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...
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...
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, 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...
Everyone should be trained to assert their constitutional rights under the 4th Amendment in order to avoid the hassle and humiliation of police misconduct and illegal searches. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics report on citizen-police contacts...
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...
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...
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...
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...
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...
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.
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...
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...
President Obama recently announced that his administration would no longer allow ideology to trump science in policy-making decision. Yet, the very same week, the Obama administration publicly supported worn out Drug War ideology over harm reduction practices that have been proven to save and improve the lives of drug users.
I was back in Vienna, Austria last week to witness the United Nations' final deliberation over a new political declaration and action plan that will guide global drug policy for the next ten years.
Unfortunately, despite recommendations made by 300 Non-Governmental Organizations form around the world, including SSDP, the declaration included no mention of harm reduction.
(Harm reduction is like contraceptives, but for drugs. It's a scientifically proven set of policies and practices that keep drug users alive and healthy, without relying on abstinence-only messaging.)
After final approval of the declaration, 26 nations including Great Britain, Germany, and Australia, courageously spoke up to register their support for harm reduction in the official UN record, setting off a firestorm of debate on the floor of the United Nations.
While most countries chose to remain silent on the issue, a handful chose to speak up and denounce support for harm reduction. These included Russia, Cuba, Pakistan... and the United States!
We must send a message to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton that the American people will no longer stand idly by as they allow 20th century Drug War ideology to trump science and evidence!
Please visit this action page to send a message to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton, read the final approved U.N. declaration, and watch video of SSDP participating in a protest and press conference outside the United Nations.
Thank you for your support of SSDP's efforts to bring science and reason to national and global drug policies.
Comments