Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Last Updated: July 1, 2025
Ever found yourself glued to a courtroom drama, nodding along, thinking, "Yep, that's exactly how it works!"? Well, chances are, Hollywood's probably got a few things wrong. The U.S. criminal justice system? It's a seriously tangled web of complex laws, and common myths – the kind fueled by binge-watching or just plain misunderstanding – can actually get you into deep trouble.
Look, you don't get a pass for not knowing the law. And honestly, believing these widespread misconceptions could genuinely mess with your rights, your freedom, or even your whole future. Understanding what's actually going on, the real ins and outs of the legal process, isn't just for lawyers; it's absolutely crucial for anyone who might bump into the system.
So, here we go. We're not just busting 10 common legal myths about the U.S. criminal justice system; we're going to dive into why these ideas stick around and why getting the straight truth, directly from folks who know the law inside and out, is so incredibly vital.
In today's world, seriously, anything you post, share, or even say in a private message online – those social media comments, the photos, the DMs – can absolutely be used as evidence against you in a criminal or civil case. Always, always, be super mindful of your digital footprint; it's almost never as private as you think it is.
Read: The Impact of Social Media on Personal Injury Cases
The U.S. criminal justice system is a much more intricate, nuanced, and frankly, demanding beast than what you typically see splashed across screens. Leaning on those widespread myths? That's a recipe for making huge, potentially life-altering errors that could jeopardize your freedom, your money, and your whole future. But here's the good news: when you're armed with accurate information, you're not just better prepared to understand legal proceedings; you're truly empowered to protect your fundamental rights.
Don't let a myth throw your future off track. If you're facing legal challenges, having real legal expertise by your side isn't just a good idea – it's absolutely non-negotiable.
Navigating the criminal justice system is complex and high-stakes. It's not the time for guesswork. If you or someone you care about is facing criminal charges, an experienced criminal defense attorney isn't just a lawyer; they're your strongest advocate. They can offer clarity, shield your rights, and guide you through every single step.
By The Law Offices of Smith and White, Tacoma Criminal Defense Lawyers
When a person is arrested, emotions run high and uncertainty can cloud good judgment. As criminal defense attorneys, we consistently stress the importance of knowing your rights and responsibilities when interacting with law enforcement. One of the most misunderstood areas is what information you are legally required to provide to the police during an arrest.
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides individuals with the right against self-incrimination. This right is the bedrock of what you are not required to say to the police. However, there is a distinction between information that is compelled by law and information that may incriminate you. The right to remain silent, formalized in the Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), protects individuals from being coerced into making self-incriminating statements. Still, it does not automatically excuse individuals from providing basic identifying information when legally required.
The U.S. Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (2004) ruled that states can require suspects to disclose their name during a lawful stop without violating the Fifth Amendment, provided the disclosure is not itself incriminating. This creates a constitutional minimum that states may build upon, but not fall beneath.
During an arrest—assuming it is lawful—there are a few categories of information that an individual may be compelled to provide, depending on jurisdictional rules. At a federal level and in many states, this includes:
Name: In jurisdictions with "stop-and-identify" laws, refusing to provide your name may lead to additional charges such as obstruction or failure to identify.
Identification: If you are driving a vehicle, presenting a valid driver’s license and proof of insurance is generally required. This obligation arises under administrative law and is distinct from criminal investigatory rights.
Basic Biographical Information: Once booked, detainees are usually required to provide information such as address, date of birth, and social security number. These are necessary for recordkeeping, but they are not considered testimonial in the Fifth Amendment sense unless they are linked to an incriminating context.
Beyond these limited disclosures, no law obligates an arrestee to answer investigatory questions, such as where they were going, what they were doing, or whether they committed a crime. These fall squarely under Fifth Amendment protections, and the correct response is to invoke the right to remain silent and request an attorney.
While the Fifth Amendment provides a floor, not a ceiling, for rights during arrest, each state determines how far law enforcement can go in compelling information. Some states have more expansive identification statutes, while others have very limited requirements.
