-
No. We believe that most police officers are good, hardworking people who are doing a tough job. We need police to safeguard the life, liberty, and property of all people. To do this best, police officers should...
-
The sad fact is that most people believe that they are under some kind of obligation to acquiesce when an officer contacts them and asks permission to search them or their belongings. The truth is exactly the opposite...
-
Yes. Minors generally have the same rights as adults. For example, minors can refuse searches and decline to answer questions without an attorney present. Nevertheless, minors face unique challenges when attempting to exercise these rights...
-
No. We teach people that they have rights, and that these rights are secured by the principal documents that guarantee our civil liberties -- the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. An informed individual who invokes his constitutional protections is doing exactly what our nation's founders intended. They created these documents to...
-
No. The Supreme Court has never ruled that police must present the warrant when performing a search. The purpose of the warrant is to...
-
Your rights do not disappear if the officer threatens to call in the dogs, so don't let this all-too-common tactic intimidate you into consenting to a search. You have several options...
-
Videotaping or photographing police in public places is usually legal, so long as you don't interfere with their activities. Nonetheless, doing so will often get you arrested...
-
Yes. Police can, will, and often do lie; especially if it helps them make arrests. The rules regarding entrapment usually tip in favor of law-enforcement, so police won't hesitate to trick you into incriminating yourself or others...
-
Unfortunately, many people get fooled by some version of this commonly used police officer's line: "Everything will be easier if you just cooperate". That's true to some extent -- it will make things much easier for the police officer who's trying to arrest you! -- but when it comes to you consenting to searches and answering incriminating questions, it couldn't be further from the truth...
-
Traffic stops typically occur as a result of suspected moving violations committed by the driver of the vehicle. Passengers cannot be held responsible for the driver's conduct and are generally free to leave, unless police become suspicious of them during the course of the stop...
-
College students suffer from an unfortunate lack of privacy rights in many situations. The university owns the dorm, so school officials can often search rooms at their own discretion. College students still have 4th Amendment rights that apply in other situations...
-
During a legitimate traffic stop, police may order the driver and any passengers out of the vehicle. This rule is intended to protect officers' safety, but it's often used for investigatory purposes...
-
This is one of those "it depends on the circumstances" questions. Police can obtain consent to search from anyone with control over the property; however any occupant of a residence can refuse consent, even if other occupants agree to a search. Unfortunately, you must be present in order to assert your refusal. The Supreme Court has ruled that...
-
As a general rule, searches conducted without a valid search warrant signed by a judge violate the Fourth Amendment, but like most rules of law, there are a number of explicit exceptions. In fact, most searches occur without warrants because police take advantage of these exceptions to the Fourth Amendment...
-
Be aware that private security personnel outnumber police officers in the United States by three to one. As a result, you may be more likely to be confronted by a security guard than by a police officer. You must also be aware of the following places where security personnel (governmental or otherwise) are permitted to search you without a warrant...
|
Written by Brandon G. Little
|
|
Saturday, 02 August 2008 21:13 |
|
A short while ago, a friend asked me about restoration of rights in Florida. After being convicted of a non-violent felony and serving a period of incarceration, Florida law strips him of some of his most basic civil rights. Even after satisfying all the terms and conditions of his sentence, the State took away not only his right to vote, but also the right to hold public office, serve on a jury, and hold certain types of state occupational licenses. An ex-felon's civil rights are taken away permanently until and unless he or she successfully completes a lengthy clemency application process and is granted restoration of civil rights by the Governor and the Board of Executive Clemency. In Florida, the Department of Corrections will typically assist ex-felons (except those convicted of certain severe crimes) in beginning this process upon their release from supervision. Governor Charlie Crist has been a strong supporter of the restoration of voting rights to ex-felons. Last year, he and the Clemency Board approved an automatic restoration of rights for offenders meeting certain criteria. Under the new clemency rules, automatic restoration of rights will grant ex-offenders voting rights, the right to serve on a jury, the right to apply for occupational licenses, and the right to hold public office. Gun rights, however, will NOT be restored. At first glance, the decision not to restore the rights afforded by the Second Amendment may appear perfectly reasonable and rational, and I don't wholly disagree. There's no question that violent offenders shouldn't have the same access to firearms that law abiding citizens do; but take into consideration the vast array of just what constitutes a felony in this day and age (i.e. driving with a suspended license), and there instantly becomes a large number of people who are very unreasonably being denied some of our most basic constitutional rights. A recent decision from the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed the individual's right to bear arms, and explicitly addressed self-defense concerns in its reasoning. Under current rules, an ex-felon's petition for restoration of the right to bear arms will not even be considered within eight years of that individual having paid his debt to society. It's preposterous to think that we as a society would ever force someone to bear witness against himself (Fifth Amendment) or deny someone accused of a crime the right to effective assistance of counsel (Sixth Amendment) simply because they had previously been convicted of a felony. The simple fact of the matter is that any law making it a crime (in fact, a felony!) to hire a lawyer would instantly be struck down. How, then, can we justify stripping an ex-felon of the right to defend himself in a fashion Constitutionally guaranteed to every individual? And what about one of our nation's founding principles -- no taxation without representation? If an ex-felon is stripped of his right to vote, shouldn't his responsibility to pay taxes go with it?!
Share this with the world: 
|
|
The 4th Amendment Podcast
|
|
Comments
Jose L. Nunez