
A closed container requires a warrant , as data is not in " plain sight " by simply looking at the phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, they goofed in the article logic.
A closed container requires a warrant, as data is not in "plain sight" by simply looking at the phone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448746</id>
	<title>I'm not sure how to feel.</title>
	<author>jtownatpunk.net</author>
	<datestamp>1260909840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The privacy advocate in me is thrilled.  The critical thinking side of me feels the logic used to arrive at that ruling is asinine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The privacy advocate in me is thrilled .
The critical thinking side of me feels the logic used to arrive at that ruling is asinine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The privacy advocate in me is thrilled.
The critical thinking side of me feels the logic used to arrive at that ruling is asinine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448722</id>
	<title>Re:What if...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260909660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>but what if the suspect had a laptop or netbook on his person; wouldn't the police need a separate search warrant to search that specific machine? A cell phone is not different, is it?</i>
<br> <br>
I think the Courts have been trying to differentiate far too much.  If it's OK to search your physical papers, address books, and mail you might have, why should a computer, cell phone, or netbook be any different?  It's just data in 1's and 0's instead of ink and paper.</htmltext>
<tokenext>but what if the suspect had a laptop or netbook on his person ; would n't the police need a separate search warrant to search that specific machine ?
A cell phone is not different , is it ?
I think the Courts have been trying to differentiate far too much .
If it 's OK to search your physical papers , address books , and mail you might have , why should a computer , cell phone , or netbook be any different ?
It 's just data in 1 's and 0 's instead of ink and paper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but what if the suspect had a laptop or netbook on his person; wouldn't the police need a separate search warrant to search that specific machine?
A cell phone is not different, is it?
I think the Courts have been trying to differentiate far too much.
If it's OK to search your physical papers, address books, and mail you might have, why should a computer, cell phone, or netbook be any different?
It's just data in 1's and 0's instead of ink and paper.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448940</id>
	<title>Re:Not not?</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1260867660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>a closed container is searchable without a warrant</p></div><p>Correct.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>[searching] an &ldquo;open container&rdquo; would not require a warrant</p></div><p>Also correct.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>a closed container is searchable without a warrantCorrect .
[ searching ] an    open container    would not require a warrantAlso correct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a closed container is searchable without a warrantCorrect.
[searching] an “open container” would not require a warrantAlso correct.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30450350</id>
	<title>Re:Persons, papers and effects...</title>
	<author>nsayer</author>
	<datestamp>1260873780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Irrelevant. Once someone is under arrest, a search of their person, papers and effects is "reasonable." Go RTFA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Irrelevant .
Once someone is under arrest , a search of their person , papers and effects is " reasonable .
" Go RTFA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Irrelevant.
Once someone is under arrest, a search of their person, papers and effects is "reasonable.
" Go RTFA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448804</id>
	<title>Re:Persons, papers and effects...</title>
	<author>RingDev</author>
	<datestamp>1260910140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you have an address book, or day planner, you could use it to hold a gun or a knife. So an arresting officer has the right to open it and ensure that there is nothing that could jeopardize their safety in it. They should not be reading the papers, BUT, if you have a 8x10" glossy photo of you putting a round into someone...</p><p>The argument here, as I understand it, is that the majority felt that there is no need to peruse the DATA on the phone to ensure that it will not jeopardize the officer's safety. You can not store a gun or a knife in binary format. So while the cops could crack the case and ensure that there are no hidden contents in side the case, they can not flip through your address book, recent calls, or text messages.</p><p>-Rick</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have an address book , or day planner , you could use it to hold a gun or a knife .
So an arresting officer has the right to open it and ensure that there is nothing that could jeopardize their safety in it .
They should not be reading the papers , BUT , if you have a 8x10 " glossy photo of you putting a round into someone...The argument here , as I understand it , is that the majority felt that there is no need to peruse the DATA on the phone to ensure that it will not jeopardize the officer 's safety .
You can not store a gun or a knife in binary format .
