-
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 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. 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...
-
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.
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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. The Supreme Court has never ruled that police must present the warrant when performing a search. The purpose of the warrant is to...
-
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...
-
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. 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...
-
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...
|
Florida Voting Rights Report - Felony Disfranchisement In Florida |
|
|
|
|
Written by Muslima Lewis, ACLU of FLorida
|
|
Page 3 of 7
I. Felony Disfranchisement in Florida
Nationally, an estimated 5.3 million Americans have lost their right to vote due to a felony offense.[4] Over 20% of the nation's disfranchised citizens live in Florida, more than in any other state. Close to 950,000 people in Florida have completed all terms of incarceration and supervision, but are still denied the right to vote due to past felony convictions.[5]
Florida's voting ban remains one of the most draconian in the country. In addition to losing their voting rights, people with felony convictions in Florida also lose the right to sit on a jury and hold public office. Further, in Florida, people whose rights have not been restored are disqualified from holding dozens of state-issued licenses for occupations such as automobile dealer, physical therapist, and electrical contractor.
Nationwide and in Florida, felony disfranchisement disproportionately affects African-Americans and Latinos. This is not surprising given the cumulative impact of racial disparities at each point in the criminal justice system.[6] In Florida, 18.82% of the African American voting age population is disfranchised.[7] Given the current rates of incarceration for Black men nationwide, it is estimated that 3 in 10 Black men will be disfranchised at some time in their lives.[8]
In Florida, restoration of civil rights is wholly discretionary. Civil rights are restored only through the executive clemency process.[9] The Board of Executive Clemency (composed of the Governor and the three Cabinet members) establishes the rules by which civil rights may be restored. An individual's voting and other civil rights may be restored only with the approval of the governor and two other members of the Board of Executive Clemency.
The Rules of Executive Clemency reflect the political inclinations of the current administration, so they can change significantly over time. For example, under the leadership of Governor Ruben Askew in 1975, the rules were revised to provide that civil rights restoration would be virtually automatic for all Florida citizens upon completion of supervision.[10] Over the following years, Florida's clemency rules have become progressively more restrictive and have disfranchised a growing number of Floridians.[11]
This restrictive trend changed in 2007, when Governor Charlie Crist, with the support of two other members of the Board of Executive Clemency, implemented reforms with the goal of easing the civil rights restoration process for certain individuals with past felony convictions. The 2007 Rules are an improvement over the rules adopted under recent administrations. Between April 5, 2007, and January 28, 2009, close to 135,000 people had their civil rights restored, compared to an average annual rate of just over 5,000 restorations per year prior to 2007.[12]
Nonetheless, the April 2007 Rules still erect significant barriers to the franchise for far too many Floridians. Many Floridians, perhaps hundreds of thousands, still have not had their civil rights restored under the more streamlined RCR process available to people with nonviolent felony convictions. Many of these people were locked out of the historic November 2008 election despite the assurances of Governor Crist and state elections offi cials that the 2007 Clemency Rules would result in "automatic approval" of cases involving past convictions for nonviolent felonies. Many other Florida citizens are not notified when their civil rights have been restored, so they mistakenly believe they are ineligible to vote. Still more Floridians are de facto disfranchised because they receive inaccurate information about their voting rights from elections officials, as described in detail below. The resultis the disfranchisement of a significant portion of Florida's voting-age population.
|
|
What are we doing?
The 4th Amendment Podcast
|
|