What you’re required to tell police in Utah will vary from what you’ll be required to say in Pennsylvania. To that point, what you’re required to say in Pennsylvania will vary even from what you’re required to tell police in Philadelphia.
Key distinctions include:
Currently, approximately half of U.S. states have statutes authorizing police officers to request identifying information from individuals during lawful stops. In these jurisdictions:
Refusal to provide a name during a lawful Terry stop, commonly known as stop-and-frisk, can result in criminal penalties.
The legality of compelling ID hinges on the stop being supported by reasonable suspicion.
States include Nevada, Colorado, and Ohio, among others.
In states without such statutes, police cannot lawfully compel you to identify yourself unless you are under arrest for a separate crime. For example:
California does not have a general stop-and-identify law, though you must provide ID when driving or under arrest.
Oregon and Washington similarly limit identification obligations to specific circumstances.
In these states, refusing to give your name during a casual encounter or even a Terry stop generally cannot be criminally punished—though practical consequences may still arise, including prolonged detention or additional scrutiny.
Once an individual is arrested and processed through the booking system, additional information may be required. This includes:
Though these disclosures are generally administrative, they can have legal implications. For instance, if a person lies about their identity during booking, they may face charges for providing false information to law enforcement.
Importantly, the obligation to answer booking questions does not extend to questions about the alleged crime. These should always be deferred until counsel is present.
To navigate an arrest with minimal legal damage, consider the following best practices:
Every person arrested should request legal representation at the earliest opportunity. Many arrestees believe they can “talk their way out” of the situation or that remaining silent will be seen as an admission of guilt. Both are deeply flawed assumptions.
Once a person requests a lawyer, police must cease all questioning under Miranda. Invoking this right not only protects you legally but can also prevent prosecutors from using statements made during the arrest against you at trial.
The question of what you must tell the police during an arrest is both deceptively simple and legally nuanced. While you may be required to provide your name and certain administrative details—particularly in states with “stop-and-identify” laws—your constitutional right against self-incrimination remains intact. Anything beyond identity is usually discretionary, and the safest approach is to say nothing until you have spoken with an attorney.
Understanding these principles is essential not just for protecting your rights, but for advising clients facing the most critical moments of their criminal cases. As laws and interpretations evolve, so must our vigilance in defending the boundaries of constitutional protections.
Chattanooga police are investigating a former Massage Envy employee, Kenneth Spears, after he admitted to secretly filming a female client undressing during a massage session.
Spears was fired from his position at the Hamilton Place location after the disturbing incident came to light. Authorities are concerned there may be additional victims as their investigation continues.
Earlier this year, the Tennessee licensing board determined that Spears had engaged in "unethical or unprofessional conduct." As a result, he was fined $1,000 and had his massage license revoked.
Despite this, as of Tuesday, Chattanooga police stated that Spears has not yet faced any criminal charges. Officers are actively investigating the situation and seeking more potential victims.
The case began in September when a Massage Envy client reported feeling uncomfortable while undressing for her massage. As she looked around the room, she noticed a cell phone hidden behind a towel warmer with its camera facing her.
Realizing she had been exposed while undressed, she recorded the phone’s position. After the session, she discovered the phone was still recording while she dressed. She immediately confronted Spears and asked him to delete the footage. Spears apologized and complied, deleting both the recorded video and several other unidentified files.
Massage Envy took swift action after the victim reported the incident. The owner, Brooke Goodyear, confirmed the details of the event and spoke to Spears. During their conversation, Spears admitted to recording other clients, although he did not reveal their identities.
As a result, Massage Envy fired Spears and reported the incident to the state licensing board, taking immediate steps to ensure that no further harm would be done.
Chattanooga Police are continuing their investigation into Spears’s actions. The police report suggests that other victims may exist, as Spears admitted to recording additional clients.
With multiple videos potentially deleted from his phone, it is unclear how many others may have been unknowingly filmed during their massage sessions. Authorities are encouraging anyone who may have been a victim to come forward as the investigation progresses.
