For the average law-abiding citizen, few encounters with law enforcement generate more anxiety than the traffic stop.
A stop of an automobile for a traffic infraction or for other violations of the law is often referred to as an investigatory stop or temporary detention. Law enforcement is not allowed to stop you simply to run a check or to see if you have your registration. There is no such thing as a “routine traffic stop.” Law enforcement can only stop your vehicle if there is probable cause to believe a traffic violation has occurred, or if there is reasonable suspicion to believe that the “motorist is engaging in illegal activity.” Probable cause is necessary for an arrest; reasonable suspicion is all that is needed for an investigatory stop or temporary detention. During a traffic stop an officer can order not only the driver, but also the passengers, to exit the vehicle and can question the passengers and ask them to identify themselves. Under certain circumstances an officer can also conduct a frisk for weapons if he has a reasonable belief that the driver or a passenger is armed and dangerous. This is called a pat-down search where the officer feels your clothing to see if he can feel a weapon or contraband. If he reasonably believes what he is feeling is a weapon or other unlawful object, he can reach into your clothing and grab it. The office cannot normally reach into your pockets or under your clothes during a pat-down search. The “investigatory stop" must be based on reasonable suspicion; if not, the frisk would also be unlawful. A traffic stop must be temporary and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop. During a traffic stop, an officer cannot keep you longer than it takes to perform a registration check, confirm your license and issue a ticket. If the stop is prolonged, then a violation of your constitutional rights has occurred. The police cannot normally search your vehicle without your consent during a traffic stop. They must have probable cause to believe that there are illegal substances in your car or that there is other evidence of a crime before they can conduct a search. They do not need a warrant if they have probable cause unless the vehicle is in their custody or under their complete control. The police can look through the window and observe anything that is in plain sight. If drugs or firearms are visible through the window, this will provide probable cause to search the vehicle. If you are being arrested, the police can search the interior of your vehicle but not the trunk or closed containers. If your vehicle is seized as evidence or is towed to get it off the road, it can be thoroughly searched and its contents inventoried. The police can also handcuff the driver or the passenger temporarily if the officer has a reasonable concern for his safety. If the stop is prolonged or if you are taken from the scene or if the handcuffing was unnecessary, the car stop can change into an arrest which requires probable cause. If you or someone you know has been the victim of an unlawful car stop, detention or car search, speak with an experienced civil rights attorney immediately to determine what your next step should be.
0 Comments
On April 20, 1871 Congress passed a civil rights act to protect the newly freed slaves from being terrorized and disarmed by the first wave of the Ku Klux Klan. This early version of the Klan was made up primarily of former confederate soldiers who sought to stop Reconstruction efforts. They did not burn crosses but nevertheless made the lives of African-Americans a living hell.
The law, which is often called the Ku Klux Klan Act, was later amended and is now 42 United States Code Section 1983. It allowed a person to sue for damages anyone who, while acting under color of law, deprived that person of their constitutional rights. After this law was passed, it went unused for nearly a century; its power and reach were untested and thus unknown. The events described below would forever change how that law would be used. On the evening of October 27, 1958, Peter Saisi was murdered in Chicago. When the police arrived at the scene, Mrs. Saisi told them that two Negro men had entered her home and killed her husband. She stated that the men had fled with a sum of money and a number of white dress shirts. Just before 6:00 a.m. on October 29, 1958, thirteen Chicago police officers, including Detective Frank Pape, broke into the apartment of James Monroe waking him, his wife and their six children. They forced Monroe and his wife to stand naked in their living room while they ransacked the apartment. They then took Monroe down to police headquarters and held him for ten hours on "open" charges while they interrogated him about Saisi’s murder. They did not have a warrant for the search or for the arrest and refused Monroe’s repeated requests to call his attorney. The Monroes brought a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against each of the police officers individually and against the City of Chicago. Following trial where a jury awarded the Monroe adults $13,000, the judge dismissed the case saying the suit was not proper. After the court dismissed all of their claims, the Monroes appealed and eventually their case came before the United States Supreme Court. On February 20, 1961, the Supreme Court for the first time allowed people to sue police officers for violations of their constitutional rights. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961). One of the biggest complaints I hear is from people who tell me that their boss or other coworker sometimes makes racial comments or offensive remarks about where someone is from. They always ask, can I bring a claim against my employer for harassment? Is it like sexual harassment?
