[SilverHammer]

[ QUOTE ]

This is very naive. The probable cause to search arises when the suspect refuses the search then suddenly becomes nervous, fidgety, sweating etc etc. (Ways and means)

But we are getting off topic.

That mobile phone was an item of evidence therefore the Police had the power to seize it. End of move on.

Cops laid it on thick and told the lad "look if you want to keep your phone tell us the name of your friend and give us your number, otherwise we take the phone and you don't see it for a very long time".

Friend thinking "wait a minute here I didn't burst an old codgers eardrums" decides [censored] it I done nothing wrong, here ya go.

What I don't get is why OP returned to the scene of the crime lol. There isn't a law about NOT making yourself available to the cops now is there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look, we can argue all day about what nuances are involved in determining reasonable suspicion and probable cause. The fact is, it's a subjective judgment that is sometimes allowed to be verified by its ends. Regardless, it is indisputable that denial of search does not justify suspicion. Perhaps "acting nervous" is enough for some cops to detain someone, but this is vague (as is the point) and is not good enough to search or arrest anyone. Some evidence must be obtained to make this step, and not in any other order. Further, even assuming what you're saying is true, this is not grounds to make the jump that all cops behave this way.Therefore, you can't use that logic to determine that the phone should have been given up. I think you have to assume that cops, by and large, err on the side of not breaking the law.

The phone was an item of evidence in what way? I just skimmed the thread, but it seems it did not belong to the OP? All this garbage is based on some assumption the casino makes, which is not grounds for search, sorry.

We can agree that the OP should not have returned to the casino, but I'm afraid your willingness to tie the phone to the crime is baseless.