-
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. 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...
-
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...
-
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.
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
|
Written by Ed Pilkington, The Guardian
|
|
Tuesday, 17 June 2008 09:27 |
|
Death of 13-year-old prompts cyberbullying test case· Girl's neighbour, 49, posed as boy of 16 in flirty emails · Computer hacking laws invoked to bring charges A Missouri woman accused of creating a fictitious character on MySpace to cyberbully a 13-year-old neighbour who then committed suicide pleaded not guilty to federal charges at a Los Angeles court yesterday. The case, say lawyers, could radically affect the way millions of users gain access to the internet. Lori Drew, 49, appeared before the court on four counts - one of conspiracy and three of gaining access to protected computers without authorisation to acquire information used to inflict emotional distress. She denied all charges, which carry a maximum 20-year prison term. She was released on bond. Drew is alleged to have helped create a fake identity on MySpace called Josh Evans through whom she then approached and cyber-befriended her next-door neighbour Megan Meier. Evans, supposedly 16, exchanged flirtatious emails with Meier over five weeks and then on October 17 2006 told her he was moving away from the suburb of St Louis in which she lived. She replied: "I love you so much." A week later the exchanges grew darker in tone, with Evans sending emails the prosecution claims were emotionally cruel. One read: "I don't know if I want to be friends with you any more because I've heard you are not very nice to your friends," and a final one said: "The world would be a better place without you." Within an hour of receiving that message, the indictment against Drew alleges, Meier went up to her bedroom and hanged herself from the closet. During the resulting public furore over such an extreme case of alleged cyberbullying, local and federal prosecutors in Missouri sought to bring charges but were unable to find any existing laws that could be applied. In the absence of those laws, federal prosecutors in California, 1,600 miles away from Meier's home, have seized on an unusual and controversial route in an attempt to bring charges against Drew. They have invoked the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1984, which is usually applied against hackers seeking to break into computers in order to steal valuable information. In this case the prosecution argues that the servers used by MySpace, which are maintained in Los Angeles, hence the location of the trial, were violated by Drew and her unnamed co-conspirators who used false information to set up the account and therefore broke the website's terms of service. MySpace is not a party to the prosecution, but has so far not protested against the action. Drew was expected in court to record her plea, and her defence team said she was likely to challenge the case against her. She will be allowed home to Missouri while a trial date is pending. The charges are thought to be the first of their kind involving a social networking website, and lawyers say they have far-reaching implications for the way in which the internet is used. However, many legal experts are sceptical that the prosecution will succeed in applying a law commonly used against hackers to the much more common practise of setting up a pseudonymous page in breach of the website's rules. Dave Heller, of the Media Law Resource Centre in New York, said the circumstances of the case were distressing. "There are areas of hurtful speech that take place on the internet that the state certainly has an interest to limit." But if the charges against Drew stand, they would have widespread implications for internet users, he said. "What's staggering is that the accused is charged with illegally gaining access to a computer network because she broke the rules of MySpace. Thousands of people are doing that all the time - registering anonymously on blogs, or posting offensive comments. If we take this prosecution seriously then they could all be impacted by it." Meier's mother, Tina, has set up a foundation in her daughter's name in which she seeks to spread knowledge about the threat of cyberbullying. She has also launched an individual commitment, the Megan Pledge, in which internet users vow to fight against bullying.
Backstory Moves are under way to amend the law at state and national level after it was discovered that existing laws in Missouri, the state in which Megan Meier lived, could not be used to prosecute her alleged cyberbully. In Missouri state legislators passed a bill on May 19 making internet harassment a specific crime. The measure, covering computers, text messages and other electronic devices, is expected to receive approval from governor Matt Blunt. Illinois' state assembly passed a similar bill on May 22. Governor Rod Blagojevich is expected to approve it soon. At the same time, two Republican members of Congress are soon to introduce a bill in the name of Meier to make cyberbullying a federal offence. One of the initiators of the bill, Kenny Hulshof, is running for governor of Missouri.
Share this with the world: 
|
|
What are we doing?
The 4th Amendment Podcast
|
|
Comments