-
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...
-
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.
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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, 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...
-
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...
-
No. The Supreme Court has never ruled that police must present the warrant when performing a search. The purpose of the warrant is to...
-
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. 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...
-
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...
-
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...
|
Written by ACLU - Florida
|
|
Monday, 23 February 2009 00:00 |
|
Amnesty International USA Will Get Its Day in Court
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the ACLU of Florida today, finding that a 2006 lawsuit filed on behalf of Amnesty International "properly states a valid claim alleging a violation of its First Amendment rights."
The ACLU of Florida filed the federal lawsuit in June, 2006, alleging that police officers from Miami-Dade and the City of Miami prevented members of the human rights organization from exercising their constitutional right to assemble and protest, despite having obtained a permit from the City of Miami Police Department. Members of Amnesty International's Miami Chapter had a permit to assemble, but police officers prohibited anyone from gathering or entering downtown Miami that day.
"It is a sad day when police stifle free speech by a peaceful group of protesters shedding light on grave human rights abuses in our hemisphere. I'm glad that we will be able to move forward and send a message that these types of violations are unacceptable in a free society," said Jessica Carvalho Morris of Amnesty International's Miami Chapter. "The police were able to protect public order without violating our constitutional rights; instead they trampled on our rights. Police officers must work within the confines of the law too, and they need to be held accountable when they violate people's rights."
The appeals court said in its ruling that "There can be no doubt that it is the long-standing and clearly established law of this nation that the government may not grant a permit to a political group instructing it where and when it may assemble, speak and petition with one hand, and then, at the last moment, completely deny the organization the opportunity to utilize that very permit with the other hand. And there can be no doubt that police conduct knowingly designed to so utterly eviscerate fundamental expressive freedoms would violate clearly established constitutional law."
"The 11th Circuit has spoken and the First Amendment is still alive," said Louis Jepeway, ACLU cooperating counsel. "We are thrilled that the appeals court is allowing this important case to advance, and we look forward to proving that Amnesty International's rights were violated."
The lawsuit is one of seven brought by the ACLU as a result of police actions that stifled protest activities during the November 2003 Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) events in Miami. Although Amnesty International took no position on the FTAA treaty itself, the peaceful protests were planned to bring attention to human rights abuses in the Americas.
Read the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in PDF here.
The original legal complaint can be viewed in PDF.
The case, Amnesty International USA v. Louis Battle and Thomas Cannon, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division. ACLU cooperating attorneys are Louis M. Jepeway, Jr. and Richard K. Houlihan, Esq.
Share this with the world:         
|
|
What are we doing?
The 4th Amendment Podcast
|
|
Comments