So while the cops could crack the case and ensure that there are no hidden contents in side the case , they can not flip through your address book , recent calls , or text messages.-Rick</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have an address book, or day planner, you could use it to hold a gun or a knife.
So an arresting officer has the right to open it and ensure that there is nothing that could jeopardize their safety in it.
They should not be reading the papers, BUT, if you have a 8x10" glossy photo of you putting a round into someone...The argument here, as I understand it, is that the majority felt that there is no need to peruse the DATA on the phone to ensure that it will not jeopardize the officer's safety.
You can not store a gun or a knife in binary format.
So while the cops could crack the case and ensure that there are no hidden contents in side the case, they can not flip through your address book, recent calls, or text messages.-Rick</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30450252</id>
	<title>Re:What if...</title>
	<author>KC7JHO</author>
	<datestamp>1260873420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Partially due to the fact that the evidence stored electronically is usually easily altered. Not only does the officer have to get a warrant to do the search but the officer must conduct the search in a forensically safe manner so as to maintain the integrity of the data as much as possible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Partially due to the fact that the evidence stored electronically is usually easily altered .
Not only does the officer have to get a warrant to do the search but the officer must conduct the search in a forensically safe manner so as to maintain the integrity of the data as much as possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Partially due to the fact that the evidence stored electronically is usually easily altered.
Not only does the officer have to get a warrant to do the search but the officer must conduct the search in a forensically safe manner so as to maintain the integrity of the data as much as possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449174</id>
	<title>Defining a "closed container"</title>
	<author>Slipped\_Disk</author>
	<datestamp>1260868860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Over-simplifying for the scope of the decision: <br>
A woman's purse with the zipper shut is a closed container. If said woman is arrested police have the right to search her handbag *incident to her arrest*, *assuming probably cause*.<br>
<br>
The Ohio Supreme Court decision says that the contents of your cell phone don't fall into that category - i.e. your cell phone is not just a box filled with "data" but rather falls under the 4th amendment's "papers and effects" scope.<br>
<br>
(Of course the woman who just had her tampons and birth control pills dumped out on the hood of a police cruiser could argue the same Re: her purse -- the difference being you might have a knife/gun/etc. in the purse)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Over-simplifying for the scope of the decision : A woman 's purse with the zipper shut is a closed container .
If said woman is arrested police have the right to search her handbag * incident to her arrest * , * assuming probably cause * .
The Ohio Supreme Court decision says that the contents of your cell phone do n't fall into that category - i.e .
your cell phone is not just a box filled with " data " but rather falls under the 4th amendment 's " papers and effects " scope .
( Of course the woman who just had her tampons and birth control pills dumped out on the hood of a police cruiser could argue the same Re : her purse -- the difference being you might have a knife/gun/etc .
in the purse )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Over-simplifying for the scope of the decision: 
A woman's purse with the zipper shut is a closed container.
If said woman is arrested police have the right to search her handbag *incident to her arrest*, *assuming probably cause*.
The Ohio Supreme Court decision says that the contents of your cell phone don't fall into that category - i.e.
your cell phone is not just a box filled with "data" but rather falls under the 4th amendment's "papers and effects" scope.
(Of course the woman who just had her tampons and birth control pills dumped out on the hood of a police cruiser could argue the same Re: her purse -- the difference being you might have a knife/gun/etc.
in the purse)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30453622</id>
	<title>Re:Persons, papers and effects...</title>
	<author>Paxtez</author>
	<datestamp>1260894480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you have an address book, or day planner, you could use it to hold a gun or a knife. So an arresting officer has the right to open it and ensure that there is nothing that could jeopardize their safety in it.</p></div><p>Maybe, depending on where you live.</p><p>But for the most part, no.  For example if you get arrested for DUI and you have a backpack, you get separated from your bag and thus it does not create any danger to the officers (well I suppose except for an armed bomb, but that doesn't seem reasonable).  But there is a good reason to search it, to do an inventory of the container so the suspect doesn't say "I had $10,000 in my bag.  The cops took it!".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have an address book , or day planner , you could use it to hold a gun or a knife .
