-
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...
-
Generally not. The Bill of Rights protections that matter most during police encounters are mandated by the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, and all states are required to follow them. States can offer more protection of these rights, but not less. There are some variations regarding...
-
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. 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, 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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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.
-
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 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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
|
Written by Mike Brassfield, St. Petersburg Times
|
|
Friday, 29 May 2009 00:00 |
|
Wikipedia has banned people using the Church of Scientology's computers from changing Wikipedia articles about Scientology and its critics.
The site's administrators imposed the ban after concluding that church members have been altering articles related to Scientology to promote their own interests.
It is believed to be the first time that Wikipedia has banned such a large group. Scientology spokesman Tommy Davis said the church is preparing a statement in response.
Wikipedia is billed as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Many Wikipedia entries are in a constant state of flux as they are edited and re-edited, and the site's many volunteers and administrators attempt to keep an eye out for bias.
After a lengthy internal review, Wikipedia's "Arbitration Committee" of experienced volunteer editors voted to block changes from all IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates.
"Up to a dozen long-time Wikipedians concluded that not much good has come from this range of computers," said Wikipedia spokesman Jay Walsh.
The committee's discussions are in an online posting on Wikipedia. In that posting, the site's administrators say they have noticed a trend of what they called "edit wars" -- repeated additions and deletions -- to entries regarding Scientology.
Wikipedia has blocked IP addresses for certain congressional offices and even, temporarily, the Department of Justice, when Wikipedia's volunteer editors said found abuses coming from IP addresses affiliated with those offices.
Share this with the world: 
|
|
What are we doing?
The 4th Amendment Podcast
|
|
Comments