Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #26

[jumpstreet]

Without Brad standing there giving them permission - yes a warrant is necessary.

So let me get this straight. They can take a book from your house as part of their investigation... but... they cannot open that book, without a follow-up search warrant to do so. Is that right?

How about other stuff they collected - let's say the articles of clothing... do they need follow-up SW's to "do" other stuff (e.g. DNA processing) on some of the other things they collected?

[ e.g. if they can take a book, but not open it without a SW (or BC giving them permission)... then I assume it's not okay for them to take an article of clothing, and then proceed to send it to the lab for 'detailed internal analysis', without a follow-up warrant ]

I'm obviously missing something, as (even forgetting the mysterious timing), the SW for the books themselves seems weird. Maybe "books" go into a separate legal category than other collected evidence... but I guess that's news to me if so.

 

[jumpstreet]

Mahmoo - do you think there is a video on the phone of the murder ? Short of that, what could be on the phone or in the address books that would say who murdered Nancy ? The phone portion would be known from the records subpeona'd why bother with the internal log when one has a print out and is working from it ? Most text messages are maintained by the provider for two weeks - please tell me why LE would need to waste time on the phone when they would have a print out of activity in hand ?

Hmmm... you're right - looking at the internal call log (attempted calls, not completed calls), stored photos, recent appointments, unsent text messages of a person recently found mysteriously murdered... that's probably just a total waste of time. I'm surprised they've even bothering now RC...

Perhaps they'll find a video of the murder in those non-phone address books they're looking at... (otherwise, what's the point?...)

 

[raisincharlie]

So let me get this straight. They can take a book from your house as part of their investigation... but... they cannot open that book, without a follow-up search warrant to do so. Is that right?

How about other stuff they collected - let's say the articles of clothing... do they need follow-up SW's to "do" other stuff (e.g. DNA processing) on some of the other things they collected?

[ e.g. if they can take a book, but not open it without a SW (or BC giving them permission)... then I assume it's not okay for them to take an article of clothing, and then proceed to send it to the lab for 'detailed internal analysis', without a follow-up warrant ]

I'm obviously missing something, as (even forgetting the mysterious timing), the SW for the books themselves seems weird. Maybe "books" go into a separate legal category than other collected evidence... but I guess that's news to me if so.

What you are missing is an understanding of warrants and the 4th ammendment to the rights of privacy.

 

[ncnative]

I'm waiting too.

I think RC has gone to take a powder for the headache he's getting.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I think Jump is confusing cell phone address book with paper/diary address books. LE wants them all and got them all through either voluntary turnover from Brad or through SWs. First LE needs either permission or a SW to take the cell phone and any paper address books. Then LE needs a SW to get at the digital *DATA* stored within the cell phone....think of it the same way as a computer. They can seize a computer but they need a separate SW in order to access the stored DATA. They don't need a separate SW to open a paper address book once they have the paper address book from a SW seizure.

Two different things being discussed here.

1. Physical/paper address books
2. Cell phone address books and other digital content stored on the cell phone or attached to the person's cell phone account (like log of calls).

 

[jumpstreet]

What you are missing is an understanding of warrants and the 4th ammendment to the rights of privacy.

I've read the warrants (of course)... and answers as to exactly why a warrant is needed for the non-phone books there certainly wasn't obvious to me.

Sounds like you're saying the 4th ammendment makes a distinction between what LE can do to "books" they take from your house as part of a murder investigation (without a follow-up SW)... vs non-book stuff. News to me... but good to know.

 

[jmflu]

I'm waiting too.

I think RC has gone to take a powder for the headache he's getting.

RC doesn't sound like himself at ALL today. I'm not used to seeing him short on patience or sarcastic. As long as I've been reading these forums, he's been the steady hand of intellect that many of us turn to.

Now I'm almost afraid to ask another question!

 

[raisincharlie]

I think Jump is confusing cell phone address book with paper/diary address books. LE wants them all and got them all through either voluntary turnover from Brad or through SWs. LE needed a SW to get at the *DATA* stored within the cell phone....think of it the same way as a computer. They can seize a computer but they need a separate SW in order to access the stored DATA.