So an arresting officer has the right to open it and ensure that there is nothing that could jeopardize their safety in it.Maybe , depending on where you live.But for the most part , no .
For example if you get arrested for DUI and you have a backpack , you get separated from your bag and thus it does not create any danger to the officers ( well I suppose except for an armed bomb , but that does n't seem reasonable ) .
But there is a good reason to search it , to do an inventory of the container so the suspect does n't say " I had $ 10,000 in my bag .
The cops took it !
" .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have an address book, or day planner, you could use it to hold a gun or a knife.
So an arresting officer has the right to open it and ensure that there is nothing that could jeopardize their safety in it.Maybe, depending on where you live.But for the most part, no.
For example if you get arrested for DUI and you have a backpack, you get separated from your bag and thus it does not create any danger to the officers (well I suppose except for an armed bomb, but that doesn't seem reasonable).
But there is a good reason to search it, to do an inventory of the container so the suspect doesn't say "I had $10,000 in my bag.
The cops took it!
".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448716</id>
	<title>Tangibility is Irrelevant</title>
	<author>Prysorra</author>
	<datestamp>1260909660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"He compared the data contained within an address book that would be searchable."</p><p>In the future, so too would be human thoughts. Human heads are simply containers for memories stored in synaptic format.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" He compared the data contained within an address book that would be searchable .
" In the future , so too would be human thoughts .
Human heads are simply containers for memories stored in synaptic format .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"He compared the data contained within an address book that would be searchable.
"In the future, so too would be human thoughts.
Human heads are simply containers for memories stored in synaptic format.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30452612</id>
	<title>Re:makes sense given the original rationale</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260885120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why does the officer need to be sure the suspect is not carrying a recording device?  the police do not have the right to do their job without being monitored by the people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why does the officer need to be sure the suspect is not carrying a recording device ?
the police do not have the right to do their job without being monitored by the people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why does the officer need to be sure the suspect is not carrying a recording device?
the police do not have the right to do their job without being monitored by the people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449114</id>
	<title>Re:Not not?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260868500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the editors should go ahead and append this comment to the end of the summary...nicely done.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the editors should go ahead and append this comment to the end of the summary...nicely done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the editors should go ahead and append this comment to the end of the summary...nicely done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449128</id>
	<title>1TB SD card?</title>
	<author>bmimatt</author>
	<datestamp>1260868620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>Now I need a 1TB memory card for my cell and a quick call to Apple to get the RMA I need to return my laptop.</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I need a 1TB memory card for my cell and a quick call to Apple to get the RMA I need to return my laptop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now I need a 1TB memory card for my cell and a quick call to Apple to get the RMA I need to return my laptop.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30450168</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not sure how to feel.</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1260873120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The privacy advocate in me is thrilled. The critical thinking side of me feels the logic used to arrive at that ruling is asinine.</p></div></blockquote><p>The logic used is that:<br>(1) It is well-established federal case law (articulated by the US Supreme Court, whose decisions on federal questions are binding on the Ohio Supreme Court), in general, law enforcement searches without request require a warrant to be reasonable;<br>(2) It is well-established federal case law (articulated by the US Supreme Court, whose decisions on federal questions are binding on the Ohio Supreme Court) that a search <i>incident to arrest</i> of the person arrested, including closed containers in their immediate control, is reasonable without a warrant <i>because of the potential for such containers to contain objects which may pose a danger to the arresting officers or the public</i>.<br>(3) While a cellphone may "contain" data, the date it "contains" is not the same as physical contents of a container discussed in #2 in the manner which makes warrantless searches reasonable.<br>(4) As a consequence of #3, in the absence of some other exception to the warrant requirement that would apply, the general rule in #1 applies, and a warrant is required.</p><p>What part this reasoning do you object to?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The privacy advocate in me is thrilled .
