-
No. The Supreme Court has never ruled that police must present the warrant when performing a search. The purpose of the warrant is 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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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. 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...
-
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...
|
Insurers Cancel When Policyholders Get Sick |
|
|
|
|
Written by Martha Neil, ABA Journal
|
|
Wednesday, 17 June 2009 00:00 |
|
When she developed aggressive breast cancer, a Texas nurse says, her insurer canceled her individual medical insurance policy. The purported reason was that she had failed to disclose information when she applied for the health coverage -- she had once visited a dermatologist about her acne.
Such stories of health coverage rescinded as soon as policyholders of three insurance companies got sick, following months or years of premium payments, elicited bipartisan outrage yesterday during testimony before the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, reports the Los Angeles Times.
While representatives of three health care insurers said coverage was rescinded due to policyholder misrepresentation, testimony and a committee investigation suggested otherwise: Insurers seemingly gamed fraud laws and canceled over inadvertent or unimportant omissions, in order to save money on expensive health care they were contractually obligated to provide, the newspaper reports. At least one insurer has linked recissions to positive evaluations for employees, although it contends this was an isolated occurrence, and employees were also paid bonuses as a result of their work to canceled coverage.
Such recissions have sparked litigation and calls for legislation, in California and elsewhere, to require insurers to establish fraud in order to cancel coverage, the Times recounts.
They also show it will be necessary to offer a "public option" for medical insurance if individuals are required to have coverage as part of a possible health care reform program, said Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.).
"This could reshape the debate," patient advocate Jerry Flanagan of the Santa Monica-based Consumer Watchdog tells the Times. "When insurance companies go under oath and admit they are canceling innocent patients when they get sick, it makes it very difficult for lawmakers to pass a law that requires every American to buy a policy or face a tax fine. It opens the way for a public option to hold the companies in check."
Share this with the world: 
|
|
The 4th Amendment Podcast
|
|
Comments