-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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 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...
-
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, 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.
-
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...
-
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 Carol Marbin Miller, Miami Herald
|
|
Tuesday, 25 November 2008 03:32 |
|
Page 3 of 3 A press release from Tobias Packer, Equality Florida / Undo2.orgFor the second time this year, a Florida Circuit Court Judge has ruled that Florida’s 30-year-old adoption ban is unconstitutional. Today, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman declared Florida's anti-gay adoption ban unconstitutional. In the 53-page ruling, Judge Lederman said, "It is clear that sexual orientation is not a predictor of a person's ability to parent.'' As a result of today’s ruling, Frank Gill, a gay man from North Miami, will move forward with the adoption of his two foster sons, 8 and 4 year-old half brothers, whom he has raised since 2004. Gill was represented by the ACLU of Florida while the Florida Attorney General's Office, representing the Department of Children and Families, opposed the adoption. Representatives of the Attorney General said they would file an appeal. This past September, Florida Circuit Court Judge David J. Audlin Jr. also ruled Florida's infamous, anti-gay adoption ban "unconstitutional." In his ruling, Judge Audlin said the ban violates the Constitution's separation of powers by preventing decisions from being made on a case-by-case basis, and for the betterment of each child. He added that the ban contradicts state law by singling out one group for punishment. Most importantly, Judge Audlin declared that this adoption was clearly in the child's best interest. The adopted 13 year-old, who also has special needs and learning disabilities, has been raised in Key West by his openly gay foster parent since 2001 when the Department of Children and Families placed him there. Social work studies highly recommended the adoption, stating it was a "loving and nurturing home" with fair discipline and financial security. The boy has also testified at a recent hearing himself, saying that he wants the man to be his "forever father." Equality Florida has been working with our legislative allies in Tallahassee for the past 3 year to undo the harm caused by Florida’s anti-gay adoption ban. We are working toward the day when "best interest of the child" is the only criteria judges use to place children in loving, nurturing homes. Today's ruling adds one more crack to the crumbling, bigoted foundation on which Florida's disgraceful, 30-year-old anti-gay adoption ban rests.
Share this with the world: 
|
|
What are we doing?
The 4th Amendment Podcast
|
|
Comments