Support NeoGAF

[Nevasleep]

Sounds like OP was considered a suspect for a short while, it appeared he was meeting with somebody dangerous, trying to radicalise people imo.
Glad the police were on the ball, considering the attacks in Brussels and London yesterday.
It's annoying though, I've been stopped before for looking similar to someone the police were after.

 

[Jindrax]

Privacy commission in Belgium has stated in the past it isn't a privacy infraction if people would chose to give police access to their phone. They did so after there was a proposal to do so automatically after traffic accidents. So on their end, it wasn't an infraction on privacy laws because you gave them access.

Doesn't make acquiring evidence under duress during searching of a witness legal.
Also a statement from the privacy commission has no legal value. It's kinda like advice that has weight in interpreting the law, but the only organ of our government that can do so authentically is the legislator himself.

You can have a look if you have access to legal databases there's case law on cops taking numbers from young suspected drug dealers to find other dealers and the suppliers.
Doesn't hold up in court without the proper authorization. Grounds for throwing the case out unfortunately.

 

[ShemhazaiX]

So I'm confused. You see a sketchy looking guy talking to youths and shouting the terrorists favourite murder phrase at people...why didn't you call the police yourself already?

It might be their "Favourite phrase" but it's also a very common phrase in general throughout Islam. It'd be like reporting a Christian as a terrorist because they said "Amen".

 

[RulkezX]

It might be their "Favourite phrase" but it's also a very common phrase in general throughout Islam. It'd be like reporting a Christian as a terrorist because they said "Amen".

Did you read the OP ?

 

[UpDownLeftRight]

It might be their "Favourite phrase" but it's also a very common phrase in general throughout Islam. It'd be like reporting a Christian as a terrorist because they said "Amen".

True but the context raises suspicion since it would be like a Christian shouting amen at people and staring them down. Plus there has been activity very recently so I'd figure it's worth mentioning to the authorities.

I think the poster who said it seems like somebody reported it is probably right going by the way it played out.

It is unfortunate that what should be a harmless phrase has been twisted into this, but with the attacks being very recent it's going to raise alarm bells right now for a lot of people.

 

[M52B28]

I'd personally be more scared about the apparant terror suspect that was hanging out with you.

.

 

[Weckum]

Sounds scary AF but screw them for wanting to go through your stuff without a warrant.

 

[Ros8105]

It might be their "Favourite phrase" but it's also a very common phrase in general throughout Islam. It'd be like reporting a Christian as a terrorist because they said "Amen".

Yeah, Those Christian terrorists shouting "Amen" while they are on a killing spree, that's such a common thing.

 

[Messofanego]

Next time, get their name and cop ID whatever it's called. They shouldn't get away with intimidation to get into your private info.

 

[bonesmccoy]

Sounds like got to experience some major societal friction first hand, Op.

My folks had a few 'unofficial' run ins with the RCMP after traveling to and from Ireland during the height of the Troubles. My mum claims to this day her phone was tapped in the 70s and 80s.

It might be their "Favourite phrase" but it's also a very common phrase in general throughout Islam. It'd be like reporting a Christian as a terrorist because they said "Amen".

No, it's not like that at all.

 

[I H8 Memes]

Betcha van dude was with the police.

 

[Jindrax]

Betcha van dude was with the police.

Plottwist

 

[NastyBook]

glad you are alive

It's ALL about surviving the encounter for black people. Giving up a damn phone is not a problem.

 

[One Eyed Willy]

Basically what I gather is people straight up reported those dudes who were talking about Syrian wars, yelling allahu akbar at people and talking shit loudly about the country and people where they live. But since they left, the cops or maybe Belgium's "homeland security" responded. Unfortunately for you, the guys were gone and you may have fit the description?

Sounds like these cops did a good job, it just sucks that you were mistaken for the perps first. Its leads like this is how authorities track down and prevent terror attacks before they happen.

 

[His Majesty]

It's ALL about surviving the encounter for black people. Giving up a damn phone is not a problem.

This was in Belgium.

Sounds scary and weird, OP. But I can't blame the policemen too much.

 

[Joni]

Doesn't make acquiring evidence under duress during searching of a witness legal.
Also a statement from the privacy commission has no legal value. It's kinda like advice that has weight in interpreting the law, but the only organ of our government that can do so authentically is the legislator himself.

It means that legislators themselves see no privacy argument unlike what you referred to. The duress argument would also need to be proven. It is like allowing cops in your home without a warrant, there is nothing illegal about them asking and you letting them in. If a criminal is so stupid to let them, then the evidence still counts. That is to my knowledge also legal. If you know the law that invalidates this, please refer to it.

Basically what I gather is people straight up reported those dudes who were talking about Syrian wars, yelling allahu akbar at people and talking shit loudly about the country and people where they live. But since they left, the cops or maybe Belgium's "homeland security" responded. Unfortunately for you, the guys were gone and you may have fit the description?

It is more likely that van guy saw OP talk to suspect and they are checking everyone he is talking to.

 

[krae_man]

That's a crazy story. I interpreted it as the crazy guy was a cop trying to entrap you.