Massage Envy Sexual Assault Allegations (2017-2018)
In 2017, Massage Envy faced multiple allegations of sexual assault and inappropriate conduct by massage therapists. Several clients came forward with claims that they were sexually assaulted during their massage sessions. These incidents were particularly alarming because many of the accused therapists had been reported for misconduct in the past but continued to work at various locations. The company was heavily criticized for failing to take adequate measures to protect clients and for not properly vetting employees. These lawsuits, combined with negative media coverage, raised serious questions about Massage Envy's employee screening and monitoring practices.
2018 Hidden Camera Incident (Florida)
Another concerning incident occurred in Florida in 2018 when a client discovered a hidden phone recording her while she undressed for her massage session. The phone was found concealed in a cubby in the massage room, filming the woman both before and after the massage. After confronting the therapist and deleting the footage, the woman reported the issue to Massage Envy management, which resulted in the therapist being fired. This raised alarms about the company’s security protocols, prompting discussions about the need for stricter privacy protections in such personal care environments.
2018 Lawsuit for Inappropriate Conduct
In addition to the allegations of sexual misconduct, Massage Envy was also sued in 2018 by several clients who accused the company of failing to address inappropriate behavior by therapists. The lawsuit alleged that the company had not taken adequate steps to investigate complaints and ensure the safety of clients. This lawsuit further highlighted the company's deficiencies in handling serious allegations and protecting client privacy.
These incidents have put Massage Envy under scrutiny, forcing the company to take a closer look at its employee vetting processes, background checks, and privacy safeguards. In response, Massage Envy has worked to improve its internal policies, including more rigorous background checks, better staff training, and enhanced monitoring of employees. However, despite these efforts, these past incidents have had a lasting impact on the brand’s reputation.
NEW YORK – Seven men from Long Island have been charged in a $20 million money laundering and fraud scheme that tricked over 1,800 victims—many of them elderly—into purchasing Home Depot and Lowe’s gift cards under false pretenses.
Authorities say the suspects used the stolen gift cards to buy construction supplies, which they later resold for profit. The elaborate scheme involved 6,000+ fraudulent transactions across 45 states, making it one of the largest fraud cases in recent years.
According to prosecutors, the defendants used computer-based scams to deceive victims. Some were falsely told that their personal information had been linked to child sexual abuse material, a fear tactic that pressured them into buying gift cards to "clear their names."
Once the suspects obtained the fraudulently purchased gift cards, they redeemed them for high-value construction supplies, including:
✔️ Copper pipes
✔️ Steel cables
✔️ Hot water heaters
These products were then resold to local plumbing and home improvement businesses for significant profit.
Authorities revealed staggering numbers behind the fraud scheme:
📌 1,800+ victims in 45 states
📌 6,000+ fraudulent transactions
📌 $20 million in total losses
📌 $50,000 worth of pipes purchased in a single day using 50+ gift cards
📌 $100,000 in cash recovered, along with luxury jewelry and handbags
The fraud ring conducted thousands of transactions at 80+ Home Depot and Lowe’s locations in New York State alone.
When police arrested the suspects, they discovered stolen construction supplies, large sums of cash, and luxury items in their vehicles.
All seven suspects pleaded not guilty and face up to 15 years in prison if convicted.
However, a controversial decision to release six of the defendants on cashless bail has raised concerns among law enforcement officials.
"We have thousands of victims out there. If we’re going to be able to prosecute them, we have to keep them where they belong—and that’s in jail."
— Nassau County Police Commissioner Patrick Ryder
Officials are warning the public to stay vigilant against phone scams and online fraud. Red flags to watch out for include:
❌ Calls from someone claiming to be a government official, bank employee, or software company representative
❌ Urgent requests for payment using gift cards or wire transfers
❌ High-pressure tactics using fear or legal threats
Nassau County District Attorney Anne Donnelly issued a strong warning:
"If someone calls you and identifies themselves as a government employee, a bank representative, or a representative of an internet or software company and asks you for money, I’m telling you—hang up the phone."
