If someone calls you and threatens you with a blocked number do the police have to get a court order in order to look at the phone records or track down the caller?
Not something that happened to me but something I read on another forum I go to. Seems to me that by making the threat they have already broken the law and thus no need for a court order or a warrant as probably cause already exists. Am I missing something?
~Matt
If someone calls you and threatens you with a blocked number do the police have to get a court order in order to look at the phone records or track down the caller?
Not something that happened to me but something I read on another forum I go to. Seems to me that by making the threat they have already broken the law and thus no need for a court order or a warrant as probably cause already exists. Am I missing something?
~Matt
If they are trying to get the phone records of the person that was called, no. I assume that person would be giving them permission.
For someone else? Yes. It is the probable cause that will allow them to get the warrant.
But unless you are someone of importance I would be very shocked if the police did anything at all on a telephone harassment case.
For someone else? Yes. It is the probable cause that will allow them to get the warrant.
So if someone calls you up and says they are going to kill you and you have that recorded but the number is blocked you still have to get a warrant to find out what the blocked number was? That seems odd to me why would you need “Probably cause” when you have a law broken?
But unless you are someone of importance I would be very shocked if the police did anything at all on a telephone harassment case.
I agree, but that is beside the question I was asking. I was more curious as to how the system is supposed to work rather then how it actually worked 
~Matt
"So if someone calls you up and says they are going to kill you and you have that recorded but the number is blocked you still have to get a warrant to find out what the blocked number was? That seems odd to me why would you need “Probably cause” when you have a law broken? "
For that I don’t think you have to get a warrant. You are looking at your own phone records.
But what you may need to have to do is get a subpoena for the records. The phone company may very well not give the records up unless ordered to by the court.
For that I don’t think you have to get a warrant. You are looking at your own phone records.
But what you may need to have to do is get a subpoena for the records. The phone company may very well not give the records up unless ordered to by the court.
Won’t your own phone records only show “Number blocked” or are you saying that “Your phone records” actually include the actual number which of course the phone company has? If someone calls your house do you have the right to know what the number was?
~Matt
For that I don’t think you have to get a warrant. You are looking at your own phone records.
But what you may need to have to do is get a subpoena for the records. The phone company may very well not give the records up unless ordered to by the court.
Won’t your own phone records only show “Number blocked” or are you saying that “Your phone records” actually include the actual number which of course the phone company has? If someone calls your house do you have the right to know what the number was?
~Matt
" are you saying that “Your phone records” actually include the actual number which of course the phone company has?"
This. But a lot of times the phone company will err on the side of caution and not give anything up without a subpoena.
"If someone calls your house do you have the right to know what the number was? "
I don’t know. The answer might be buried in the language of your contract with your phone company.
The purpose of having a blocked number is to prevent the callee from determining the calling number (think about the phone number of a battered spouse shelter). You can’t get that from the phone company. The legal authorities can get it via a court order.
The legal authorities can get it via a court order.
While I understand the need for blocked number, although I’m not sure why someone that is being battered would call the person that batters them, I’m wondering why you would need a court order if there exists proof that a law was broken. I understand a court order for attempting to obtain evidence, I.E we need to find out if this person called that person. However if a crime has taken place then you’re not looking for evidence you’re attempt to apprehend the person who committed the crime.
IF you’re looking for evidence you can’t enter someones house, but if you know a murder is in a house you don’t need a court order to go in and get them.
~Matt
The legal authorities can get it via a court order.
While I understand the need for blocked number, although I’m not sure why someone that is being battered would call the person that batters them, I’m wondering why you would need a court order if there exists proof that a law was broken. I understand a court order for attempting to obtain evidence, I.E we need to find out if this person called that person. However if a crime has taken place then you’re not looking for evidence you’re attempt to apprehend the person who committed the crime.
IF you’re looking for evidence you can’t enter someones house, but if you know a murder is in a house you don’t need a court order to go in and get them.
~Matt
You need a court order because the police are not the final say in obtaining personal records. Do you really want the police to have the authority to request records such as these?
** I’m wondering why you would need a court order if there exists proof that a law was broken.**
How does the phone company know the law was broken? They are the ones that need to hand over the records to law enforcement. Using your logic: if the law was broken why wouldn’t getting a court order be an option? The warrant is the proof that due process was followed.
How does the phone company know the law was broken?
Again making the comparison of the police entering a house where they know a murder is and or getting records for a number they know was used illegally I’m not seeing the difference?
Using your logic: if the law was broken why wouldn’t getting a court order be an option?
I’m not saying it’s not an option I’m just seeing it as an additional step that would not be taken in other scenarios such as entering a house.
The warrant is the proof that due process was followed.
If the police have a recording that the law was broken how is that any different then a body? If the police know the call was made to a certain phone how is that different then knowing that the murderer is in a certain house?
Again I’m not saying it is one way or the other I’m trying to understand WHY the two are treated differently and or if they are.
~Matt ** **
You need a court order because the police are not the final say in obtaining personal records. Do you really want the police to have the authority to request records such as these?
If they have definitive proof that a law was broken, again, I’m not sure how getting this information is any different then entering a house where a known killer is. I’m pretty sure they do not need a warrant to follow a murderer into a house, why would they need a warrant to follow a person that broke some other law to their phone number?
Again, given that in both cases evidence of the crime existed.
I do not believe that police should be able to simply get these records in cases where they are simply investigating without a warrant, but once they have clear proof that the law was broken they are no longer investigating they are looking for the person to apply charges.
~Matt
You need a court order because the police are not the final say in obtaining personal records. Do you really want the police to have the authority to request records such as these?
