-
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...
-
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.
-
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...
-
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...
-
Simply put, the number of arrests an officer makes is a major factor used to determine his job performance. Police officers know that the easiest way to make arrests is to find people in possession of illegal drugs, so they want to search everyone they can find...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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 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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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 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...
|
Written by Jameel Jaffer, ACLU
|
|
Friday, 01 May 2009 00:00 |
|
The Bush administration built an elaborate house of cards to justify torture, but thanks in part to some recent ACLU victories, the house of cards is finally beginning to fall.
Over the last few weeks, we've secured the release of the Bush administration's torture memos and won an important appeals court ruling in our challenge to Jeppesen DataPlan's involvement in the CIA's rendition program. We are also anticipating the release of torture photographs that the Bush administration managed to suppress for years.
These victories didn't happen overnight. In fact, the ACLU first filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on the treatment of prisoners on October 7, 2003. Since then, ACLU lawyers and cooperating lawyers have filed dozens of legal briefs and appeared at dozens of court hearings. ACLU lawsuits have resulted in the release of more than 100,000 pages of government documents relating to the abuse and torture of prisoners in U.S. custody. We were gratified to finally get the Bush administration's torture memos on April 16, but it's worth noting that it took us several years to get them. We wouldn't have been able to invest that time without your consistent support.
- Earlier this week, a federal appeals court overturned a decision that would have dismissed the ACLU's case against Jeppesen DataPlan, a subsidiary of the Boeing Corporation that facilitated the CIA's rendition program. The Bush administration -- and then the Obama administration -- had argued that the case could not be litigated without the disclosure of "state secrets. " However, we asked the court of appeals to overturn that decision, and it did. Now our case can move forward and our clients -- victims of the CIA's rendition program -- can have their day in court.
- In connection with our long-running Freedom of Information Act litigation, the Department of Defense has agreed to release, by May 28, a substantial number of photos depicting the abuse of prisoners by U.S. personnel.
- In the same lawsuit, the judge has ordered the CIA to disclose records related to the agency's destruction of 92 videotapes. The tapes captured CIA interrogators waterboarding prisoners in their custody.
We're now focused on ensuring comprehensive transparency about the torture program and on ensuring that those who authorized torture are held accountable for it.
As the stories in this special edition of ACLU Online indicate, the ACLU is at the forefront of exposing the truth of the Bush administration's illegal torture program. We're grateful for the support you've given us, and we ask for your continued support as we press for accountability.
Thank you for standing with us.
Share this with the world: 
|
|
What are we doing?
The 4th Amendment Podcast
|
|
Comments