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...
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. 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...
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...
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...
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...
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...
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...
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.
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...
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. 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 U.S. Supreme Court has never heard a case on excessive use of force with Tasers by police officers. That may change soon...
In February, the ACLU of Florida filed a certiorari petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that a law enforcement officer's excessive use of force with a Taser is unconstitutional. The Taser abuse incident was captured by a videocamera mounted on the patrol car dashboard of the Washington County, Florida Sheriff's Deputy, Jonathan Rackard.
Deputy Rackard administered three five-second-long 50,000 volt discharges of a Taser to Jesse Buckley with the Taser in "drive-stun" mode, which means that the device was pressed directly against the skin instead of from a distance. The ACLU lawsuit alleges that the deputy's actions violate the Fourth Amendment, since his only purpose was to inflict pain upon an already-handcuffed nonviolent nonresisting arrestee to make him stand up.
Buckley's lawyers, James V. Cook of Tallahassee, and Michael Masinter of Miami, posted the appalling video on YouTube and after a recent New York Times article highlighting the case, views of the video jumped by 10,000. The Supreme Court ordered Rackard to reply to the ACLU's petition, and the nine justices will soon decide whether to take this first-of-its-kind case.
Mr. Buckley was arrested on March 17, 2004, after refusing to sign a traffic citation during a routine traffic stop. He was handcuffed and voluntarily exited his vehicle, obviously in emotional distress, then fell to the ground. The arresting officer was under no apparent threat, as documented by the police car-mounted camera, yet "tased" Mr. Buckley three separate times. Each tase lasted five seconds, leaving 16 burn marks on his skin, some severe enough to produce keloid scars. Although Mr. Buckley never once actively resisted arrest nor attempted to flee, the officer continued to tase him.
The federal district court held that the officer violated the fourth amendment, and that he was not entitled to qualified immunity, but by a split decision, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals panel reversed that opinion, held that the first two tasings were a constitutionally reasonable use of force, and that no clearly established law would have warned Rackard that the third was constitutionally unreasonable. The 11th Circuit denied rehearing the case before the entire Circuit Court of Appeals, and upon denial the ACLU petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case. Other federal courts of appeal have squarely held that police officers may not inflict pain through the use of tasers or chemical sprays to compel a nonviolent individual who is not actively resisting arrest to obey police commands.
The ACLU of Florida and James Cook are confident that the Justices will recognize the egregious harm to Mr. Buckley and the insult to the Fourth Amendment, and are encouraged that the Court ordered a response to our petition.
Comments