This case highlights the growing threat of sophisticated financial scams, particularly those targeting elderly and vulnerable individuals. With $20 million stolen and thousands of victims nationwide, authorities continue their investigation.
As concerns rise over bail policies for financial crimes, the question remains: Will justice be served?
Let us know your thoughts in the comments below. 🚨
Early Wednesday morning, two individuals in balaclavas opened fire near the Clémenceau metro station in Brussels, Belgium, sparking a manhunt by local authorities. The incident occurred around 6 am CET, disrupting services on two metro lines and several tram routes.
According to local media footage, at least two masked men armed with weapons were seen exchanging gunfire outside the Clémenceau metro station. Following the shooting, police quickly launched a search of the area, including the underground transit system, but fortunately, no injuries were reported.
A spokesperson from the public prosecutor's office confirmed that investigations are ongoing. Authorities suspect the incident may be linked to drug trafficking, with reports indicating the suspects were armed with Kalashnikov rifles. As part of their precautionary measures, the Clémenceau and Delacroix stations, along with Gare du Midi— a major hub for Eurostar trains—were temporarily closed.
Metro services on lines 2 and 6 were suspended between Trône and Gare de l'Ouest stations, affecting areas close to the European Parliament. Additionally, tram services between Lemonnier and Berkendael stations, as well as between Port d'Anderlecht and Gare du Midi, were disrupted.
The authorities are actively searching for the suspects, who are believed to be a small group of armed individuals, possibly two or three. Police have warned that they may still be hiding in the tunnel connecting Clémenceau and Midi stations.
As of now, the authorities have stated that the situation is not being treated as a terrorist attack, and the investigation remains ongoing.
Hannah Kobayashi's family has announced that she has been "found safe" nearly a month after she entered Mexico and disappeared, an event that garnered national attention and was classified by police as a voluntary disappearance.
"We are overjoyed and thankful that Hannah is safe," her sister and mother, Sydni Kobayashi and Brandi Yee, shared in a statement via their attorney, Sara Azari. "This past month has been an unimaginable challenge for our family, and we respectfully request privacy as we begin to heal and process everything that has happened," the family expressed.
"We want to extend our sincere gratitude to everyone who stood by us during this tough time. Your support and compassion have truly meant so much to us," Hannah's sister and mother added. Hannah, a 30-year-old photographer from Hawaii, was reported missing on November 11 after she missed a connecting flight in Los Angeles that was headed to New York City. Authorities later discovered that she traveled to the southern border on November 12 and crossed into Tijuana, Mexico on foot. Hannah Kobayashi set out on a journey to New York City to dive into the vibrant art scene as an aspiring photographer, but she never reached her destination.
The 30-year-old from Hawaii arrived at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) on November 8, where she was supposed to catch a connecting flight to New York City. Unfortunately, Hannah did not board the plane, as her family shared with Fox affiliate KHON. Her last known location was at LAX on November 11, which was also the last time her family heard from her.
This lack of communication was unusual for Hannah, as her aunt, Larie Pidgeon, noted in a Facebook post three days later. "Hannah’s final message to us was concerning — she expressed feeling frightened and mentioned that someone might be attempting to steal her money and identity," Pidgeon stated. "Since then, we haven’t heard from her, and we are extremely worried about her safety."
Tragically, two weeks later, Hannah's father passed away. Ryan Kobayashi was discovered deceased in a parking lot on November 24, with the L.A. County medical examiner later ruling his death a suicide. On December 2, Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell informed the media that surveillance footage from U.S. Customs and Border Protection captured Hannah crossing the U.S.-Mexico border on November 12, alone and with her belongings. The police have since classified her as a "voluntary missing person." So, what has happened to Hannah Kobayashi?
Hannah Kobayashi is a 30-year-old woman from Hawaii who lost touch with her family shortly after missing her connecting flight to New York City on November 8. Her aunt described her as "so special and kind" during a rally outside Crypto.com Arena on November 21, according to KTLA. “She’s a beautiful girl inside and out,” said Hannah's father, Ryan Kobayashi, at the event.
