-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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. The Supreme Court has never ruled that police must present the warrant when performing a search. The purpose of the warrant is 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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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, 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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
|
Written by ACLU Florida
|
|
Wednesday, 05 August 2009 00:00 |
|
Today, the ACLU of Florida sent a letter to Mayor Rick Baker and City Council Chair Jeff Danner in St. Petersburg, Florida, urging them to oppose the City's proposed donation of a public sidewalk to the private owners of the BayWalk complex. Part of the proposed City of St. Petersburg's BayWalk Revitalization Plan, which will be discussed at the City Council Meeting on Thursday, August 6th at 8 a.m., the donation is intended to allow the owners of the complex to exclude people from engaging in First Amendment activities such as assembly and free speech.
Today's letter from the ACLU details the reasons why the proposed transfer of the sidewalk abutting BayWalk to the owners of the complex would not only be fiscally irresponsible of the cash-strapped City, but would be against the best interests of its citizens. Furthermore, it would not accomplish the stated goal of excluding people who use the sidewalk for expressive purposes.
"There are numerous federal and state rulings holding that local government efforts to privatize public sidewalks do not change their character from traditional public forums," said Glenn Katon, senior attorney with the ACLU of Florida. "As the largest civil liberties organization in the state, we oppose the proposed plan for both practical and legal reasons, and there are several organizations interested in challenging the City's proposed plan if it is passed."
The full text of the letter is below, and can be downloaded in PDF here: http://www.aclufl.org/gk%20ltr%20st%20pete.pdf
August 5, 2009
Mayor Rick Baker
City Council Chair Jeff Danner
St. Petersburg City Hall
175 5th St. N.
St Petersburg, Florida 33701
Re: BayWalk Revitalization Plan
Dear Mayor Baker and City Council Chair Danner:
We write concerning a portion of the City of St. Petersburg's BayWalk Revitalization Plan that is being considered as a way to reinvigorate the struggling BayWalk complex. We are specifically concerned about the plan to donate a public sidewalk to the private owners of the complex. One of the reasons the City has given for the plan is it would allow the owners of the complex to exclude people from engaging in First Amendment activities such as assembly and speech. As the largest civil liberties organization in the State of Florida, we oppose the proposed plan for both practical and legal reasons.
The most obvious criticism of the proposal is that a cash-strapped city should not be giving away valuable real estate to a private business. In addition, trying to squelch constitutionally protected forms of political expression runs contrary to the values of a democratic society. Although we are not aware of any violent or threatening behavior by political protestors at BayWalk, there are a variety of laws in place to address such conduct if it were to occur. Moreover, allowing a private business to exclude passers-by at its discretion belies the City's oft-stated goal of making downtown pedestrian friendly.
Perhaps most importantly, donating the sidewalk to the owner of BayWalk would not enable it to stop people from engaging in constitutionally protected expression there. Numerous federal and state cases hold that local government efforts to privatize public sidewalks do not change their character from traditional public forums to private property whose owners can exclude people engaging in First Amendment activity. Below is a sample of those legal authorities.
In United Church Of Christ v. Gateway Economic Development Corp., 383 F.3d 449 (6th Cir. 2004), the court held that the private owner of the sidewalk surrounding a sports arena could not stop protesters from using the sidewalk to demonstrate, notwithstanding that it was privately owned. Similarly, in Venetian Casino Resort, L.L.C. v. Local Joint Executive Board, 257 F.3d 937 (9th Cir. 2001), the court deemed the newly constructed and privately owned sidewalk surrounding the Venetian casino in Las Vegas a public forum that union members could use to protest against the management of the casino. Yet another United States Court of Appeals reached the same conclusion in
First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City v. Salt Lake City Corp., 308 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir. 2002), in which the city sold a part of a downtown street to a church, which in turn sought to restrict First Amendment activities on what had become a privately owned sidewalk. The court struck those restrictions.
Finally, a Florida case that went up on appeal in a different posture is worth noting. In Wood v. State, 2003 WL 1955433 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 2003), an individual collecting signatures to get his name on the ballot without paying a qualifying fee refused to leave a privately owned, enclosed mall. He was arrested for trespass and convicted in County Court. The Circuit Court, sitting in its appellate capacity, held that Article I, Section 5 of the Florida Constitution, which protects the "right to petition as a form of democratic expression at its purest," prohibits a private owner of a quasi-public place from using state trespass laws to exclude peaceful political activity. Id. at *2. The First District Court of Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court's decision.
For all of the above reasons, we believe the City's proposed transfer of the sidewalk abutting BayWalk to the owners of that complex would be against the interests of the citizens of the City of St. Petersburg and, in any event, would not accomplish the stated goal of excluding people who would use the sidewalk for expressive purposes. It is my understanding that community groups that use the sidewalk for such purposes are interested in challenging any attempt to exclude them, which could lead to a lengthy legal proceeding that would not be in the interests of the owners of BayWalk or the City.
If you have any questions concerning the matters raised in this letter, I would be glad to discuss them with you.
Sincerely,
Glenn M. Katon
cc: All Members of St. Petersburg City Council
Mark A. Winn, Esq., City Attorney
Share this with the world:         
|
|
What are we doing?
The 4th Amendment Podcast
|
|
Comments