Mediaboss Marketing

While law enforcement officers in California have the right to pull you over with reasonable cause, what does California law say about your rights during a traffic stop?

Reader Clifford Ephraim asked The Sacramento Bees service journalism team, which focuses on helping the community navigate daily life: What are your rights when officers pull you over while driving?

If a California law enforcement official flashes their emergency lights behind you, here are some of your rights and questions you can expect from an officer:

Officer Cody Tapley of the Sacramento Police Department said the Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches by government officials.

A traffic stop would be considered a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, Tapley said. Officers need to have reasonable suspicion or probable cause for effecting a stop.

When a law enforcement officer stop you, Tapley said you are not free to leave until the traffic stop has been completed and the officer releases you.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union website, drivers have the right to:

Remain silent, but must let the officer know if they wish to exercise that right.

Refuse to consent to a search of themselves or their car.

Their constitutional rights regardless of their citizenship status.

While every traffic stop can be different, Tapley said officers will typically ask for your drivers license, vehicle registration and proof of insurance.

According to the California Vehicle Code, drivers must be able to provide all those documents during a traffic stop.

Officers may ask you additional questions surrounding the nature of the stop, Tapley said. Traffic stops are far from routine and every single stop is different so there is no one size fits all.

When a law enforcement officer pulls you over while driving, Tapley said you should and shouldnt do the following:

Story continues

Do

Activate your turn signal or hazards and pull off or to the side of the roadway as soon as it is safe to do so.

Turn off the engine and turn off any audio devices.

Stay in your vehicle unless directed by the officer to exit.

Turn on your interior lights if you are pulled over at night to assist with visibility.

Keep your hands on the steering wheel or in a visible location.

Follow the officers instructions for you or your passengers.

Lower the corresponding window the officer approaches.

Let the officer know if you have a weapon in the vehicle upon the their arrival to your window.

Wait for the officers instructions before reaching for your license or documents.

Dont

Stop abruptly in traffic or pull over without signaling.

Get out of the car unless the officer tells you to.

Lie or give false information.

Law enforcement officers must have a search warrant before they can search you or your phone.

However, there are a few circumstances when a officer can search your phone without a warrant, according to the Supreme Court of California.

These circumstances, or exigent circumstances, include when officers have to prevent possible danger to someone, prevent the destruction of evidence in a crime, or during the escape of a fleeing suspect.

Law enforcement officers can also search your phone with your consent.

What do you want to know about life in Sacramento? Ask our service journalism team your top-of-mind questions in the module below or email servicejournalists@sacbee.com.

See the original post:
Heres what to do (and not do) if you get pulled over in California. What are my rights? - Yahoo Movies Canada

Following a raid in March 2021, federal agents spent days rifling through the personal belongings stored in nearly 1,400 safe deposit boxes seized from a vault in Beverly Hills, California.

The agents were tasked with cataloging the contents of the boxes, but they also seized piles of valuablesgold coins, luxury watches, family heirlooms, and stacks of cashfrom people who had not been charged with any crimes.

And they did that despite being told, by the warrant authorizing the raid, that the contents of the safe deposit boxes were off-limits.

On Thursday, a panel of federal judges at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will be asked whether the FBI's brazen smash-and-grab scheme that netted more than $86 million in forfeited cash and property violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the raid's innocent victims.

"The fundamental principle at stake is that if the government wants to search and seize your property, it has to have some reason to think you did something wrong," Rob Johnson, an attorney with the Institute for Justice (IJ) and one of the lawyers who will argue the case before the circuit court on Thursday, wrote this week on Twitter. "The FBI came up with a blatant scheme to circumvent that fundamental principle, and, so far, no court has held them to account."

When the case went before a lower court last year, federal Judge Gary Klausner ruled that the FBI's inventory of the seized safe deposit boxes was legal, despite acknowledging that attorneys for the plaintiffs "have certainly shown that the government had a dual motive in inventorying the contents of each deposit box."

There's ample evidence showing that the FBI's "dual motive" was part of the scheme from the beginning. As Reasonhaspreviously detailed, the warrant for the raid explicitly forbade law enforcement from seizing or searching the private property contained in the safe deposit boxes held at U.S. Private Vaults, which was the target of the FBI's investigation. During depositions, FBI agents admitted that they planned to forfeit cash and other valuables from the boxes, even though theydid not include those plansin the warrant application.