Hannah was traveling to New York City to attend a concert and explore the city's vibrant art scene, as she is an aspiring photographer, NBC News reported. “Hannah had a passion for travel, photography, art, and music. We weren’t very close growing up, and we haven’t been in touch for a while,” Ryan shared with CNN. “I’m just trying to reconnect and bring her back. That’s my main priority.”
On November 8, she flew from Maui to Los Angeles, where she had a layover before her flight to New York City. Unfortunately, she never boarded the second leg of her journey. “I reached out to her and asked, ‘Hey, are you in New York yet?’ and she replied, ‘Not yet.’ It was strange because the flight she was supposed to take had already departed,” said Brandi Yee, Hannah's mother, to KHON.
Hannah's sister, Sydni Kobayashi, informed CNN that Hannah was having trouble rebooking her flight and had left LAX. On November 9, she was seen at a Taschen bookstore at The Grove shopping center in Los Angeles and sent a Venmo payment to two individuals whose names were unfamiliar to the family. That evening, she returned to LAX and called her other aunt, Geordan Montalvo, to explain that she was still trying to catch a flight to New York. "She said, ‘This is a nightmare. I don’t understand what’s going on with these airlines; I’m trying to get to you,".
The next day, Hannah was spotted at the LeBron XXII Trial Experience at the Nike store at The Grove, as seen in a YouTube video posted on November 10.
PHOTO: LAPD
Hannah's family last heard from her on November 11, when her phone indicated she was back at LAX. Pidgeon informed Hawaii News Now that Montalvo had also attempted to reach her. "Her phone registered at LAX around 4 p.m., and after that, Geordan kept trying to get in touch with her, but then everything went silent.
Her phone died, and she lost all means of communication," she explained. Earlier, Hannah had messaged a friend after missing her flight, saying, “I got tricked into giving away all my money to someone I thought I loved." "She texted that she was scared and couldn’t return home or something like that," Sydni shared with Hawaii News Now. "The texts were really strange… it didn’t sound like her at all; something felt off.
I wasn’t sure if it was really her or someone else messaging.” Sydni further explained to CNN that the messages included terms Hannah typically wouldn’t use, such as "hun," "love," and "babe," leading her to suspect that it might not have been her sister texting. “She never says ‘hun.’ She might say ‘love’ or ‘babe,’ but never ‘hun.’ Even her close friends have noticed the same thing," she mentioned. A ticket agent informed the family that they had spoken with Hannah earlier on November 11, indicating she was trying to purchase a ticket either back to Maui or to New York.
However, police later confirmed that Hannah left the airport on November 11 "with an unidentified person" and took the train, according to Pidgeon’s report to KGMB/KHNL. “We haven’t heard anything about that,” Pidgeon said. “She doesn’t know anyone in L.A., and our whole family doesn’t know anyone there either.” Pidgeon also noted that Hannah appeared unwell in the surveillance footage of her leaving with the stranger. The two were later spotted getting off the train at Pico Station, an area the family searched after arriving in L.A. to assist in the search for Hannah. “It wasn’t a safe neighborhood," and "the officers we spoke with and others in the are.”
On December 2, authorities announced that Hannah was not actually missing but was classified as a "voluntary missing person" after reviewing surveillance footage that showed her walking into Mexico around noon on November 12. In response to this update, her family released a statement to NBC News and NewsNation expressing their determination to do everything they can to ensure her safe return. They expressed their heartfelt appreciation for the swift and dedicated efforts of law enforcement in looking into Hannah's situation.
Jay Blades 'Repair Shop' charged with controlling and coercive behaviour
Presenter Jay Blades - ' The Repair Shop' has been charged with engaging in controlling and coercive behaviour against his estranged wife, police said.
The 54-year-old attended Kidderminster Magistrates' Court earlier today and has been released on bail to return to Worcester Crown Court on October 11. Court documents indicate that the reported coercive behaviour involves both physical and emotional abuse.
