Weird News - Things that make you go 'hmmm'

903 readers

306 users here now

Rules:

News must be from a reliable source. No tabloids or sensationalism, please.
Try to keep it safe for work. Contact a moderator before posting if you have any doubts.
Titles of articles must remain unchanged; however extraneous information like "Watch:" or "Look:" can be removed. Titles with trailing, non-relevant information can also be edited so long as the headline's intent remains intact.
Be nice. If you've got nothing positive to say, don't say it.

Violators will be banned at mod's discretion.

Communities We Like:

-Not the Onion

-And finally...

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

105

Slain man's thumb sliced off and used to steal from his mobile payment app, officials say (www.nbcnews.com)

submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] bladerunnerspider 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Isn't this because the conditions of his parole required him to provide this?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

That was part of it:

Payne’s Special Conditions of Parole included a more detailed condition (“special search condition”) concerning electronic devices: You shall surrender any digital/electronic device and provide a pass key/code to unlock the device to any law enforcement officer for inspection other than what is visible on the display screen. This includes any digital/electronic device in your vicinity. Failure to comply can result in your arrest pending further investigation and/or confiscation of any device pending investigation.

He refused, which did violate his parole.

At this juncture, CHP officers would have been justified under Payne’s special search condition in either “confiscati[ng] . . . [the] device” or “arrest[ing] Payne pending further investigation.

Instead, Officer Coddington forcibly grabbed Payne’s thumb and used it to unlock the phone via a built-in biometric unlocking feature.

It's the last bit that is the important part. That is not part of the conditions of the parole. And that is what the court found was not a rights violation.