The U.S. attorney's office tried to block the disclosure of those depositions and other court documents that "laid bare the government's deception," the Los Angeles Timesreported last year.

In the affidavit requesting a warrant to go after U.S. Private Vaultswhose owners were charged with several federal crimes after the raidAssistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Brown wrote that federal agents intended to merely inventory the contents of the seized safe deposit boxes. But court documents later showed that the FBI had drawn up plans months earlier to forfeit property from the boxes and failed to inform the magistrate judge about those plans. (Disclosure: Reasonsubmitted anamicusbrief in the case arguing that the redacted documents should be made public.)

Some forfeited property has been returned to the innocent victims of the raid, but only after they submitted to an FBI investigation or launched legal challenges seeking to recover what was taken. Many others have been unable to reclaim what they own. The class action lawsuit that goes before the 9th Circuit on Thursday is not narrowly focused on the return of forfeited property but on the underlying constitutional principles that the FBI seems to have disregarded as it planned and executed the raid.

The FBI has maintained that it did not mislead the judge who issued the warrant or overstep the limits of the warrant.

In ruling for the FBI last year, Klausner said the attorneys representing the raid's victims must "demonstrate that the improper investigatory motive was the onlyreason that the government opened the safe deposit boxes, and they have not done so."

If the Ninth Circuit applies that same reasoning after it hears the case this week, it would deal a serious blow to the Fourth Amendment's privacy protections in other contexts. In effect, that would say that as long as law enforcement has at least one legitimate reason for cracking open the safe deposit boxes, agents of the state are free to engage in all manner of rights violations without the targets having any legal recourse. It would be equivalent to saying that if the owner of a parking garage is suspected of a crime, all the cars (and the contents of those cars) stored there could be forfeited by the government.

"If the FBI can get away with this here, it's a green light for the government to try the same ruse again throughout the country," warns Johnson. "And it's not just safe deposit boxes. The government could pull the same trick with storage lockers, hotels, even apartment buildings."

Read more:
FBI Seized $86 Million From People Not Suspected Crimes. A Federal Court Will Decide if That's Legal. - Reason

The Supreme Court under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has become the court of the digital age, routinely applying the Constitution to cases involving First and Fourth amendment rights in internet disputes.

The high court has heard cases dealing with free speech on social media platforms and protections for Big Tech under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields companies from lawsuits over content posted on their platforms by third parties.

The court also has tackled GPS concerns in a case involving law enforcements use of third-party tracking data without a warrant, ruling that it runs afoul of a reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment.

The Roberts court, I think, has shown a comfort with adopting the constitutional protections as understood for decades if not centuries for the digital era, said Chris Marchese, litigation center director at NetChoice. His organization, NetChoice, has two cases pending this year before the high court involving social media laws.

NetChoice has cited First Amendment guarantees in challenging laws in Texas and Florida that have limited the ability of large social media companies like X, Tik Tok and Facebook to moderate speech on their platforms.

Texas enacted a law in 2021 prohibiting social media companies from removing and moderating content that some might find offensive or hateful. It also required the companies to disclose certain business practices, such as the use of algorithms.

A federal court in Texas blocked parts of the law from taking effect. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that ruling, but the injunction has remained in place pending appeal.

Florida in 2021 enacted a law that imposed a fine of $25,000 to $250,000 per day on large social media companies that deplatform political candidates.

The high court has established a firm stance on First Amendment protections online in recent years.

In 2017, the justices unanimously struck down a North Carolina law that banned registered sex offenders from accessing certain websites where minors would have accounts, regardless of whether the offender contacted a minor. The justices reasoned the restriction ran afoul of the sex offenders First Amendment rights, saying the restriction was too broad and impeded on their use of the internet.

In 2021, the high court sided with a high school junior varsity cheerleader in a free speech dispute after she posted curse words on her social media account about not making the varsity team. Her school had suspended her from cheerleading for a year, but the justices said that was unreasonable since her off-campus speech didnt create a disruption in the classroom.