Most judges would answer that you can only bring a claim for racial harassment if you can prove the same elements needed for proving sexual harassment: that the harassing comments must be pervasive and so frequent that they create a hostile work environment. Some judges trivialize or even condone racial comments by calling them simple stray remarks that are not actionable even when they are frequently repeated. However, this is not correct. Claims for racial harassment, particularly when racial slurs are involved, should require far less proof and far less frequency than claims for sexual harassment. Unlike sexual harassment, a racial remark spoken even once leaves no doubt as to how the speaker feels about race. It is intentional and designed to hurt and anger. Sexual harassment is not so clear because it can result from someone’s genuine attraction to another. Sometimes a man will make sexual comments to or make juvenile attempts to get the attention of a woman with whom he hopes to start a relationship. His overtures make her uncomfortable but once she tells him to stop or that she is not interested, his continuing such conduct then becomes harassment. With race, a single comment, in and of itself, is proof enough of the speaker’s intent to inflict harm. No one should experience racial or ethnic harassment at work. Judges need to be educated on how destructive and toxic this type of conduct is both for the intended target of the remark and for everyone else who hears it. When this happens, an attorney should be consulted immediately to bring a claim so that employers quickly learn that this type of conduct is wrong and should never occur in the workplace. For many who have grown up in an urban environment, the sight of an approaching police officer generates fear and extreme anxiety. These feelings can intensify if a stop occurs in an isolated area. With the understanding that police violations of your rights are unfair, unjust, and unconstitutional, it is also important to take certain precautions to protect your life. Despite your concerns, DO NOT RUN from the police and DO NOT DISOBEY A DIRECT ORDER, even if you think the officer is wrong. Always keep your hands in sight and, before reaching for any item such as identification or a driver’s license, ask the officer if it is okay to do so. Learn your rights. Then, if you must, you can express your knowledge of them. However, do not argue with the officer about them or refuse an order because of them. You can always bring up later a violation of your rights. If you tell an officer that you do not consent to a search of your vehicle, do not interfere with the officer if he begins to search your car anyway. The confrontation could cost you more than your freedom, you could lose life. In the past year, video has captured images of African-Americans either running from or not completely cooperating with police. The result in most cases has been death: On July 19, 2015, Samuel Debose was shot and killed by a University of Cincinnati police officer after Debose restarted his car after being told to exit his vehicle. On July 10, 2015, Sandra Bland was stopped by a Texas state trooper for a failure to signal a lane change and was arrested when she protested being forced to exit her car. Bland died in jail under suspicious circumstances 3 days later. On April 12, 2015, Freddie Gray died after running when he saw the police. It is unclear why they did so but Baltimore police detained, arrested and transported him to jail. Gray died in police custody after suffering a mysterious spinal injury. On April 4, 2015, Walter L. Scott ran after being stopped by a Charleston police officer, who repeatedly shot him in the back while he ran away. Scott died at the scene. On February 10, 2015, Antonio Zambrano-Montes, who was accused of throwing rocks, ran from the police in Pasco, Washington. He eventually stopped but, when he put his hands up, police shot and killed him. A word about your rights: You have a right not to interact with the police if you are lawfully going about your business. While it is not lawful for the police to detain you, in the absence of reasonable suspicion because you do not want to talk, if you turn and run for no reason, your running can provide the suspicion needed for the police to detain you, especially in a high-crime area. Do not run from the police whether you are driving or on foot. The risk is simply too great that you and others—including innocent bystanders—will be seriously injured or even killed. If you are driving alone and a police officer activates his lights to pull you over, try to pull over into a legal parking space if you can do so fairly quickly. It will prevent your car from being towed, should you be arrested or not allowed to continue to drive the vehicle. Whether you are a passenger or the driver, if you are ordered out of the car, exit the car. You do not have a right to stay inside your car, even on a routine traffic stop. Even if the officer’s order is a violation of your rights, obey the order to preserve your safety—a refusal could get you shot and cost you your life. In general, sexual harassment is defined as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when acceptance or rejection of these advances, requests or conduct is explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of employment or as a basis for employment decisions. We call this quid pro quo harassment, and an employer is strictly liable when its supervisors or managing agents withhold job benefits, demote or discharge an employee who has refused sexual advances or who has requested the conduct to stop. Even if no job benefit is withheld, it is also sexual harassment if the conduct in question is severe or pervasive, if it is offensive to that person, if it is offensive to a reasonable person who is sufficiently similar to the complaining person, if it has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance, and if it creates an intimidating, hostile, humiliating or sexually offensive work environment. We call this Hostile Work Environment Harassment. For harassment to violate the law, it does not have to be of a sexual nature and can include offensive remarks about a person’s sex. For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general. Both victim and harasser can be either a woman or a man, and the victim and harasser can be the same sex. Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim's being fired or demoted). It is often difficult to determine if the conduct that you are subjected to is just teasing or acceptable banter or whether it rises to the level of sexual harassment. You ask yourself, is the conduct constant or relentless, or is it sporadic? Is the conduct humiliating, intimidating or threatening, or is it simply annoying or boorish? These are important considerations in determining if you have been the victim of sexual harassment. The more often the conduct occurs, the more likely it will be considered sexual harassment, particularly if the sexual comments are graphic or the harassment includes touching of private body parts. The key question is always, would a reasonable person in the employee’s position find the behavior offensive, severely hostile or abusive. A recent string of events has brought the University of California, Berkeley under the scrutiny from both sides of the political spectrum. Though it originated as a somewhat low-profile, scheduled event hosted by campus groups, it rapidly transformed into a debate about First Amendment rights on the national stage, culminating in attention from major media outlets, legal scholars, and political pundits.
What happened? Ann Coulter is a controversial conservative political commentator, particularly regarding the topics of immigration, marriage equality, and religion. The University of California, Berkeley is a politically and socially aware public university with a long history of progressive activism and involvement in social movements. Coulter was expected to speak on the topic of illegal immigration on April 27 in an event hosted by BridgeUSA and the Berkeley College Republicans. Liberal groups in Berkeley (and elsewhere) were strongly against Coulter’s speech, but nothing tangible had actually happened until the UC Berkeley administration canceled the event on April 19. In fact, although students expressed concern, no groups on campus at UCB ever officially sought to hinder Coulter from coming to speak on campus. UCB proposed rescheduling the event due to safety concerns related to the riots resulting from a February on-campus event at which alt-right commentator Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak*. The day after it proposed to reschedule the Coulter event, UCB re-invited Coulter to speak, this time on May 2. This was after the Berkeley College Republicans filed a lawsuit against the university for “smothering conservative speech.” However, May 2 is notably during the school’s “dead week”—the week before exams, during which many students are not on campus or are too busy studying to attend extracurricular events. Thus, the proposal was rejected by the Berkeley College Republicans, BridgeUSA, and Ann Coulter. *The riots that took place during this event were not the actions of UCB students, but of external groups. The riots did, however, take place on the UCB campus. What does this mean for the First Amendment? The ACLU has criticized the University’s actions as suppressive of the First Amendment. The organization released a statement arguing that the government should not determine what speech can be considered protected by the First Amendment. Read the ACLU’s full statement here. Restrictions on the First Amendment have traditionally been left to the courts; for further reading, see footnote[1]. One specifically relevant case is Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). In this case, a Ku Klux Klan leader made a speech for which he was later convicted under a syndicalism law that criminalized advocating for “crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform.” The law also criminalized assembling with “any society… formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism.” The question before the Supreme Court was whether the Ohio syndicalism law violated the KKK leader’s right to free speech. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the law did in fact violate the man’s right to free speech as it was overly broad while failing to ensure that it would prevent imminent lawless action. The ruling established a two-pronged test to evaluate similar speech acts. Free speech may be prohibited if:
This ruling was important as it protected citizens’ speech from being considered the proximate cause of violence that they did not intend to provoke. Although the ruling in Brandenburg is the precedent set by the Supreme Court, it is important to consider the ways that the law can move the needle forward for minority groups who may be harmed by hateful rhetoric. In “Public Response to Racist Speech: Considering the Victim’s Story,” political scientist Mari Matsuda does just that. In conclusion, there is much grey area surrounding the ideological dispute over the First Amendment, and groups all across the political spectrum continue to disagree about its extents and limits. The Ann Coulter UC Berkeley controversy is neither the beginning nor the end of the free speech debate. [1] For further reading on the restrictions the United States Supreme Court has placed on the First Amendment, see: Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire (1942), Miller v. California (1973), and Snyder v. Phelps (2011) By Max Soifer If you have a disability and are qualified to do a job, you cannot be denied your right to employment simply because of your disability. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ACA) ensures this, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) oversees the enforcement of this law. In order to be protected by the ADA, you must have a record of having (or be regarded as having) a substantial impairment that "significantly limits or restricts a major life activity." This can include vision, hearing, mobility, breathing, performing manual tasks, self-care, learning, and working, among other things. The ADA's scope is expansive in that the law covers the way that employers must treat potential employees during the hiring process, as well as the way that employers must treat employees on the job.
