-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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. 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...
-
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...
-
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 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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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. The Supreme Court has never ruled that police must present the warrant when performing a search. The purpose of the warrant is to...
|
Florida Voting Rights Report - ACLU Survey |
 |
 |
 |
|
Written by Muslima Lewis, ACLU of FLorida
|
|
Page 4 of 7
II. The ACLU Survey
For many potential voters, the county elections office is the first stop for information about voter eligibility and civil rights restoration. Therefore, in 2008, the ACLU of Florida conducted a telephone survey of employees in all of Florida's 67 county supervisors of elections offices. The survey was conducted to determine the extent to which state employees know, understand and accurately communicate information concerning the loss and restoration of civil rights following a felony conviction.
The survey reveals that many of Florida's county elections employees are generally confused about how a felony conviction affects voter eligibility. While most county elections officials in Florida are aware that a felony conviction leads to disfranchisement, many officials either provided inaccurate information about the restoration of civil rights process or could not answer basic questions about the process. These employees also provided inconsistent information concerning voter registration practices for people with past felony convictions. Since most county elections offi cials are quick to refer the caller to the Florida Board of Executive Clemency for most questions concerning voter eligibility, it appears that individuals seeking assistance will frequently get the bureaucratic run around when attempting to obtain basic information about Florida's RCR process.
The ACLU of Florida's survey results mirror national findings, which show that elections officials across the country have difficulty understanding and accurately communicating their states' felony disfranchisement policies.[13] In Florida, as around the country, complex felony disfranchisement policies have resulted in the mass dissemination of inaccurate and misleading information about voting with a criminal record. This has, in turn, led to the de facto disfranchisement of untold numbers of otherwise eligible voters throughout the state who do not vote because they receive inaccurate information about their eligibility.
Election employees' confusion about restoration of civil rights extended to all aspects of the restoration of civil rights process: from what types of convictions lead to disfranchisement, to RCR eligibility requirements, to the process for restoration of civil rights, and a misunderstanding of the procedure for removing people with felony convictions from the voter rolls.
Confusion and misunderstanding about the RCR process within the county supervisors of elections' offices is not surprising. Florida's disfranchisement laws and policies are complicated, and the 2007 rule changes resulted in significant changes in the RCR process. Yet, virtually no meaningful and consistent training has been provided by the state to county supervisors of elections or their staff.
|
|
What are we doing?
The 4th Amendment Podcast
|
|