Earlier this year, the court ruled in a case involving a Colorado man who had been convicted of harassing and stalking a musician via social media messages. He argued that the charges ran afoul of his First Amendment rights, and the high court considered if his messages could be deemed true threats. A true threat leads an individual to believe they will actually be harmed and is not given First Amendment protections.

The majority sided with the man and remanded his case to lower courts for further evaluation of the level of intent needed to determine whether a message is a true threat and, thus, not subject to free speech protections.

Its not just individuals who have had digital era wins before the justices: Companies such as YouTube and Google have also secured court victories.

Big Tech has been given significant protections from legal liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which prevents the social media companies from facing lawsuits over content that is posted on their platforms by third parties.

This legal shield was tested last term in a pair of cases in which families of victims of terrorist attacks sued several tech giants arguing they aided and abetted terrorist organizations by allowing them to post graphic content and recruit on their sites.

The justices ruled against the families, saying that any entity or individual must have culpability in participating in a specific attack in order to violate federal anti-terrorism laws

The high court also batted down law enforcements attempts to skirt warrant requirements in using third-party tracking data in a 2018 Fourth Amendment dispute involving a man who was convicted of robbing a series of banks after law enforcement tracked his locations via data from his cellphone company.

The justices reasoned there is a reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment even when it comes to cellphone sites and law enforcement must obtain a warrant to obtain tracking location information.

David Greene, civil liabilities director and attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said the Roberts court could potentially rewrite or change social media law regardless of the justices motivation.

This is where a lot of litigation is happening now at the intersection of technology and law, Mr. Greene said. Its really hard to have First Amendment issues that arent dealing with some sort of tech facilitated communications, so I credit them for doing it. I dont know whether it is something they are doing intentionally or whether it is just a reflection of what is just happening in the courts more broadly.

Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law, said major tech companies keep being brought into litigation because they have significant market power.

In recent years, the court has had a heavy share of social media cases and I think a lot of it turns on this idea of what exactly is this idea of social media are these sort of startup tech companies that should be given latitude, are these important market players who exercise significant power over our discourse or are these even perhaps even almost like utilities, Mr. Blackman said.

At least one member of the high court has recognized they arent necessarily the most tech-savvy crew, despite taking up conflicts centered on the internet. The youngest justice, Amy Coney Barrett, is 51.

Were a court, Justice Elena Kagan said during one of the terrorist victims versus Big Tech cases last term. We really dont know about these things. You know, these are not like the nine greatest experts on the internet.

Mr. Marchese, though, said the justices ages dont matter as they can rely on amicus briefs from tech experts when applying legal reasoning to internet battles, and its important for rulings to be shaped by the law instead of technology.

All of the justices have had extensive careers in the law before they joined the bench, he said.

Correction: A previous version of this story misidentified David Greenes position at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Go here to read the rest:
Digital justice: Supreme Court increasingly confronts law and the internet - Washington Times

On November 8, the Mineral County Sheriffs Office (MCSO), Mineral County School District (MCSD), and Mineral County District Attorneys Office sent out a joint press release responding to recent security events happening at the junior high and high schools.

Firearm ammunition was found in a classroom, causing the police to place the schools on a lockout as they searched lockers, students, and vehicles for any related contraband. During the search, the MCSO found two knives (one found in a car and another on a person) as well as multiple vape pens and a handgun. The handgun was in a car that was borrowed from a family member, and the adult owner of the vehicle was booked on a possession of a dangerous weapon on school property charge and released on a $1,140 bond.

The mother of that student said that her son didnt know the gun was in the car and its frustrating because the bullying problem is still out there. The focus is still on a kid that made an honest mistake, she says, while the bullying problem is still a big issue. She mentions that he has never gotten in trouble and is devastated at facing possible expulsion as well as damaging future job prospects.

Following the incidents, the MCSO, MCSD, and MC District Attorneys Office have implemented a zero-tolerance policy.

Effective immediately, all Sheriffs Office personnel responding to incidents of violence, weapons, or allegations of any violent or weapons-related activity at Mineral County schools, events, properties, or incidents involving juveniles will conduct proactive criminal investigations and pursue criminal charges to the fullest extent of the law, the joint statement reads. The Mineral County District Attorney will file criminal charges for any violent or weapons-related offenses and seek appropriate dispositions that educate, inform, but most importantly protect residents of Mineral County, and especially our youth, from violence, it further states.

