-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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 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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
No. The Supreme Court has never ruled that police must present the warrant when performing a search. The purpose of the warrant is to...
-
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...
|
Written by CNN
|
|
Monday, 21 July 2008 21:58 |
|
Court Tosses 'Wardrobe Malfunction" Fine
A Philadelphia appeals court Monday threw out the $550,000 indecency fine levied on CBS in connection with Janet Jackson's infamous "wardrobe malfunction" at the 2004 Super Bowl. Janet Jackson covers up after the "wardrobe malfunction" at the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show. Judges said in the court ruling that one of the determining factors was that they considered Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake "independent contractors" and CBS could not be held accountable for their actions. The fine was levied by the Federal Communications Commission after one of Jackson's breasts was exposed briefly during a performance with Timberlake during halftime of the Super Bowl. Also the judges said it was impossible to determine how many complaints CBS received after incident. In court filing, the FCC said the network received more than 542,000 complaints -- an "unprecedented" number. But CBS disputed the number of and significance of complaints, claiming that 85 percent of them came from form letters generated by well-organized single-interest groups. "The record is unclear on the actual number of complaints received from unorganized, individual viewers," the ruling said. "The FCC cannot impose liability on CBS for the acts of Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake, independent contractors hired for the limited purposes of the halftime show."
Share this with the world: 
|
|
What are we doing?
The 4th Amendment Podcast
|
|
Comments