Many times, I’ve watched prosecutors play confessions to crimes in courts, where the suspect starts talking after police tell them, “You have the right to remain silent.”
Police have told me the act of reading people their rights is actually a way to engage them and get them talking. Officers talk about how surprised they are when people allow them to search their cars at traffic stops. “Did they think I wasn’t going to find the brick of pot underneath their seat?” one said.
Now, most officers I know don’t set out to overstep their authority. They’re trying to do their jobs and catch outlaws.
But even law abiding citizens should know their rights under the U.S. Constitution. A group called Flex Your Rights has produced this video to help people understand those rights before they encounter police (via Underdog Blog):
I asked some defense attorneys to watch the video and give it their review.
Rebecca Woodman of Topeka, who argues appeals for public defenders’ offices around the state, said that the police encounters dramatized in the video are “unfortunately all too common, even though they each far exceed a police officer’s lawful authority under the Fourth Amendment.”
“It’s important for citizens to know their constitutional rights and how to exercise them,” Woodman said, “so that the right to privacy is protected, not only for themselves but for all citizens.”
Kurt Kerns of Wichita also found the video valuable.
“The bottom line is this: our rights are just like our friends and loved ones,” Kerns said. “If we ignore them, they’ll go away.”
15 Comments
All to common, you’ve got to be kidding.
I also have alot of trouble with the “… all to common” statement. The ‘officer’ in this video must be from the cast of ‘Saturday Night Live’. In real life, in a real court case, any evidence siezed under these circumstances would be suppressed (if the defense attorney didn’t have his/her head stuck way up his/her butt). This video is nothing but an infomercial for defense attorneys.
WAR, I think that’s what Rebecca was saying: while these examples overstep some legal bounds, in her work in the appeals courtsshe sees these kinds of issues come up too often. Should note that cases from all over the state come to her office. That’s why I got the attorneys to weigh in on it before I posted it. And no one said the acting was good.
Yes, bad acting, but great information. I think the video is more like an infomercial for the Constitution, not defense attorneys.
when I took drivers-ed in 1995, we had an officer come talk to us and one of the things he told us was to always cooperate with any officer. And even went as far as to say if they ask to search your car, let them. This would be a good video for any drivers-ed and American Civics class.
So you reject the information in the video because the acting was bad? Excellent approach to constitutional issues. If Woodman had said, “more than they should” in place of “all too common” would you agree with her? Or is an officer of the law attempting to convince a citizen that they must let them search their car or place of residence a rare occurrence? A justifiable occurrence?
I reject the way it’s presented. Lets take the first scenario done the way the ACLU wants you to do it. Done that way the cop would arrest the driver for reckless (speed excess of 20 MPH over limit…this varies by jurisdiction)the officer then does a search incident to arrest of the person and the car, finds the drugs and books everyone. Or he says this guys acting like he has a kilo of dope in the car and calls for a drug dog…and everyone gets arrested for what would usually be a weed ticket. Just enough info here to get someone into trouble but if they are driving around with dope they are already looking for trouble and should take all the HELP they can get, even if it sucks.
The ACLU should say “if you want to smoke weed do it at home and don’t carry it around with you or go drive high because doing so ups your chances of not only getting busted but running into that car with the mom and kids coming home from gymnastics practice” Then the cop gets to hear the dope say “dude where did that car come from and whats will all the screaming and blood man”. Well dude don’t worry about the weed charge cause you’ll be in court on involuntary manslaughter. Maybe the ACLU will come help him out of that mess…or not.
So the police have full access to your house, auto and anything else they wish to look at because, if you are not guilty, you wouldn’t mind them looking? Nice leap to manslaughter from possession. If some one does something bad then they are liable for all bad things or the possibility of all bad things. And those pot wielding kids are potential baby killers so screw that constitutional stuff.
Re-read my post, we are talking about a car not a house. If you are familiar with prior court cases then you know a car has a lesser expectation of privacy and is mobile, which is the reason cops don’t need a warrant to search it. My point about manslaughter is one of advice. If you use drugs, lets even say weed, in your home and you’re not selling it or giving it to your kids to calm them down the chances of the law even finding out are slim. If they did find out it would take a warrant, consent or some exigent circumstance to get in your house and bust you. All that for a joint…not likely. Now climb behind the wheel of a car and get high. Not only have you opened yourself up for arrest by your semi-public possession but you’ve started putting the public at large in danger. It’s all about making good decisions from the get go. The ACLU has a video on how to make good decisions when you have already placed yourself in a jam. It might work for the weed arrest but not for other non-intended consequences like running into someone with your car while high. When that happens they pull your blood, find the weed and you’re done. Not much of a leap there ghost, I’ve seen a little weed do a lot of harm.
By the way I love the constitution. I’m a student of history and the biggest danger to a country as a whole is a corrupt controlling Government who’s force of will is carried out with the barrel of a gun. The police/military are that arm. Government must be limited by the people. The key to a government officials search is that it must be reasonable and legal. Our cops do a great job and the courts weigh in on what they do all the time sometimes ending up giving them more power and other times throwing out the evidence to limit that power. The constitution is a living document that has changing interpretations all the time. Anyone that thinks our cops are “jack booted” thugs have never been to a third world country. I was in the military and saw one of our guys try something close to this ACLU stuff (yes he was drunk and must have forgot he was out of the USA). He was pulled from the car through the window beaten with sticks kicked and everything was searched with no more compliant from us. oh by the way the stop was at a random street side checkpoint. I understand the limits placed on our police but this video portrays the whole thing from the wrong point of view. For starters I would have shown some kids going to the concert without weed and the cop making bad assumptions that lead to a bad search. That would be fair, point out the lessons to be learned and not portray the dope using driver as some hero for stopping the over reaching cop. Ok I better stop for now this is way to long.
The impact of enforcement creates criminals out of citizens every day. Locally, Judge Pilshaw stood up to excessive enforcement and suffered possible retaliation. Some of the very citizens she protected have turned against her. She is the last woman left on District Court.
Lonny that’s like saying the color yellow is yellow. By definition when a crime is committed and the law is enforced the offender becomes a criminal. If you are trying to say that you disagree with certain laws and they make people into criminals then your argument isn’t with cops who enforce the laws but with legislators who draft and make the laws the cops are then duty bound to enforce. And I gave up making critical decisions based on the sex, race or religious background of judges a long time ago. By the way judges are the third branch of government who are given the task of interpreting the laws made by the legislative branch and enforced by the the executive branch and the beauty of it is they are elected (in most cases).
A citizen who trusts enforcement and presumes honesty may be placed at a disadvantage when encountering tricks and misleading statements. This results not from the laws themselves but from the conduct enforcement sometimes feels is necessary and allowable.
My trust in others has never placed me at a disadvantage only my ignorance. The video erodes trust and increases ignorance with its lopsided portrayal.
One Trackback
[...] The case sounds similar to scenarios from a video I posted last week. [...]