If they have definitive proof that a law was broken, again, I’m not sure how getting this information is any different then entering a house where a known killer is. I’m pretty sure they do not need a warrant to follow a murderer into a house, why would they need a warrant to follow a person that broke some other law to their phone number?
Again, given that in both cases evidence of the crime existed.
I do not believe that police should be able to simply get these records in cases where they are simply investigating without a warrant, but once they have clear proof that the law was broken they are no longer investigating they are looking for the person to apply charges.
~Matt
You need a warrant for searches. If I know you robbed a bank, say I caught you exiting the bank with the gun, the money and a notarized statement from you saying that you robbed the bank. I still need a warrant to go into your house to collect more evidence.
Many times for things like phone records the thing you need is a subpoena, not a warrant. You may need to have the court tell the phone company they must turn over the records to get them to do it. You aren’t doing a search, you are compelling their cooperation.
There are exceptions to warrants. Your murderer in a house, say he just killed the guy and you chased him, could fall under exigent circumstances. But a murderer who has been charged and has not been released on bail or such will have an arrest warrant. And if you have a warrant I guess you’re going to come in.
If I read between the lines, I’m guessing this person has a restraining order and this other person called to harass them, which is now recorded,
showing proof that the crime was committed? In my mind, the cops should be able to pick him up and the prosecutor would then subpoena the records to
further advance the case to show knowing malice and intent with the blocked number, helping them towards a conviction / plea bargain, etc…
You need a court order because the police are not the final say in obtaining personal records. Do you really want the police to have the authority to request records such as these?
If they have definitive proof that a law was broken, again, I’m not sure how getting this information is any different then entering a house where a known killer is. I’m pretty sure they do not need a warrant to follow a murderer into a house, why would they need a warrant to follow a person that broke some other law to their phone number?
Again, given that in both cases evidence of the crime existed.
I do not believe that police should be able to simply get these records in cases where they are simply investigating without a warrant, but once they have clear proof that the law was broken they are no longer investigating they are looking for the person to apply charges.
~Matt
You need a warrant for searches. If I know you robbed a bank, say I caught you exiting the bank with the gun, the money and a notarized statement from you saying that you robbed the bank. I still need a warrant to go into your house to collect more evidence.
Many times for things like phone records the thing you need is a subpoena, not a warrant. You may need to have the court tell the phone company they must turn over the records to get them to do it. You aren’t doing a search, you are compelling their cooperation.
There are exceptions to warrants. Your murderer in a house, say he just killed the guy and you chased him, could fall under exigent circumstances. But a murderer who has been charged and has not been released on bail or such will have an arrest warrant. And if you have a warrant I guess you’re going to come in.
This. The cops can’t just show up at the phone company waving a gun and yelling “A crime has been committed. Give me them records!”. The phone company needs the warrant. The warrant contains the specifics of their required compliance, and that’s all you are going to get.
Warning: This was how it worked before NSA got separate, private access to all this data. Now they just take the records in a way that is completely transparent to phone company personnel, and we all just hope and pray that due process was actually followed. In other words, they aren’t showing the phone company squat anymore.
If I read between the lines, I’m guessing this person has a restraining order and this other person called to harass them, which is now recorded,
Nope, the post in the other forum stated that the guy called him up and said “You better stop doing “X” I’m going to kill you”. “X” being something completely legal for the person to do.
The whole thing about going to the police and getting phone records etc etc was an offshoot because the OP stated that they have no intention of doing anything and doesn’t thing the person was serious.
So just like I said, if someone calls you up, with a blocked number, claims they are coming to kill you, you have this recorded and take it to the police, do the police have to get a supoena/warrant whatever in order to do anything about it? If so no wonder this stuff rarely gets followed up with. Probably 90% of the calls are nothing, but if the officers have to go to a judge, get something signed and THEN investigate, they aren’t going to investigate any of them and certainly no where near the amount if they could just get the number, identify the person and go talk to them.
~Matt
You need a warrant for searches. If I know you robbed a bank, say I caught you exiting the bank with the gun, the money and a notarized statement from you saying that you robbed the bank. I still need a warrant to go into your house to collect more evidence.
But in this case the phone number is not “Evidence” it an address.
If you know I robbed a bank, and have my license plate numbers do you have to get a warrant to look up my address off that number? If you then stake out my house and see me go inside do you need a warrant to come in and arrest me?
Is the phone number evidence in some way simply because we don’t know for certain who the criminal is?
~Matt
Got it. Just report it to the cops, give them the recording and let them do their investigation and
talk with the guy. If they feel there’s more to it, (psych eval, past warrants or complaints, etc)
then let it run it’s course. Not that restraining orders really do much, I’d think about it if I was
the other guy.
I’m not saying it’s not an option I’m just seeing it as an additional step that would not be taken in other scenarios such as entering a house.
Where are you getting this. Generally, the police need a warrant before entering a house. While there are exceptions, this includes most situations where they nevertheless have probably cause that a crime has been committed there. Perhaps a comparable situation is one where someone turned photographic or video evidence over to the police that there was a meth lab in the basement. The police would generally still need a warrant.
If you know I robbed a bank, and have my license plate numbers do you have to get a warrant to look up my address off that number? If you then stake out my house and see me go inside do you need a warrant to come in and arrest me?
Information, including your address, associated with your license plate number is already a government record and part of a government database. That’s not the same for information that the phone company, a private business, might have. The phone company may not have to require a subpoena or warrant before turning over the info – since it arguably “owns” the info, it could presumably turn it over voluntarily. But without a subpoena or warrant, the phone company might face liability if it breached some reasonable expectation of privacy.
I’ll also note that there is are differences between a subpoena and a warrant, and some enforcement agencies have statutory subpoena authority outside of a court order, although enforrcing such a subpoena will likely require a court order.