andiwonderwhy: are you suggesting that the law doesnt apply to cops? its called law "enforcement"
an illegal search is ILLEGAL. we all have to follow the rules

I agree wonder. He looses his rights when he becomes a felon. And they cannot own a gun! I know because my brother is of that status. If he wasn't up to no good, he would have nothing to worry about. I'm glad there is one more off the streets so my family is not in danger!!!

This discussion reminds me of the phrase, When they did it to them we said nothing, when they did it to us it was to late to say anything. You folks in Janesville have a lot to learn about the rights of the accused. I hope you do before you are the one accused.

All you people that are whinning about this being illegal makes me ask, "I wonder why?". Is it because you all are criminals that just never got caught. The officer answered the phone of a person, who was under investigation, and the other person wanted to purchase drugs (probably cause that the phone was used to commit a crime). A simple solution is don't commit any crimes, then you would not have to be in this situation. If this person was in my neighborhood, I would be thanking the officer for getting him off the streets and protecting our kids from a least one bad influence.

This is not a legal possesion of evidence. All Telephone, Cellphone, and Email correspondense between 2 individuals should be considered private domain and require a search warrant.
The fact is, if you're charged with any crime, you will pay $$$ and/or be convicted regardless of innocence. The only innocent are those that can afford justice or those that can PROVE their innocence.

another incident where cops are crooked and bogus

The decision is here: http://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/Displ...
This article left out a couple of important facts.
The Court found Carroll was already under arrest when the phone was answered, and that the phone was open with a picture of Carroll smoking a blunt when the detective picked it up.

Mixing up the "e" and "d" key is an easy typo. "[U]nreasonable require" is just poor english.
Even if the phone call provides probable cause to search the phone, is probable cause necessary to answer the phone in the first place?

Perhaps we should look to the 4th ammendment which governs search and seizure law.

"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."

Read the first part. People are free from unreasonable searches, this leaves room for the fact that it is not always reasonable to get a warrant.

Next, Read CARROLL v. U.S. which establishes that the mobility of vehicles makes it unreasonable require a warrant when probbable cause exists. Note, that the police still need probbable cause which is the standard of evidence they would need to get a warrant anyway.

Also, I would expect that there is much more to the story than what is in the article. It says that the Detective answered the phone, Traffic enforcement is not generally the job of a detective. I would guess the detective had information on the suspect and then stopped him for speeding to investigate.

And Irish, really? The Officer "Stold" his identity. Did you learn law in the same school you learned english?

You give up certain basic rights when you become a felon. You choose that path when you decided to commit a felony. Every one is so concerned for the felon, but not the effects or harm the felon has caused us law abiding citzens. I don't feel sorry for the guy one bit.

The law is above our constitutional rights IMO and do what ever they want and this is wrong!!! Plain view in our community is if they dont see it bring in the dogs. And I can say this as to seeing it in person not second hand. A traffic stop does not justify searching my vehicle and or any of my possessions inclusive of my purse without a warrant, but they do it.It is time for our Justice system to force our constitutional rights to be acted upon and not believe the probable cause BS that is used today to justify the wrong doing on their behalf. In this article the Officer stold an identity from that moment when he pretended to be Carroll and if I did that would be arrested. If the Courts allows that to happen then what is the purpose of the Constitution As it was written?

I thought they had to have a warrant to do any of that? Or at least permission from the owner. I doubt he would have given permission. Was he a felon before this incident? If he was then I guess they do have the right to search anything.

hmmm... maybe he just should have had the guns knowing that he was a felon...