-
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...
-
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...
-
In addition to compromising your safety and the safety of others, driving drunk is one of the stupidest things you can do, and one of the easiest ways to create overwhelming legal problems for yourself. DUI laws vary from state to state, and they have become increasingly harsh over the years...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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. The Supreme Court has never ruled that police must present the warrant when performing a search. The purpose of the warrant is to...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
|
Written by Mike Gangloff, Roanoke Times
|
|
Thursday, 27 November 2008 00:00 |
|
The lawsuit claims a man was dragged from his home and charged with public intoxication.
A Roanoke man is asking for $10 million in a federal lawsuit that says city police officers improperly arrested him.
The lawsuit that George William Roberts filed Thursday stems from a May 11 incident in which Roberts was charged with public intoxication. The charge was later dismissed in General District Court.
Melvin Williams, who is representing Roberts, said court testimony indicated that police were answering a call about someone disturbing the peace. After speaking to neighbors, they went to Roberts' door in the 800 block of Peck Street.
According to the lawsuit, Roberts' girlfriend answered and when asked if anyone else was home, she told them Roberts was getting dressed in a back room. As she spoke, Roberts walked into the living room where he could be seen from the door.
Officers pushed into the house, seized Roberts, dragged him outside and charged him with being drunk in public, the lawsuit says.
The lawsuit says police trespassed and committed assault and battery, and that they violated both the U.S. Constitution's prohibition of unreasonable search and seizure and Virginia law by entering without a warrant.
Roanoke police spokesman Capt. Chris Perkins said Wednesday that he had not yet seen the lawsuit.
Share this with the world: 
|
|
What are we doing?
The 4th Amendment Podcast
|
|
Comments