-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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. 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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
|
Written by Kris Krane, SSDP
|
|
Saturday, 09 August 2008 19:00 |
|
Dear Friend,
The student movement to end the War on Drugs has truly gone global.
Two years ago, Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy appeared on the scene and immediately began influencing policy discussions in Ottawa. Late last year, SSDP chapters sprung up in Sierra Leone and Nigeria. Earlier this year, United Kingdom Students for Sensible Drug Policy began forming a network of chapters in Europe. And last month, I attended a United Nations forum in Vienna, Austria representing one of only 25 U.S. organizations invited to join hundreds of other international Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) charged with recommending changes in global drug policy.
Believe it or not, despite the wide range of organizations present, all groups came to a consensus on recommendations that are forward thinking and grounded in reality, not dogma.
In addition to voicing SSDP's opposition to the failed War on Drugs, I made it a priority to ensure that youth concerns were included in the recommendations adopted by the global NGO community. Despite opposition by American prohibitionist groups like the Drug Free America Foundation and the Drug Free Schools Coalition, SSDP and a coalition of youth organizations succeeded in getting the NGO community to adopt the following language:
"Acknowledge that young people are disproportionately affected, both directly and indirectly, by illicit/harmful drug use and drug policy, and honouring the right of young people to be actively involved in the formation and evaluation of all facets of global drug policy"
In other words, the world is finally ready for young people to take a lead in the formation of drug policy. In fact, the chairman of the forum wrapped up the meeting with, "Its true what they say. Sometimes you have to look to the youth to lead."
But they weren't just looking for young people to lead the status quo. The recommendations submitted to the U.N. called for a drastic shift in the way that we deal with drugs and drug users:
- Acknowledging that drug policy should always be crafted and implemented with full respect for fundamental human rights and freedoms
- Recognizing that harm reduction plays an important role in mitigating many of the dangerous consequences of substance abuse, such as the spread of blood borne infections like HIV and Hepatitis
- Calling on the United Nations to treat demand reduction and harm reduction as equally or more important than supply reduction
- Calling on the United Nations to study the collateral consequences of a criminal justice approach to drug control, and to make recommendations to mitigate these harms
While the final declaration does not go as far as you and I would like, it represents a significant step forward in global drug policy. If adopted by the United Nations, our recommendations may lead to public health based drug policies being adopted by governments around the world, which would be a welcome shift from treating drugs as primarily a criminal justice issue. And more importantly, youth will be welcomed to the forefront of this shift.
Now more than ever, Students for Sensible Drug Policy is ready to take on that challenge. By contributing to this groundbreaking work, you can take part in history in the making. http://www.ssdp.org/donate
Thank you for all of your support,
Kris Krane
SSDP Executive Director
P.S. To read the final declaration language or watch a few short video documentaries of the forum, visit http://www.ssdp.org/unitednations
Share this with the world:         
|
|
What are we doing?
The 4th Amendment Podcast
|
|
Comments