No one deserves to be discriminated against, and no one should expect to be subjected to discrimination. However, if you suspect that you have been subjected to employment discrimination based on a disability it is best to contact the EEOC promptly. Typically, you can trust your gut instinct to identify when am employer or potential employer is behaving in a discriminatory manner. Additionally, things to look out for during the hiring process include questions about your disability (if you have not already disclosed your disability) and extensive questions regarding your ability to perform the job. Although this second practice is not illegal, they may be trying to "back you into a corner" by encouraging you to disclose information about your disability by asking instead about your abilities. Though this is not illegal, it is certainly discriminatory and the EEOC may be able to help you out if you run into this scenario. Here is a list of questions that potential employers might ask, and that you should look out for:
It is illegal to ask these questions during the hiring process, and you should immediately contact the EEOC if you are asked one of these questions by a potential employer. If you have a disability, you are entitled to workplace accommodations provided by your employer. In order for your employer to be accountable for the accommodations that they are obligated to provide, you must notify them of your needs. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission P.O. Box 7033 Lawrence, Kansas 66044 (800) 669-4000 (Voice), (800) 669-6820 (TDD) For more specific information about ADA requirements affecting public accommodations and State and local government services contact: Department of Justice Office on the Americans with Disabilities Act Civil Rights Division P.O. Box 66118 Washington, DC 20035-6118 (202) 514-0301 (Voice) (202) 514-0381 (TDD) (202) 514-0383 (TDD) If you have any other questions, you can troubleshoot by going to the EEOC website at: https://www.eeoc.gov/facts/ada18.html Good luck in your search for a job! By Christa St. George On January 31, 2017, Neil Gorsuch was nominated by President Trump to fill the vacated seat on the Supreme Court, following the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016.The vacant seat on the Supreme Court has been a hotly contested issue for the past year. While President Obama attempted to appoint Chief Judge Garland to this seat prior to leaving office, Senate Republicans steadfastly refused to confirm the nominee or consider his appointment. With the 52 seat majority of Senate Republicans, their efforts created a year-long stalemate over the appointment of the 9th Supreme Court seat—the second longest stalemate since the 1860’s.
