A new twist in the controversy over the (ab)use of tasers.
A judge in Niagara County, NY has decided
that tasing a suspect who refused to submit to DNA testing was a reasonable use of force. Ryan Smith, accused of robbery and kidnapping, already submitted one sample, which was contaminated when the government sent it to the wrong laboratory, and refused to give one a second time. The police asked a prosecutor what to do. His response: they could use force to get the sample, but as little as possible. So they tased Smith, who then submitted to the buccal swab. [more inside]
posted by R_Nebblesworth
on Jun 5, 2009 -
Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court held
in a 5-3 decision
(.pdf) that police may not search a home if any inhabitant of the home is present and objects to the search, even if another inhabitant consents. The Court drew what it acknowledged is a “fine line” – if a co-inhabitant is at the door and objects, the police can’t enter; but if the co-inhabitant is somewhere else – even in a nearby police car – and has no opportunity to object, then police don’t need his or her consent. Chief Justice Roberts issued his first written dissent, blasting the majority’s “random” and “arbitrary” rule and suggesting that the ability of police to respond to domestic violence threats could be compromised. The zingers in the footnotes
may reveal “strains behind the surface placidity and collegiality of the young Roberts court.”
posted by brain_drain
on Mar 23, 2006 -
Are we witnessing the end
of the 4th Ammendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure? The United States 5th Circuit Court of Appeals
has ruled (parts 1
) that police in Louisiana no longer need a search or arrest warrant to conduct a brief search of your home or business.
posted by Irontom
on Mar 29, 2004 -
The ACLU wants to protect your privacy
from government electronic surveillance programs like Echelon and Carnivore. Their full page ad
in today's NYT claims 4th amendment
rights are being violated by the US government, which is overstepping their bounds, and nearly free of up-to-date laws. Is it to late or can anything be done to protect civilian electronic communication?
posted by mathowie
on Apr 15, 2001 -