-
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...
-
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.
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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. 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...
|
Written by Brandon G. Little
|
|
Saturday, 15 March 2008 02:53 |
|
In reflecting on the way things escalated at Edison, I can't help but question the lack of accountability -- not so much for the hordes of police officers who laid siege to Edison High, but rather for those first few officers who created such a hostile situation, and even more for the school administrators who should have (and easily could have) diffused the situation with explanation rather than confrontation. In Tinkler v. Des Moines School District, the U.S. Supreme Court held that where a student's protest impedes the school's function, that student may not protest. On its face, one might conclude that the law in Tinkler upheld the actions of school officials and police, but the Court's reasoning paints a much different picture. In Tinkler, the Court recognized the necessity of everyone's right to protest (including students), but went on to say that as important as that right may be, the school's public purpose of educating its students is of even greater importance, and when a protest interferes with the school's ability to fulfill its responsibilities, that protest should be postponed. For example, if students were protesting instead of going to class, then that protest should be disbanded, and the students should go to class then, and protest later; if students who did not currently have an academic obligation were protesting, but were doing so in such a way that they disturbed classes in session, then that protest should be disbanded and students should protest at another time. What the Tinkler Court is actually saying is that it is more important for the students to be in class getting an education than to exercise their right to protest. How, then, does the response initiated by the administrators and police at Edison High School further the school's purpose of educating these children? Should the school and its officials not be held to the same standard that the U.S. Supreme Court applies to students? It seems to me that it would be nearly impossible for the school to fulfill its purpose of educating these students after they've been violently attacked, handcuffed, forcibly removed from the premises, and locked up in jail. Am I missing something here?
Share this with the world: 
|
|
What are we doing?
The 4th Amendment Podcast
|
|
Comments