-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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.
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
|
Written by Martha Neil, ABA Journal
|
|
Monday, 23 March 2009 00:00 |
|
A federal regulatory agency overstepped its bounds in limiting access to the so-called "Plan B" emergency contraceptive, a federal judge has ruled.
In setting special requirements for the controversial contraceptive, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration "departed in significant ways from the agency's normal procedures regarding similar applications to switch a drug from prescription to non-prescription use," says U.S. District Judge Edward Korman in a 52-page written opinion today.
The FDA has been requiring teens less than 18 years old to get a prescription, in order to use the over-the-counter Barr Pharmaceutical Inc. medication. As a result, pharmacies must keep it behind the counter, effectively requiring women 18 and older to ask a pharmacist to purchase it.
In his order today, however, Korman tells the FDA to make Plan B available to women age 17 and older within 30 days and to reconsider whether to require a prescription for teens of any age who seek access to the drug, according to Reuters and the Washington Post.
The Center for Reproductive Rights sued the FDA in U.S. District Court in Manhattan in January 2005, and the FDA subsequently approved Plan B for over-the-counter use in 2006. However, the center continued on with the lawsuit, challenging the manner in which the FDA handled the matter, reports the Wall Street Journal (sub. req.).
"Today's ruling is a tremendous victory for all Americans who expect the government to safeguard their health not undermine it," says the center's president, Nancy Northup, in a statement e-mailed to Bloomberg. "The court recognized that the FDA favored politics over science, ideology over women's health, and violated the law in the process."
The FDA apparently has not yet commented on the decision.
Share this with the world: 
|
|
What are we doing?
The 4th Amendment Podcast
|
|
Comments