Jay Blades, a skilled furniture restorer, is the star of the beloved BBC series where experts breathe new life into cherished items. The Repair Shop premiered in 2017, and fans can look forward to its 14th season airing later this year.
Blades recently praised his 'friend' King Charles, telling a BBC interviewer that 'he's just a normal geezer'.
Blades, aged 54, faces a charge of engaging in controlling or coercive behaviour . The presenter is scheduled to appear at Worcester Crown Court for a plea and trial preparation hearing on 11 October. In a statement, West Mercia Police reported:
“Jason Blades, a 54-year-old resident of Claverley in Wolverhampton, has been charged with controlling and coercive behavior.”
He made an appearance at Kidderminster Magistrates Court this morning (Friday, 13 September) and has been granted bail to attend Worcester Crown Court on Friday, 11 October.” Court documents indicate that the charge pertains to his wife, Lisa Zbozen, a fitness instructor, who declared the end of their relationship on her Instagram account on 2 May.
Blades comes from a disadvantaged background, he was brought up in Hackney by his single mother. He faced financial difficulties and resided in a hostel prior to securing accommodation in social housing. He eventually became a furniture maker and gained recognition on the Repair Shop after television producers discovered him through a short film about Out of the Dark, a charity he co-founded that educates young individuals on the restoration and sale of vintage furniture.
After running a red light, the camera will take pictures and a short video before collecting information about your vehicle and the incident to issue a ticket.
Red light tickets can be costly, which is why many vehicle owners choose to contest them. While the cost is undoubtedly one important reason to fight a red light ticket, many vehicle operators decide to do so for these reasons:
As far as defining legality of red light cameras goes, most people know they can’t fight a ticket on this front. These cameras are legal to use in many parts of the country. However, some people fight red light tickets by saying the camera malfunctioned or recorded incorrect data. With the right red light ticket lawyer on your side, you might be able to prove that a camera wasn’t functioning correctly, wasn’t calibrated properly, or didn’t have the correct timing.
Not everyone runs red lights because they want to. Sometimes, they can run them out of necessity. They might have needed to proceed through a red light to avoid a collision or even respond to a medical emergency.
In these situations, you may be able to use the necessity defense. In law, this form of defense means that a person’s illegal conduct was the lesser of two evils. You must be able to meet several criteria, like preventing injury to someone else and having no reasonable alternative.
Weather Conditions Affected Visibility
Over 1.2 million traffic accidents each year are weather-related. As a result, you can safely assume that at least a few red light-running incidents relate to the weather conditions. If you believe that fog, heavy rain, snow, or similar stopped you from seeing a red light, your chosen lawyer may be able to use this as your defense.
Your defense may be even stronger if you claim that snow on an energy-efficient traffic light caused you to run a red light. As LED bulbs run cooler than incandescent bulbs, they aren’t always able to melt the snow. The San Diego Union-Tribute reported on this issue in 2009.
Red light cameras don’t always get it right. If vehicles in photos aren’t clearly identified, there’s room for error regarding the identification of the license plate information. In this situation, there’s a chance you may receive a traffic ticket for a vehicle you don’t own and weren’t driving. Navigating the legal system for traffic tickets can be daunting, which is why contacting a lawyer can be helpful. They can fight to clear your name on your behalf.
Traffic lights operate on timers and with detectors to ensure adequate time for a car to move through an intersection before the light turns red. Some drivers may argue that the yellow light’s duration is too short, meaning they didn’t have enough time to react and stop safely before the light turned red.
Whether you contest a red light camera ticket or pay the fine can be a personal preference. However, if you can relate to these situations above, you may see the value in reaching out to a red-light ticket lawyer for help. They can fight for your right to a fair defense and may even achieve your preferred outcome.
Police officers protect people and ensure that the law is being followed and sometimes this requires finding someone's location. Whether the police are looking for an active suspect or trying to find someone who's called 911 for an emergency, there are ways that they can track your location. That said, their methods vary based on the type of phone you're calling with, where you are, and your service provider. For example, tracking a landline phone is not the same process as tracking a smartphone.