 

[Audioboxer]

An attack happened yesterday, do you know if what you experienced was before or after it occurred? A heightened state of security was likely in place, especially if people were (the individual around you) shouting Allahu Akbar in public. The knife attacker shouted that

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41057304

As others have said if you gave permission to search its not illegal. However, I believe you can refuse and if the cops did seem intimidating I'm sorry to hear that. There needs to be a balance between preventative measures and not scaring members of the public the vast majority who will be innocent.

The guy who ended up being around you, yeah, worrying behaviour to say the least. Hence why the cops were probably in the area in quickly.

 

[O Canada Our Home and Native Land]

Doesn't make acquiring evidence under duress during searching of a witness legal.
Also a statement from the privacy commission has no legal value. It's kinda like advice that has weight in interpreting the law, but the only organ of our government that can do so authentically is the legislator himself.

You can have a look if you have access to legal databases there's case law on cops taking numbers from young suspected drug dealers to find other dealers and the suppliers.
Doesn't hold up in court without the proper authorization. Grounds for throwing the case out unfortunately.

Appearing imposing and telling someone to unlock their phone isn't considered duress where I live. That aspect of your story is very unusual to me. Anyway I'm glad you're safe. It's sad people have to live this way because of asshole terrorists.

 

[Jindrax]

It means that legislators themselves see no privacy argument unlike what you referred to. The duress argument would also need to be proven. It is like allowing cops in your home without a warrant, there is nothing illegal about them asking and you letting them in. That is to my knowledge also legal. If you know the law that invalidates this, please refer to it.

This argument is rather irrelevant anyway since there was nothing incriminating on my phone. But anyway, to my knowledge the statement that the other poster was referring to a commission concerning a proposal for law for traffic violations. That isn't my specialty (I'm a tax lawyer) but I don't think it passed. I dont have access to my equipment in the weekend I can check for you during the week if you'd like (send me a pm). But anyway that comision's statement has no power of law, only the legislation does so I would have to read the text of the law but as I said it doesn't ring a bell. To my knowledge no law has been passed allowing this and the thing the other poster was referring to was an idea (which is legal in the UK) to allow cops to check your phone AFTER a car accident to see if you were texting or calling. So again very strict rules as to when and what they can check. To my knowledge no such law has been passed unless very very recent.

From what I know on the subject the highest court in the country (called cassatie) stated that's authorized in case of a criminal investigation more precisely when confiscated.

Now your privacy is under strict protection at all times and you can't give it up so easily.
So 4 cop cars and 2 guys surrounded by armed anti terror police is the literal definition of duress, especially since no witnesses besides other police officers and the proof arises out of the facts mostly which are drastically in my favour. Ofc a judge would have to make a decision but it would be hard to say it wasn't. In my opinion.

 

[Joni]

This argument is rather irrelevant anyway since there was nothing incriminating on my phone. But anyway, to my knowledge the statement that the other poster was referring to a commission concerning a proposal for law for traffic violations.

I'm referring to the traffic violation proposal, as it shows the privacy commission sees no legal argument for what you claim, that the police wouldn't be able to ask, certainly not because of privacy reasons. According to them, the police can easily ask and use their findings as evidence if they find something. They are the experts there so I'll trust their judgement on privacy. It might get thrown out for other reasons, but privacy law doesn't forbid it.

So 4 cop cars and 2 guys surrounded by armed anti terror police is the literal definition of duress and the proof arises out of the facts mostly. Ofc a judge would have to make a decision but it would be hard to say it wasn't. In my opinion.

You were simply surrounded by multiple cop cars when they asked you. Did they threaten you with violence or with an arrest? Did they say you couldn't go if you didn't show? Did they use force? No? Then it will be difficult to prove duress. Considering it seems to be related to a terror investigation, using armed anti-terror police seems natural and not undue force. The only thing that seems suspect is that they didn't make it clear in what capacity they stopped you and thus there was a risk that you didn't have your lawyers present for an interrogation or didn't get that chance to ask for one.

 

[Jindrax]

I'm referring to the traffic violation proposal, as it shows the privacy commission sees no legal argument for what you claim, that the police wouldn't be able to ask, certainly not because of privacy reasons. According to them, the police can easily ask and use their findings as evidence if they find something. They are the experts there so I'll trust their judgement on privacy. It might get thrown out for other reasons, but privacy law doesn't forbid it.



You were simply surrounded by multiple cop cars when they asked you. Did they threaten you with violence or with an arrest? Did they say you couldn't go if you didn't show? Did they use force? No? Then it will be difficult to prove duress. Considering it seems to be related to a terror investigation, using armed anti-terror police seems natural and not undue force. The only thing that seems suspect is that they didn't make it clear in what capacity they stopped you and thus there was a risk that you didn't have your lawyers present for an interrogation or didn't get that chance to ask for one.

For your first point it's in line of a traffic violation to check if someone were texting or calling. Comparing that to checking the contents of someone's phone without violation is an enormous difference.


Second point you don't have to look so far. The fact that that removed us to a remote location without witnesses and causes a lawyer to act against better judgement could be a insanely good argument for duress. You could argue that I feared so hard for my safety that I ignored my own rights. Once again it's very irrelevant since they didn't find anything.