-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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.
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
|
Written by Ronald K.L. Collins, First Amendment Center
|
|
Monday, 23 June 2008 02:58 |
|
In November George Carlin was to receive the Kennedy Center’s prestigious Mark Twain Prize for American Humor. “In his lengthy career as a comedian, writer, and actor,” said Kennedy Center Chairman Stephen A. Schwarzman, “George Carlin has not only made us laugh, but he makes us think.” Indeed. Carlin made us think about things like how, on the one hand, a nation could bestow its highest cultural award on a stand-up comedian, and on the other hand continue to penalize those who dare to broadcast his ribald satire on the public airwaves. What can one say? We live in a schizophrenic culture. It all began 30 years ago, in a case named Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica. The Supreme Court ruled that the FCC could “impose its notions of propriety on the whole of the American people.” Or that’s how Justice William Brennan described it in his dissent. It seems that one of Carlin’s colorful skits, titled “Filthy Words,” was broadcast on the New York Pacifica Radio’s airwaves around 2 p.m. one day in October 1973. The head of the New York chapter of Morality in Media had been driving in his car with his 15-year-old son when he heard portions of the infamous 12-minute monologue and complained to the FCC. In its defense, Pacifica maintained that Carlin was “a significant social satirist” who “like Twain ... examines the language of ordinary people. ... Carlin is not mouthing obscenities; he is merely using words to satirize as harmless and essentially silly our attitudes towards those words.” The FCC didn’t buy it. Carlin’s Twain-like message was “patently offensive.” The Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, agreed. The ironies surrounding the case are ripe for Carlin-like commentary. The justice who wrote the lead opinion, John Paul Stevens, appended a transcript of the “Seven Dirty Words” to his opinion. So there, in the official reports of the Supreme Court, anyone can read what his or her ears cannot hear on the radio. Even more ironic, Justice Stevens is one of the Court’s greatest defenders of free speech. In 1997, he wrote for the Court when it struck down key portions of the Communications Decency Act as applied to the Internet. Because of that ruling, adults and children alike can read or hear or see George Carlin performing any and all of his most outrageous bits. To cap things off, about the same time that the Kennedy Center was to confer its Twain Prize on Carlin, the Supreme Court will be hearing arguments in an indecency case — FCC v. Fox. Meanwhile, in a lower court, the FCC is busy defending its $1.43 million fine against ABC for some “patently offensive” programming on the popular TV series "NYPD Blue." In many ways, these broadcasting crackdowns are reminiscent of the time when government officials went after comedians in clubs — for comic word crimes, that is. But those times passed. “Lenny Bruce opened all the doors, or he kicked them down,” is how Carlin put it when I interviewed him (with my co-author David Skover) in May 2001. He was referring to the fact that after Bruce died in 1966 no comedian was ever again criminally prosecuted for off-color jokes in a comedy club. In the tradition of his fallen friend, Carlin added: “I think the role of comedy is to go after all the powerful people, to puncture the pretentiousness and pompousness of the privileged. That’s what comedy and satire have always been about.” Later that evening, when I saw his performance at the MGM Grand, he ripped into the hypocrisy of our times like a runaway buzz saw, as colorful words flew in every which hilarious direction. As far as his comic mission is concerned, I think time is on George’s side. For there will come a day, I am sure, when we will look back and laugh at the idea that the government once barred everything from Carlin’s routines to Allen Ginsberg’s poems from the airwaves. Why am I so confident? Because America’s popular culture rails against censorship. In that respect, our culture of free speech is ahead of our law of free speech. But as Lenny Bruce’s legacy shows, the law eventually catches up with the culture and when it does censorship stops. What is truly criminal is that our greatest comedians must die before that day comes. The First Amendment seeds of George Carlin’s legacy are already stirring in the soil. May they sprout and then blossom soon ... very soon!
Share this with the world: 
|
|
What are we doing?
The 4th Amendment Podcast
|
|
Comments