Thankfully, we have the answers you're looking for. Read on to learn more about how 911 and the police track a phone's location.
Yes, 911 tracks your location. 911 tracks your locations in a few ways depending on how you contact them. They can find your exact location when you call from a landline phone but things get more complicated when you call from a cell phone. Depending on the device and the provider, they can track your exact location or triangulate an estimated location based on the cell towers in your area
Triangulation consists of estimating a phone's position based on its communication with three phone towers. Triangulation gives an accurate position of someone's phone but it can't determine if you're inside a building. Also, it's not 100% accurate and may provide 911 operators with a small radius of where you can be. This is why providing your location is useful to speed up the process.
The only people tracking your phone when you call 911 is the call center. This is separate from the police but 911 operators will relay the information to nearby police officers if you're in danger. For this reason, 911 is not the same as the police when it comes to tracking your phone's location. 911 also won't track your phone unless it's necessary. Usually, you'll only have one operator on your case.
911 only tracks your location when you request your location to be tracked or if you're in danger. Otherwise, police officers and people within 911 call centers won't track your phone number. Still, tracking may happen if there is a warrant for your phone activity. In most cases, you'll know when this is happening unless they're tapping your line. This is more often the police tracking you and not the 911 operator.
The police can track your phone if they have a warrant to do so. They'll need a court order from a judge and it will outline what they can and can't track. When police track your phone they can do so in multiple ways. Primarily, they'll run through your phone records to see if anything stands out. However, they can also tap into your phone network and trace your calls. This helps them see who you're talking to and allows them to monitor your phone activity.
Police usually track your phone by going through your phone records or by running a wiretap. A wiretap allows them to tap into your network and listen to conversations. You can tell it's a wiretap if you hear static sounds in the background or other unusual noises. Police can also use tools like tower dumps or Geofence. These tools are reverse location lookups that use cell towers to determine where devices were during a crime.
That said, these are only a few tools that the police can use to track your phone. With a warrant, it's not hard for them to find information about your whereabouts.
The police will track your phone if they suspect that you're involved in serious criminal activity. To track your phone, they need a court order from a judge and have to prove probable cause. In addition to needing probable cause, the police can only listen to your phone calls or track your location at specific times. For example, they may only be able to tap your phone in the morning or evening. There are a lot of protections to ensure that this doesn't get out of hand.
It's important to note that these rules will change for people who are ex-convicts or on probation. In these situations, the person has fewer rights and it's easier for the police to track their phone.
There are several ways to protect your information from the police but the best way is to use a phone lookup tool. You can't hide from them if they have a warrant to search your device, so it's important to come prepared. In these cases, we recommend using a phone lookup tool like the one here.
These tools will help you view your records so you know what the police have access to. This is enough to help you explain things if something comes up without being caught off-guard. Furthermore, you can see if there are any records about your warrants or other types of police information.
While the police can track your phone, being prepared is the best thing you can do to avoid any issues.
Knowing when 911 can track your number will help you if you need to make a call. Making it easier for 911 to track your number can also help you get out of a pinch if you're in any type of danger. While 911 can get access to your phone, they don't always track you unless you're on the line with them.
However, if you're worried about the police tracking your information it's important to check your phone records. This will reveal any strange things happening to your phone or if you have a warrant out for phone tracking.
We hear from Martyn Bowie, director of Streetwise Safety Training and a use-of-force expert witness, on the laws that govern the use of force in the UK and the friction between these laws and real-world events.
The current laws that govern the use of force are as follows:
Common Law. Any force used is unlawful unless it is used to:
Sect 3 Criminal Law Act 1967. This is used to determine if the amount of force used was “reasonable” in the circumstances. This can be broken down further, as a person’s actions would have to be seen as “proportionate and necessary”. Having attended and given evidence as an expert witness in court, those two words are often debated at some length.