The critical thinking side of me feels the logic used to arrive at that ruling is asinine.The logic used is that : ( 1 ) It is well-established federal case law ( articulated by the US Supreme Court , whose decisions on federal questions are binding on the Ohio Supreme Court ) , in general , law enforcement searches without request require a warrant to be reasonable ; ( 2 ) It is well-established federal case law ( articulated by the US Supreme Court , whose decisions on federal questions are binding on the Ohio Supreme Court ) that a search incident to arrest of the person arrested , including closed containers in their immediate control , is reasonable without a warrant because of the potential for such containers to contain objects which may pose a danger to the arresting officers or the public .
( 3 ) While a cellphone may " contain " data , the date it " contains " is not the same as physical contents of a container discussed in # 2 in the manner which makes warrantless searches reasonable .
( 4 ) As a consequence of # 3 , in the absence of some other exception to the warrant requirement that would apply , the general rule in # 1 applies , and a warrant is required.What part this reasoning do you object to ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The privacy advocate in me is thrilled.
The critical thinking side of me feels the logic used to arrive at that ruling is asinine.The logic used is that:(1) It is well-established federal case law (articulated by the US Supreme Court, whose decisions on federal questions are binding on the Ohio Supreme Court), in general, law enforcement searches without request require a warrant to be reasonable;(2) It is well-established federal case law (articulated by the US Supreme Court, whose decisions on federal questions are binding on the Ohio Supreme Court) that a search incident to arrest of the person arrested, including closed containers in their immediate control, is reasonable without a warrant because of the potential for such containers to contain objects which may pose a danger to the arresting officers or the public.
(3) While a cellphone may "contain" data, the date it "contains" is not the same as physical contents of a container discussed in #2 in the manner which makes warrantless searches reasonable.
(4) As a consequence of #3, in the absence of some other exception to the warrant requirement that would apply, the general rule in #1 applies, and a warrant is required.What part this reasoning do you object to?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449090</id>
	<title>Re:Persons, papers and effects...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260868320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some airport screeners don't even allow pictures of guns. Not even pictures of fictional guns held by giant robots on T-shirts, even if was an Autobot and not a Decepticon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some airport screeners do n't even allow pictures of guns .
Not even pictures of fictional guns held by giant robots on T-shirts , even if was an Autobot and not a Decepticon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some airport screeners don't even allow pictures of guns.
Not even pictures of fictional guns held by giant robots on T-shirts, even if was an Autobot and not a Decepticon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449496</id>
	<title>Re:Persons, papers and effects...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1260870420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait until they break out the &ldquo;malware is a WMD&rdquo; mind-twist. ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait until they break out the    malware is a WMD    mind-twist .
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait until they break out the “malware is a WMD” mind-twist.
^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449058</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not sure how to feel.</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1260868260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Welcome to the US legal system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome to the US legal system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome to the US legal system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448746</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1818216_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30450198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1818216_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30451198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1818216_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30450168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1818216_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1818216_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30450492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1818216_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30450020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1818216_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1818216_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1818216_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30453376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1818216_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1818216_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1818216_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1818216_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1818216_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30453622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1818216_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1818216_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30450418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1818216_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1818216_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30455066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1818216_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1818216_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30450252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1818216_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1818216_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1818216_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30450350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1818216_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1818216_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1818216_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1818216_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1818216_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30451310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1818216_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1818216_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1818216_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1818216_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30450214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1818216_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1818216_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30452612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1818216_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30450206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1818216_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1818216_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1818216_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1818216_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30450288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_1818216_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1818216.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30451310
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1818216.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30450288
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1818216.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30453376
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1818216.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30450350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448804
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449090
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30453622
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30450492
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1818216.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449426
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1818216.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30450168
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1818216.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30454180
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1818216.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30450214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448698
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449114
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449294
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448668
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448960
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30451198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448656
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448940
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30450198
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1818216.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448722
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449626
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30450252
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449564
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30455066
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449436
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1818216.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448716
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_1818216.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30448896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30450418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30450206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30450020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30452612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_1818216.30449102
</commentlist>
</conversation>
