-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
No. The Supreme Court has never ruled that police must present the warrant when performing a search. The purpose of the warrant is to...
|
Written by Jon Hood, ConsumerAffairs.com
|
|
Monday, 09 March 2009 00:00 |
|
In a victory for consumers, the Supreme Court held today that credit-card holders can sometimes fight mandatory arbitration agreements, giving them a better prospect of victory in claims brought by banks and creditors.
The decision arose from a 2003 suit filed by Discover in Maryland state court, trying to recover $10,000 in past-due charges from cardholder Betty Vaden. In a class-action counterclaim, Vaden asserted that Discover's finance charges, interest, and late fees violated Maryland state law. Discover filed a motion in federal court to compel arbitration, citing a mandatory arbitration clause in Vaden's cardholder agreement. Discover argued that Vaden's state claims were preempted by federal banking laws, meaning that state and federal laws contradicted one another. In such a situation, federal law takes precedence and federal courts have jurisdiction of the claim.
The Fourth Circuit said that they would disregard the intricacies of the parties' pleadings to determine whether the underlying substantive controversy involved federal law. The court found that it did, and that, accordingly, they had jurisdiction over the matter. The Supreme Court agreed that underlying federal issues were enough to get a case into federal court, but said that Vaden's counterclaims alone weren't enough under that standard. Justice Ginsburg, writing for the majority, said that Discover's suit "was triggered by Discover's garden-variety, state-law debt-collection claim against Vaden," and thus belonged in state court.
It is a well-established rule that federal jurisdiction must be based on the initial controversy, rather than on a counterclaim or anticipated defense. Otherwise, a defendant could "forum-shop" by bringing a federal counterclaim, avoiding state court altogether. The Supreme Court affirmed this rule in its opinion, saying that "a federal court may not entertain a [claim] based on the contents, actual or hypothetical, of a counterclaim." A dissent in the Fourth Circuit's earlier decision made the same argument, asserting that "[t]here was no 'properly invoked federal question' in the underlying state case."
Boiled down, the decision means that credit card holders can't be as easily forced into mandated arbitration - a major victory for consumers, since arbitration forums tend to overwhelmingly favor credit card companies. A study by consumer advocacy group Public Citizen found that a staggering 94 percent of credit-card arbitration cases were decided against consumers. In its findings, the group said that "binding mandatory arbitration is a rigged game in which justice is dealt from a deck stacked against consumers." The study analyzed California cases brought by credit card company MBNA, and heard by the National Arbitration Forum.
Credit card companies attempt to justify mandated arbitration by arguing that it is more efficient and less expensive than protracted litigation. They also point out that many state courts don't want to give up the suits, and fight to keep them out of arbitration.
Share this with the world:         
|
|
What are we doing?
The 4th Amendment Podcast
|
|
Comments