I have just come across a recent (2014) court case that seems so gratifying that I want to share it with all of you.
I bet most readers of this thread have seen on Youtube the videos made by scofflaw drivers during traffic stops, when they make a point of giving the cop a hard time AND very distinctly trying to intimidate the cop by informing him that they are taping the whole thing on their cellphone. Well, here's a charming instance where it backfired.
In February 1913, in Ashland City, Ohio, a policewoman stopped a car being driven by Christopher D. Rarick, a deep-dyed traffic scofflaw whose driver's license was thoroughly suspended. Rarick gave her the usual Sovtard childishness, refusing to identify himself and the like, and very conspicuously pointed his cellphone at the policewoman and said he was recording this confrontation. Rarick was taken into custody and the policewoman seized the cellphone since it presumably would provide accurate (more or less) evidence of this event
. At the police station, Rarick continued to be uncooperative. The police got a judge to sign a search warrant enabling them to search Rarick's cellphone for the video of the traffic stop. In the course of searching the cellphone memory for the traffic stop video the police discovered some kiddie porn. Whereupon the police obtained an additional search warrant to search the cellphone for additional evidence showing violations of the laws against kiddie porn, which was so productive (it included videos indicating that Rarick himself had filmed the children and had filmed himself raping one) that the police then got a third search warrant for Rarick's home and got even more evidence against him for child pornography and child molestation.
On trial for sex crimes involving children, Rarick challenged the admissibility of the evidence. He claimed that the first search warrant of his cellphone, ostensibly to find the video of the traffic stop, was excessively broad. The court said No, the warrant was specific that the search was for the traffic stop in which he had been arrested, and the supporting affidavit and the specificity of the warrant were entirely proper, but the clues about child pornography had been discovered only inadvertently during that search, and the small amount of child porn which had been found coincidentally was sufficient to justify the second and third warrants, which were expressly aimed at finding evidence of sex crimes involving minors. Rarick appealed and this decision was affirmed, and then Rarick tried to take the case to the US Supreme Court, which denied certiorari. Rarick is not presently expected to be driving a car until 2026.
U.S. v. Rarick (ND Ohio, Jan. 6, 2014) 2014 u.s.dist. LEXIS 953, 2014 WL 37740, aff'd (6th Cir., Jan. 78, 2016) 636 Fed.Appx 911, cert. denied (May 31, 2016) __ US __, 136 S.Ct 2403, 195 L.Ed.2d 773.
Jan 6, 2014 decision: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case ... 7454737122
Jan 7, 2016 decision: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case ... 7605443248
In other words, if a motorist is giving the police a hard time and makes a point of announcing that he's taping the encounter, the police who arrest him may seize the tape and use it for evidence of the traffic encounter .... and woe betide that troublesome motorist if the same tape incriminates him of unrelated offenses.