Pursuant to NRS 202.265, a weapon on school property is a gross misdemeanor, subject to 364 days in jail, a fine of up to $2,000, or a combination of both, MC District Attorney T. Jaren Stanton later said.

The MCSO will now be conducting additional proactive patrols and walk-throughs before school, at lunchtime, and after school throughout the rest of the school year to enact the policy.

Prior to the November 8 lockout, Mineral County Sheriff Bill Ferguson says that over the years the school district, sheriffs office, and POOL/PACT (Nevada Public Agency Insurance Pool/Public Agency Compensation Trust) have developed plans for the safety of school students and staff in an event that a threat becomes present on campus(es).

We have a presence but unfortunately the whole nation is undermanned when it comes to law enforcement available, Sheriff Ferguson says.

The school lockout was prompted due to the police being called out to a stabbing incident between two juveniles at Lions Park a couple of nights before. A witness on scene told the police that one of the juveniles had a gun. It even goes back farther than that as three weeks ago, an altercation happened at a Hawthorne residence involving the same kids, which resulted with the mother of one of the kids chasing them down the street. One of those juveniles showed up to anothers workplace and threatened him, which led to the stabbing incident at Lions Park.

[The lockout] was the totality of circumstances that led us to where we were at, Ferguson added.

There has also been some talk about protecting students Fourth Amendment rights regarding unreasonable searches and seizures. The U.S. Fourth Amendment specifically reads: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

To this, Ferguson refers to the landmark case of New Jersey v. T.L.O. in which the US Supreme Court established a set of standards about public school officials being able to search students in a school environment without a warrant.

Sheriff Ferguson said that they are leaving it up to the school for how to reprimand the students who were caught with contraband considering they know them better, however, MCSD Superintendent Stephanie Kuehey could not be reached for comment at the time of publication.

View original post here:
MCHS goes on lockout after weapons found on campus - Mineral County Independent-News

In November 2020, 45-year-old Elisabeth Rehn was preparing for a bath when five Seattle police officers broke down her door and streamed into her apartment. She barely had time to throw a coat over herself when she was stormed by the officers, who shouted commands and pointed their guns at her.

However, the officers had no reason to enter Rehn's apartment. According to a lawsuit filed last month, the police had gone to the wrong address. They weren't even in the correct building.

"Even after [police] knew or should have known that they had broken down the door of the wrong apartment, in the wrong building, the Defendants still continued to needlessly search her apartment while Ms. Rehn trembled in fear," the complaint states.

According to The Seattle Times, the officers believed they were responding to a "crisis call" about an intoxicated man who may have been attempting to push someone out of a window. While other first responders were able to reach the correct address, a second group of officers ended up in a different apartment building, where they mistakenly stormed Rehn's apartment.

Body camera footage shows the officers kicking Rehn's door in and rushing into her apartment with guns drawn. The officers are also captured searching through her apartment while Rehn sobs and trembles in fear.

The officers' "actions put Ms. Rehn in mortal fear that she was going to be assaulted or killed in this incident through no fault of her own," reads the complaint. "She was about to take a bath in her own apartment at the time, had disrobed in preparation for getting into her bath and barely had time to throw on a large coat to cover herself before the Defendant officers who entered her apartment shouted commands at her and trained one or more firearms on her."

Rehn's lawsuit argues that the officers' forced entry into her home violated her Fourth Amendment rights and subjected her to "substantial mental and emotional distress, fear for her physical well-being, invasion of privacy, loss of privacy, and other related damages."

This is far from the first time that police have mistakenly stormed into the wrong address. Cops frequently invade homes without properly checking they have the right address, leading to damaged property and terrified residents. Further, tragedy has occurred countless times when police officers have raided the wrong house and ultimately killed an innocent person living there.

While the exact scale of the problem is unclear, between 2017 and 2020, Chicago police alone raided at least 21 wrong addresses. And unfortunately, as is true with most instances of police violence, officers who kill or injure innocent homeowners when they invade the wrong address are usually protected by qualified immunity.

Continued here:
Cops Stormed Into a Seattle Woman's Home. It Was the Wrong ... - Reason