Thank you

There has been a separate warrant to collect the data from all the computers in case they have forgotten. Because Brad willingly handed over the address books, LE still needs a search warrant to collect what is inside the books since the items were not obtained under a search warrant. I do not understand the difficulty in understanding this.

 

[jmflu]

I think Jump is confusing cell phone address book with paper/diary address books. LE wants them all and got them all through either voluntary turnover from Brad or through SWs. First LE needs either permission or a SW to take the cell phone and any paper address books. Then LE needs a SW to get at the digital *DATA* stored within the cell phone....think of it the same way as a computer. They can seize a computer but they need a separate SW in order to access the stored DATA. They don't need a separate SW to open a paper address book once they have the paper address book from a seizure.

Two different things being discussed here.

1. Physical/paper address books
2. Cell phone address books and other digital content stored on the cell phone or attached to the person's cell phone account (like log of calls).

Ok, so, what I'm wondering is, they seized the phone and almost three months later now they want to get into it for the first time??

That does not make sense to me. I'm sorry.

Also, why or how would they know to ask MH if he called from NC's phone if they hadn't already gotten into the phone? Are we assuming they used the paper records from the phone company to get that info, that NC's phone was used to call BC's phone the morning of the murder?

 

[jumpstreet]

I think Jump is confusing cell phone address book with paper/diary address books. LE wants them all and got them all through either voluntary turnover from Brad or through SWs. First LE needs either permission or a SW to take the cell phone and any paper address books. Then LE needs a SW to get at the digital *DATA* stored within the cell phone....think of it the same way as a computer. They can seize a computer but they need a separate SW in order to access the stored DATA. They don't need a separate SW to open a paper address book once they have the paper address book from a seizure.

Two different things being discussed here.

1. Physical/paper address books
2. Cell phone address books and other digital content stored on the cell phone or attached to the person's cell phone account (like log of calls).

Oh yeah, I got that. The warrant is for both. I don't understand why the warrant needed to cover #1? [ My initial assumption is because LE had to go back to get them (they had been returned), and that's why the warrant is needed ]

RC is saying he thinks LE always had these things (which is fine)... then I don't understand why the warrant needed to cover #1. [ I'm fine on it covering #2 (except for the timing of it confuses me, but that's a separate thread) ].

RC is saying (if I understand correctly), that because #1 are books, that they are treated differently from 4th amendment perspective, and that's why the follow-up warrant is needed.

 

[raisincharlie]

RC doesn't sound like himself at ALL today. I'm not used to seeing him short on patience or sarcastic. As long as I've been reading these forums, he's been the steady hand of intellect that many of us turn to.

Now I'm almost afraid to ask another question!

Don't be, I realize some have not been down this road before.

 

[garner_nc]

Remember the phone and maybe the books were in plain view, therefore....

A police officer that spots something in plain view does not need a search warrant to seize the object. In order for a plain view search to be legal, the officer must be in a place he has the right to be in (BC let cops inside his house) and the object he seizes must be plainly visible in this location.

So a SW was not needed to take the phone.

 

[raisincharlie]

Remember the phone and maybe the books were in plain view, therefore....

A police officer that spots something in plain view does not need a search warrant to seize the object. In order for a plain view search to be legal, the officer must be in a place he has the right to be in (BC let cops inside his house) and the object he seizes must be plainly visible in this location.

So a SW was not needed to take the phone.

Which explains why a warrant is needed to collect data contained within, not in plain view, both of those items.

 

[mahmoo]

Mahmoo - do you think there is a video on the phone of the murder ?

Doubt it...........Blackberry's don't video......at least mine doesn't

Short of that, what could be on the phone or in the address books that would say who murdered Nancy ? The phone portion would be known from the records subpeona'd why bother with the internal log when one has a print out and is working from it ? Most text messages are maintained by the provider for two weeks - please tell me why LE would need to waste time on the phone when they would have a print out of activity in hand ?

What's the point of the SW to unlock the phone then if it's unlikely there are any clues in there as to who murdered her and LE already had a data printout?

 

[jmflu]

Doubt it...........Blackberry's don't video......at least mine doesn't




What's the point of the SW to unlock the phone then if it's unlikely there are any clues in there as to who murdered her and LE already had a data printout?

Good point, lips...

