-
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, 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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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. 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...
-
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 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...
-
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.
|
Written by ACLU
|
|
Friday, 26 December 2008 17:30 |
|
Ensuring Due Process for the IncarceratedH.R. 4109, The Prison Abuse Remedies Act In 1996 Congress passed the little known Prison Litigation Reform Act, effectively slamming shut the courthouse doors on prisoners seeking a fair hearing on violations of their religious, due process, free speech, and other fundamental constitutional rights, as well as cases of serious physical and sexual abuse. This failure of due process can be corrected by H.R. 4109, the Prison Abuse Remedies Act of 2007. This important and timely bill would extend the rule of law to our nation's prisons and jails by making some much needed reforms to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), while maintaining the law's stated purpose. The PLRA was originally enacted in 1996 to reduce the number of "frivolous" lawsuits being filed by prisoners. Since that time, the law has prevented many seemingly meritorious claims involving violations of religious freedom, due process, free speech, and other fundamental constitutional rights, as well as cases of physical and sexual abuse from ever being given a fair hearing in court. Two provisions of the PLRA that have proven particularly problematic warrant fixing. First, the law's exhaustion of administrative remedies provision requires prisoners to exhaust their facilities' grievance process no matter how legitimate the reasons for failing to follow the procedures might be. Prison and jail grievance systems have created a baffling maze in which a barely literate, mentally ill, physically incapacitated, or juvenile prisoner's procedural misstep in a facility's informal grievance system forever bars even the most meritorious constitutional claims. Moreover, grievance deadlines are often a matter of just a few days, with no exceptions for prisoners who are ill, hospitalized, traumatized or otherwise incapacitated. As a result, serious prison abuses frequently go unheard and unaddressed. In addition to the problems stemming from the exhaustion provision, the PLRA's "physical injury" requirement has proven to be especially cruel in its application. Under the law, prisoners can be raped and sexually assaulted and not have access to the range of remedies available to most civil rights plaintiffs because some courts have found that they did not suffer actual physical injuries. Other forms of cruel and unusual punishment, such as grossly unsanitary conditions and cavalier disregard of prisoners' medical needs also have been found to not meet the physical injury requirement. However, a violation of a constitutional right or an attack on human dignity does not necessarily entail physical injury. Over the last twelve years it has become clear that the PLRA is a deeply flawed law that denies incarcerated adults and youth meaningful access to the courts. It is now time for Congress to reevaluate the PLRA and repair its flawed application . As time goes on and serious rights abuses mount and go unheard, the need to fix the PLRA becomes even more urgent. H.R. 4109, the Prison Abuse Remedies Act of 2007 addresses the law's many unintended consequences, while maintaining its original intent. This legislation is desperately needed and deserves full support.
Share this with the world:         
|
|
What are we doing?
The 4th Amendment Podcast
|
|
Comments