Section 76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. This law was introduced to try and bring together the human factor in relation to the use of force. However, in its usual way, the judicial language used can be difficult to put into language that people understand. In essence, the Act provides clarification of the operation of the existing common law and statutory defences. It neither abolishes the common law and statutory defences, nor does it change the current test that allows the use of reasonable force.
There are two things that should be considered when deciding whether the force used was reasonable. These are adopted from existing case law.
They are:
In essence, the Act provides clarification of the operation of the existing common law and statutory defences.
The words of Lord Morris in (Palmer v R [1971] AC 814) emphasise the difficulties often facing someone confronted by an intruder or defending himself against attack: “If there has been an attack so that defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken”.
Under certain circumstances, another law applies:
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. These powers relate to warranted officers only when conducting certain activities under PACE, such as stop and search, fingerprints, taking of DNA and search powers whilst in custody (England & Wales only).
The National Decision Model was introduced to update the conflict resolution model, which emergency services and a wider range of companies now use to assess the risk when dealing with incidents. This model also allows those who have been involved in an incident to review their actions and decisions in a logical order and help them with report or statement writing or, indeed, giving evidence. This model also provides further information on subject profile behaviour as well as impact factors that will affect the way in which individuals would deal with an incident and those involved.
The model itself is designed for any incident where action is taken to deal with an event. As with all models, it provides limited guidance. The actions of those involved will always be different, as we all deal with events in our own way due to numerous factors – some of which the National Decision Model highlights, but a lot of which it does not.
Some of the most common tensions when any use of force is questioned are those of a person’s actions. We are all different and, as discussed earlier, will all deal with an event in our own way.
A lot of this is due to our personal perceptions based around the individuals we are dealing with. These are commonly known as impact factors. To a certain extent, they will dictate how we will respond and act, working at the same time are our own personal experiences which shape us as individuals. There is also the “chemical cocktail” which the body uses when we are under a perceived threat or are in danger; this cannot be controlled and is commonly referred to as the “fight or flight” effect. These responses are the real-world actions of someone dealing with an event.
We are all different and, as discussed earlier, will all deal with an event in our own way.
Impact factors affect everyone who is dealing with an event. The National Decision Model shows several of these impact factors, but there are many more. These factors influence how we as individuals weigh up our own options when dealing with a traumatic event and revolves around both what we see and our own psychology. These together will always affect how we deal with individuals. Some common impact factors include drink and drugs, weapons, numbers, gender, environmental factors, age and skill level (if known). There are many others. All of these will affect a person’s decision-making ability.
Through years of training and providing advice to countless recruits and serving officers, I would always discuss the way in which witness statements, pocketbook entries and reports were provided when dealing with the use of force. As discussed earlier, the National Decision Model would provide the means to write a chronological account of the incident. However, it is sometimes the case that whilst those involved in an incident can write a detailed account of their actions, it is just as important to complete a detailed account of what they considered but did not do. It is the omission of such details that usually takes up time to explain during any legal investigation and is the cause of many debates between prosecution and defence.
My job as an expert witness is to advise counsel on all matters relating to the use of force – using the National Decision Model and all its components, looking at the event from a personal angle as their client may have seen it. From this, counsel can look at the legal side to form their defence or prosecution, depending on who is asking for my opinion.
[ymal]
Whilst the law would make us believe the use of force is straightforward, it is in fact nowhere near. Each use of force is not the same, so each time force is used by a different person, it must be judged while taking into account all the facts relating to their actions on an individual basis.
Martyn Bowie, Director
21 Somerley Dr, Crawley RH10 3SU
Tel: +44 01293 922119
E: info@streetwise-safetytraining.co.uk
Martyn Bowie
I am a military veteran and a retired police officer with 30 years of service. I own Streetwise Safety Training Ltd. With an exemplary military and home office career, this provided me with the foundation and experience to deliver relevant and enjoyable courses in all aspects of conflict resolution. I am a registered use of force expert witness and have provided my services to both Crown and Magistrates Courts as well as tribunals and professional standards departments. Streetwise Safety Training are proud to have signed the Armed Forces Covenant and have been awarded Bronze status.
