-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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 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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
|
Written by Tallahassee Democrat
|
|
Tuesday, 17 March 2009 00:00 |
|
A "Rachel's Law" compromise sailed through House committee this morning.
The legislation, named for 23-year-old Rachel Hoffman who was killed in a botched drug sting while working as a confidential informant, aims to provide better protection and more standard regulation for informants.
Speaking softly, but firmly, in a hushed committee room, Margie Weiss made a successful legislative debut on Tuesday, convincing a House panel to approve "Rachel's Law" on behalf of her slain daughter.
Rachel Hoffman was a recent Florida State University graduate in a court-ordered drug treatment program last year when she agreed to wear a wire for the Tallahassee Police Department.
She was found shot to death in May, 36 hours after being given $13,000 in cash and sent to buy drugs and a gun from two suspected dealers who now face murder charges.
The measure (HB 271) by Rep. Peter Nehr, R-Tarpon Springs, seeks greater oversight in the use of confidential informants.
"She made some mistakes, but her death was absolutely unnecessary," said Weiss, a massage therapist from Safety Harbor. "She died horribly . . . My daughter's murder was far from an isolated mistake."
The House Public Safety and Domestic Security Policy Committee unanimously approved a compromise measure, which was initially targeted for defeat by the state's most powerful law enforcement agencies. Sponsors agreed to drop many of the provisions, including requiring prosecutors to approve the use of an informant after police warned that it would be cumbersome, put informants at greater risk and threaten their most effective law-enforcement tool.
"The last thing we want to do is hamper the ability of law enforcement to catch the bad guys," Nehr said.
Sponsors still want to require investigators to offer potential informants access to an attorney.
Sen. Mike Fasano, R-New Port Richey, is sponsoring a companion measure.
Share this with the world: 
|
|
What are we doing?
The 4th Amendment Podcast
|
|
Comments