 

[raisincharlie]

Doubt it...........Blackberry's don't video......at least mine doesn't




What's the point of the SW to unlock the phone then if it's unlikely there are any clues in there as to who murdered her and LE already had a data printout?

Since they were looking for writings, photos, video clips, and what not I would suspect to back up the issues of marital discord and what she may have told friends and family. Perhaps there is a file containing how much money she was granted every week - perhaps she was follwing her lawyers instructions to document everything for the upcoming separation. Perhaps there is a personal journal. I suspect it had little information other than this type of supporting information.

 

[jumpstreet]

Which explains why a warrant is needed to collect data contained within, not in plain view, both of those items.

If I'm understanding it now, LE took both the phone, and the address books initially before a warrant (as they were in plain view, and presumably BC consented).

However, even at that time, they could not legally access data on the phone (even if unlocked), or, contents of the books. [ I guess they could have looked at the outside of the books, but they could not open them??? ]

Even when they subsequently filed a SW on the house and executed it, they still weren't legally able to look at the contents of the phone (locked or unlocked), or open the address books. [ they could continue to admire the outside, but not the inside of the phone/address books ]

[ And apparently, they didn't feel like it would be worthwhile to do more than that at the time... ]

Now, some 2 months later, they have reason to believe it might be worthwhile to examine the contents of the locked phone, and any notes/loose-papers/information NC may have had in those closed address books that have just been sitting there closed and collecting dust. Sure, while they might not find a video of the crime itself contained in either, but hmmm... who knows, there just might be a clue or a lead or something in there...

However, to access that info (now they at last want to open the collected books, and phone), they'll need another SW (since the books weren't collected via a SW, and at least the phone itself is in a special category - locked data)).

Whew... Is that it?

 

[garner_nc]

Maybe memos/schedules/appointments about her activities will help paint a better picture of her daily activities. I have memos in my phone that are on the calendar that my service provider would not have access to.

What if she had a mystery man? That only existed in her phone. Maybe she never called him or texted him. Maybe she met up with him on her "runs" and that was documented in her phone.

Maybe she documented that BC threaten to kill her and kept a log of all the "bad" stuff he said or did to her on the phone - we don't know.

I honestly think it goes back to leaving no stone unturned.

 

[RaleighNC]

With the ability of phones to have micro / mini SD cards in them - you can store 4 or 8 GBs worth of data and probably make it relatively secure. You could also type a journal or document on the PC and load it onto the card for safekeeping in your phone. Might not even be able to access the file type with your phone, but have the data there and take the card out for reading on a PC.

Who knows what could be on there - but - considering all this - the likelihood of her leaving her phone laying around seems to be less and less if it contained ANYTHING crucial to her pending divorce.

I am rarely without my phone and I don't text all that much, don't have kids, work from home, etc - so I truly can't see Nancy without hers AT ALL.

 

[raisincharlie]

If I'm understanding it now, LE took both the phone, and the address books initially before a warrant (as they were in plain view, and presumably BC consented).

However, even at that time, they could not legally access data on the phone (even if unlocked), or, contents of the books. [ I guess they could have looked at the outside of the books, but they could not open them??? ]

Even when they subsequently filed a SW on the house and executed it, they still weren't legally able to look at the contents of the phone (locked or unlocked), or open the address books. [ they could continue to admire the outside, but not the inside of the phone/address books ]

[ And apparently, they didn't feel like it would be worthwhile to do so more than that at the time ]

Now, some 2 months later, they have reason to believe it might be worthwhile to examine the contents of the locked phone, and any notes/loose-papers/information NC may have had in her address books. Sure, while they might not find a video of the crime itself contained in either, who knows, there just might be a clue or a lead or something.

However, to access that info (now they at last want to open the collected books, and phone), they'll need another SW (since the books weren't collected via a SW, and at least the phone itself is in a special category - locked data)).

Whew... Is that it?

Since we do not know what leads LE had, we do not know their priority of resolving each of those leads to conclusion. Why they waited 2 months - you will have to ask them as they assigned the priority to its value. As stated before, more than likely the phone records were in hand, this is pretty much a given since LE was trying to get Hiller to say he used Nancy's phone in some fashion prior to this warrant being executed. Something led them to question Hiller in this fashion - it obviously was not the data in the phone or in the books.