-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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. The Supreme Court has never ruled that police must present the warrant when performing a search. The purpose of the warrant is to...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
|
Written by Tony Mauro, Legal Times
|
|
Friday, 16 January 2009 17:37 |
|
The Supreme Court today agreed to take up six new cases later this term, including one from Oregon that raises an issue that had previously deadlocked the Court because of the recusal of Justice Anthony Kennedy.
The same issue has divided lower courts for years: whether students with disabilities must first try a public school's special education program before they can obtain reimbursement for private school tuition under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Act. The current case is called Forest Grove School District v. T.A.
As we reported last year, two other cases raising the issue have gone before the Court, neither of which was resolved by a ruling. In one 2007 case, Kennedy suddenly recused after briefs were filed, but before oral arguments were heard. After arguments in that case, Board of Education v. Tom F., the Court announced the ruling below was affirmed by a 4-4 vote, leaving the issue open because Kennedy could not participate.
The Court then denied review in a second case raising the same issue. Kennedy, like most other justices, declined to state his reasons for recusal in the Tom F. case. But both cases were from New York, where some of Kennedy's children and grandchildren live -- leading to unconfirmed speculation that one of the justice's relatives could be affected by the outcome.
In granting the case today, the Court gave no indication that Kennedy was recused, suggesting that whatever had caused his earlier recusal has now been resolved, and a full court will be able to decide the issue.
In the Forest Grove case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit sided with the student, finding there was no "categorical bar" against tuition reimbursement for students who had not first enrolled in a public school's special education program.
Share this with the world: 
|
|
What are we doing?
The 4th Amendment Podcast
|
|
Comments