-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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. The Supreme Court has never ruled that police must present the warrant when performing a search. The purpose of the warrant is to...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
|
Written by ACLU
|
|
Friday, 01 May 2009 00:00 |
|
On Wednesday, President Obama marked 100 days in office. Without a doubt, the Obama administration has a markedly different tone and attitude towards the rule of law and transparency, and should be commended for the steps taken to end unlawful Bush-era national security policies, including:
- Issuing executive orders to close of the prison at Guantánamo and end the military commissions.
- Declaring that America will not torture, and ordering a review of interrogation policies.
- Issuing sweeping new reforms on the Freedom of Information Act, with an overall presumption of disclosure of government information.
- Showing a commitment to transparency by releasing the Bush administration torture memos on April 16.
With the recent revelations of the barbaric interrogation techniques authorized by the Bush administration, the question of torture has been at the forefront of the national conversation. Before President Obama's 100 days press conference on Wednesday, thousands of ACLU supporters pressured the media to ask the president about the torture revelations and his commitment to the rule of law. His affirmation that America is "...banning torture without exception" is reassuring.
"In some cases, it may be harder, but part of what makes us, I think, still a beacon to the world is that we are willing to hold true to our ideals even when it's hard, not just when it's easy," President Obama said.
But, there is still a lot to be done and a lot of questions unanswered. Will the Justice Department hold accountable those who authorized torture? How will Guantánamo be closed? Will the administration uphold its commitment to transparency and the rule of law?
These past 100 days have been promising, but rest assured, the ACLU will not let its guard down. We'll continue to press the new administration to live up to this country's highest ideals.
Share this with the world: 
|
|
What are we doing?
The 4th Amendment Podcast
|
|
Comments