-
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...
-
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. 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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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.
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
|
Written by Debra Cassens Weiss, ABA Journal
|
|
Friday, 05 June 2009 00:00 |
|
St. Louis Cardinals manager Tony La Russa has sued Twitter claiming that the microblogging site refused to take down an imposter's page that contained "derogatory and demeaning" remarks.
The suit alleges trademark infringement, cybersquatting and misappropriation of likeness and name, reports the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's Bird Land blog. Two Wall Street Journal blogs, Digits and Venture Capital Dispatch, also covered the suit filed in San Francisco superior court on May 6.
The fake Tony La Russa page carried his photo and included vulgar references to two Cardinals pitchers who died. The suit claims Twitter carried messages that said "Tony LaRussa is using Twitter," leading to the implication that he was the author of the fake page.
Twitter posts a policy that says parody impersonation accounts are allowed as long as it is obvious that the profile is fake. However, impersonations may be removed if they aren't clearly a joke. Twitter co-founder Biz Stone told Digits that the company doesn't actively search for impersonators, but it is developing tools to identify legitimate celebrity and trademark owners. It is also adding staff to respond more quickly to customer concerns.
La Russa's lawyer, Gregory McCoy, told Digits that he was in settlement talks with Twitter. La Russa, who has a law degree from Florida State University, wants to be compensated for the cost of filing the suit. There is also some talk about Twitter making a contribution to La Russa's animal rescue foundation.
La Russa isn't the only high-profile person whose identity has been hijacked on Twitter. A prankster created a fake Twitter page for Attorney General Eric Holder. One of the posts read: "Back from gitmo lol. They have a McDonalds and a BK and a KFC and surfing. Don't know why anyone would want to leave."
Share this with the world: 
|
|
What are we doing?
The 4th Amendment Podcast
|
|
Comments