-
No. The Supreme Court has never ruled that police must present the warrant when performing a search. The purpose of the warrant is to...
-
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. If a police officer asks your permission to search, you are under no obligation to consent. The main reason why officers ask is because they don't have enough evidence to search without your consent. Don't expect an officer to tell you of your right not to consent. Any time you consent to a search request you are naively waiving your constitutional rights.
-
Unfortunately, police may sometimes search you even if you refuse consent. If they find anything illegal, you'll have to get a lawyer and fight it out in court, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the search will hold up...
-
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...
-
No. The courts have made it clear that police officers do not have to tell people that they can refuse to consent to a warrantless search. Also, contrary to the belief perpetuated by popular police television shows, a person will not be read their rights subsequent to being taken into custody. A person only needs to be Mirandized when...
-
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...
-
Generally not. The Bill of Rights protections that matter most during police encounters are mandated by the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, and all states are required to follow them. States can offer more protection of these rights, but not less. There are some variations regarding...
-
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...
-
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...
-
This is a tricky issue. The simple answer is that citizens who are minding their own business are not obligated to "show their papers" to police. In fact, there is no law requiring citizens to carry identification of any kind. Once you get passed the surface, however, things get much more complicated...
-
In addition to compromising your safety and the safety of others, driving drunk is one of the stupidest things you can do, and one of the easiest ways to create overwhelming legal problems for yourself. DUI laws vary from state to state, and they have become increasingly harsh over the years...
-
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...
-
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...
-
Everyone should be trained to assert their constitutional rights under the 4th Amendment in order to avoid the hassle and humiliation of police misconduct and illegal searches. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics report on citizen-police contacts...
|
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: 
|
|
What are we doing?
The 4th Amendment Podcast
|
|
Comments
Jose L. Nunez
http://www.austinsmiles.com
Je met a jour mes favoris avec ce site... Mais est-ce-que vous savez le pourquoi du comment j'ai une erreur 404 quand je met votre article ???
queens yoga
http://yogaastoria.com
http://www.espionagem.esp.br/caneta-espia