-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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. 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.
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
|
Written by ACLU Florida
|
|
Monday, 03 August 2009 00:00 |
|
The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Florida today filed a friend-of-the-court brief opposing the state's decision to force a pregnant woman to remain hospitalized against her will.
"Women do not give up their right to determine the course of their own medical care when they become pregnant," said Diana Kasdan, a staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. "Faced with similar cases, courts throughout the country have made clear that pregnant women have a right to make decisions about their own health, including refusing medical care."
In March 2009, the Circuit Court of Leon County ordered Samantha Burton -- a mother of two suffering from pregnancy complications -- to be indefinitely confined to Tallahassee Memorial Hospital and forced to undergo any and all medical treatments deemed necessary to save her fetus. After three days of state-compelled hospitalization, Ms. Burton suffered fetal demise and was released from the hospital.
"We should all be alarmed by Florida's wholly unwarranted intervention in Samantha Burton's care," said Randall Marshall, Legal Director of the ACLU of Florida. "Not only is it unconstitutional for the state to override a pregnant woman's decision to refuse medical treatment, but the medical community, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Women's Association, and the American Medical Association, strongly advises against it."
According to the ACLU's brief, "[I]f the decision below stands, it invites State requests for court intervention in nearly all aspects of pregnant women's behavior and medical judgments. In turn, some women will be discouraged from coming to a hospital for pregnancy care if they know that any disagreement may lead to forced medical treatment. Such a result does not advance maternal and fetal health by any measure and is not constitutionally permissible."
The brief was filed in the District Court of Appeal, First District, State of Florida, on behalf of the ACLU, the ACLU of Florida, and the American Medical Women's Association.
Today's case is Burton v. Florida, No. ID09-1958. Lawyers on the ACLU's friend-of-the-court brief include Kasdan of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project; and Marshall of the ACLU of Florida.
The ACLU's friend-of-the-court brief can be found at: http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/pregnancy/40568lgl20090731.html
Share this with the world: 
|
|
The 4th Amendment Podcast
|
|
Comments