-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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 Supreme Court has never ruled that police must present the warrant when performing a search. The purpose of the warrant is to...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
|
Written by AP
|
|
Friday, 15 May 2009 00:00 |
|
A Costco Wholesale Corp. employee has filed a lawsuit against the company, claiming the company violated wage and hour laws in California.
Costco, which is based in Issaquah, Wash., said it does not comment on pending litigation.
According to the complaint, filed Friday in California Superior Court in San Diego, Costco required employees to work off the clock, failed to pay overtime and required employees to remain locked inside the store after they'd clocked out at the end of their shift.
Mary Pytelewski, a full-time clerk at Costco's warehouse in San Marcos, Calif. for more than a decade, filed the suit. The lawsuit seeks class-action status.
The complaint alleges the company required employees to stay inside the warehouse every night for approximately 15 minutes after they finished work and were off the clock. During this period, the stores' managers perform closing activities, but attorneys in the case say the practice constitutes false imprisonment because workers are being held against their will.
"Costco makes the false claim that locking these employees inside its warehouses until store managers and supervisors complete their closing routines is necessary for store security," David Sanford, attorney for Pytelewski said.
Pytelewski said in a statement she complained about the practice but was "rebuffed and ridiculed at every turn."
The attorneys are seeking no less than $50 million for Pytelewski and the class, along with other damages and fees.
Shares of Costco fell 5 cents to close at $44.75 Friday.
Share this with the world:         
|
|
What are we doing?
The 4th Amendment Podcast
|
|
Comments