Political ascriptions in the Supreme Court are currently split 4-4. With his Conservative views, Gorsuch is projected to swing the Court to the right, leaving the swing vote, again, to Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. The gravity of importance placed upon Gorsuch’s appointment, therefore, cannot be overstated. The 49-year old Judge and Colorado native currently serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver. Upon his appointment to the Court of Appeals by George W. Bush in 2006, the American Bar Association regarded him as “unanimously well qualified” for the position. Similar to other Justices, Gorsuch has obtained degrees from various Ivy League Schools, including Columbia University, Harvard Law School, and the University of Oxford. He served as a legal clerk for Anthony M. Kennedy, Byron R. White, and Judge David B. Sentelle of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Despite his general likability and reputation as an approachable judge and distinguished writer, Senate Democrats remain skeptical of his lack of experience as well as failure to provide concise opinions on relevant and/or controversial issues. Critics argue that his rulings in past cases make him likely to rule in favor of right-wing Conservatives, including President Trump and his policies. Those in strong opposition to the nominee’s appointment question his capacity to remain impartial to political ties, including President Trump and the Republican Party’s hardline conservative values. What do we know about his political, social, and economic inclinations as a Judge? Gorsuch, like his potential predecessor, maintains an “originalist” perspective on interpreting the Constitution; i.e. he maintains a strict, “textualized” perspective on law and legality. This predisposition frames Gorsuch’s opinions of the following topics:
While these are just a few of the strongly disputed issues circulating in the American government and courts, they provide evidence that suggest Neil Gorsuch’s potential rulings as a Supreme Court Judge. Overall, we can expect a textual, strict interpreter of the Constitution. In other words, Gorsuch will likely serve as a similar judge to Scalia. Critics argue that this interpretation is both outdated and in opposition to the social, political, and economic progress of the nation. How will the Judge’s textual interpretation of the Constitution frame the issues listed above, as well as future Supreme Court rulings? Time will tell. Law school is unlike any other post-graduate experience due to the unique amount of reading involved. It takes time to adjust to the sheer quantity of assigned pages; however, these readings are not only lengthy but they'll also challenge you to thoroughly ascertain the correct legal conclusions based on the material. Nearly all of the assigned reading consists of condensed versions of actual cases in textbooks produced and edited for a particular course, such as criminal law or property.
As a first-year law student, covering 50 pages per night for each of your classes will be time consuming as is. On top of that, you will be expected to understand complex legal principles by spotting the issues presented by a case's facts and then determining how and why the judge applied a particular law to those facts. This is a task that even the best students find a bit challenging at first. A question I am asked often by incoming first-year law students is whether it is okay to work part-time during the school year. This is an understandable question as the costs of a legal education can be daunting. Additionally, many people enter law school having worked in a job that will be relevant to their future careers, so they hope to continue working there. However, it is best not to work during your first year in law school if possible. Being a lawyer is a profession in which people entrust their property (and even their lives) to you. You want to be more than competent--you want to excel. Working during your first year of law school detracts from your ability to become an expert issue-spotter and a master at applying the law to your future clients' cases. Although some students are able to manage a healthy balance between law school and work, the odds are against you and you would be taking a huge risk with your future career. While working part-time, you are likely to fall behind in your readings and will no doubt rely on hornbooks, commercial outlines, and other study aids; these materials will help you get by, but they will not teach you how to become a truly great lawyer. You only have one shot at law school and it's a huge investment. Do it right: read the casebooks and develop a mastery of the law. Wait to resume (or begin) working until your 2L year, or only work during summers if your finances allow. You are pulled over by a police officer. He/she asks you a few questions, checks your information, and completes a traffic citation.
Are you free to leave? The simple answer is yes; once the citation is complete you may leave. There is, however, no time limit to the citation procedure. There is no set amount of time prescribed to lawful detentions for traffic stops; the only requirement is that the officers allocate a "reasonable amount of time" to follow procedure. What is considered "reasonable" varies depending on the officer, situation, etc. A detention becomes "unreasonable"—and therefore illegal—when you are held for an unnecessary length of time. This point is reached when an officer has finished his/her investigation and does not have enough "reasonable suspicion" to keep you. The officer may prolong the investigation, but once it has been completed you are free to leave. The only way he/she can legally keep you at the scene is if: (1) You remain on the scene willingly (2) The police officer searches your vehicle Officers may only search your vehicle if they have "probable cause" to believe you are engaging in suspicious or illegal behavior. Probable cause requires evidence or facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe a crime has been committed; i.e. open liquor bottles, admission of guilt, smell of marijuana, etc. While the Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unlawful searches and seizures, many people are either unaware of this right or are unsure how to exercise it. If the police ask for permission to search your vehicle, you do not have to say yes. They are not legally permitted to search your car and keep you at the scene without your consent or probable cause. Why does this matter? Knowing your rights at a traffic-stop encounter is the best method of assuring that officers follow procedure. Traffic laws are meant to protect citizens, therefore one should not feel like he/she is being unnecessarily detained or unlawfully treated. While there is no set amount of time for traffic-stops, if you suspect that the process is unnecessarily long, you are permitted to ask the officer why you are being detained. If the citation has been completed, ask if you are free to leave. Educating yourself about your rights at a traffic stop prevents you from becoming a victim to intimidation, discrimination, etc. |