-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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.
|
Florida Voting Rights Report - Executive Summary |
|
|
|
|
Written by Muslima Lewis, ACLU of FLorida
|
|
Page 2 of 7
Executive Summary
Florida's democracy has had a checkered past. Florida's highly problematic administration of elections has frequently brought our state to the forefront of American politics.
Central to this democratic crisis has been the administration of Florida's draconian ban on voting for hundreds of thousands of Florida citizens with past felony convictions. Florida's felony disfranchisement policy is one of the most restrictive and confusing in the country. Over one million Floridians are barred from voting due to past felony convictions.[1] Approximately 950,000 of them have completed all terms of their incarceration and/or supervision.[2]
The restoration of civil rights (RCR) process in Florida is failing. The current RCR process is impossible to administer fairly and wasteful of taxpayers' dollars. As a result, hundreds of thousands of Floridians, including perhaps tens of thousands of citizens with nonviolent offenses who are eligible for civil rights restoration under the most expedited procedures under the Rules of Executive Clemency, remain disfranchised. Further, public safety concerns can more effectively and efficiently be addressed through licensing regulations outside the clemency process.

On April 5, 2007, the Board of Executive Clemency adopted a revised set of rules governing the restoration of voting and other civil rights for people with past felony convictions. During the almost two years since their adoption, it has become clear that the new rules fall woefully short of the promised "automatic RCR approval" for people with non-violent felony offenses. These new rules have streamlined the RCR process for many people convicted of non-violent offenses, and resulted in the enfranchisement of thousands of Floridians. However, hundreds of thousands more are still barred from voting. Many Floridians are still ineligible for civil rights restoration consideration because of RCR pre-conditions contained in the 2007 rules. Hundreds of thousands more are eligible for RCR consideration but still have not had their civil rights restored. Further, many citizens have had their civil rights restored but are not notified of that fact and/or face impediments when registering to vote.
At every step of the RCR process, there are impediments and failures that result in disfranchisement:
- People who would otherwise qualify for civil rights restoration are ineligible because they do not have the financial means to pay court-ordered restitution.
- Because the Executive Clemency Rules are difficult to understand, too many Floridians are unaware that they are eligible for restoration of their voting rights.
- The Florida RCR process requires a case-by-case review, resulting in administrative delays in the processing of civil rights restoration cases.
- Among elections officials who are responsible for registering voters with newly restored civil rights, there is widespread confusion and misunderstand ing of the RCR process, which creates additional barriers to individuals being returned to the voter rolls.
To determine whether the public is receiving accurate information about voter eligibility under the 2007 Rules of Executive Clemency, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Florida surveyed all 67 Florida county election offices to see what information elections officials give to the public about the RCR process and voting with a criminal record. For many potential voters, county election boards are a significant source of information about voter eligibility. Unfortunately, the survey results demonstrate widespread confusion among elections offi cials about the eligibility of voters with criminal convictions and about virtually every aspect of the RCR process. Key findings of the survey show that:
- Nearly one third of all officials surveyed could not answer basic questions regarding the application process for restoration of civil rights.
- More than half of all elections officials surveyed did not know that individuals on felony parole or probation are barred from voting in Florida.
- Forty percent of elections officials surveyed incorrectly said that individuals with past felony convictions must produce their certificates of civil rights restoration with their voter registration applications; no such documentation is required to register to vote in Florida.
- Half of the elections officials surveyed did not know that payment of all outstanding restitution is a pre-condition for rights restoration.
- Fewer than half of those surveyed knew whether a Florida resident with a conviction in another state can register to vote in Florida. Not a single election official correctly stated that individuals with out-of-state convictions can apply for rights restoration in Florida if they reside in Florida and have not had their rights restored in their state of conviction.
- One-third of elections officials were unaware of the proper process for purging a voter with a felony conviction from the rolls.
Given the complexity of the 2007 clemency rules and the fact that county election supervisors received virtually no meaningful training on these new rules, it is no surprise that elections staff dispense incorrect information to potential voters. This phenomenon creates a critical problem for Florida's democracy and has the potential to disfranchise countless eligible voters. It also demonstrates that the 2007 Rules fail to address the larger problem of mass disfranchisement in Florida.
By lifting its voting rights ban, Florida can finally put an end to a shameful legacy of felon disfranchisement that became firmly entrenched during the Reconstruction Era as a means of disfranchising newly freed slaves. It is time for Florida to join the majority of states in the U.S. and several other democracies around the world[3] by automatically restoring voting rights to all Floridians who have completed their terms of incarceration and supervision. A simplified RCR process would be easier for elections officials to administer and strengthen our state's democracy.
|
|
What are we doing?
The 4th Amendment Podcast
|
|