Flex Your Rights Hero Savana Redding

Today, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in Safford Unified School District #1 et al v. Redding that school officials violated the 4th Amendment when they strip searched a 13-year-old girl. Savana Redding was subjected to a strip search that included looking inside her underwear after the school principal received a tip that she might be in possession of prescription ibuprofen. None was found.

By a strong majority, the Court declared the search unreasonable under the 4th Amendment, finding that a full strip search was unjustified based on the nature of the drugs and in question and the absence of specific evidence that contraband would be found in her underwear.

Unfortunately, despite upholding the 4th Amendment in this case, the Court left the door wide open for future violations of student rights. The justices agreed by a 7-2 vote that the school officials who carried out the illegal search should not be held liable because the case law was unclear at the time. Now that the central legal issues are settled, similar incidents could invoke liability in the future, but the ruling itself will fail to prohibit such searches in many instances.

By placing heavy emphasis on the negligible threat posed by prescription ibuprofen, the Court implies that a different outcome may have been reached depending on the type of contraband in question. It's possible, for example, that the search would have been upheld if it involved marijuana.

Thus, today's ruling fails to fully clarify the legality of drug searches in schools under many circumstances. It also fails to punish those responsible for degrading an innocent young woman based on flimsy and ultimately false evidence. Hopefully, however, it will at least serve as a reminder to educators that schools are not a 4th Amendment-free zone.

Previous Flex Your Rights coverage of the case can be found here and here.

Check out this fun interview by Adam Mueller from the Motorhome Diaries. I love the contrast between my hyperactive demeanor and the poised Buddha-like Scotty Mo.

Need more proof that video is part of the solution to police misconduct?

When undercover detectives busted Jose and Maximo Colon last year for selling cocaine at a seedy club in Queens, there was a glaring problem: The brothers hadn't done anything wrong.

Lucky for them, the security camera in the club where they supposedly sold cocaine to the detectives that night showed them sitting at the bar the entire time. Never during the 90 minutes the detectives were in the club did the brothers even talk to the detectives.

After being arrested, Jose Colon went directly to the bar and asked the owner for copies of the security tapes.

Jose quickly got the tape to defense attorney Rochelle Berliner, a former narcotics prosecutor. She couldn't believe what she was seeing.

"I almost threw up," she said. "Because I must've prosecuted 1,500, 2,000 drug cases ... and all felonies. And I think back, Oh my God, I believed everything everyone told me. Maybe a handful of times did something not sound right to me. I don't mean to sound overly dramatic but I was like, sick."

If not for video, two innocent men would have likely been sent to prison. Instead, they are free. The crooked cops who framed them will hopefully be sent to prison, and the brothers are set up to receive a huge payout in a civil suit against the NYPD.

Dear Screenplay Editor:

Please click here to download a properly formatted draft screenplay of our next video, 10 Rules for Dealing with Police.

I've raised $100K in production funds and my crew begins shooting in August. I expect to release the DVD this fall.

In the meantime, I request your help to make sure the information we provide is 100% legally accurate and sensible. So any input you could provide during these next few weeks would be extremely valuable and greatly appreciated.

In fact, I'll include in the screen credits the names of all editors who contribute meaningful input.

Thank you for your support!

Steven Silverman
10 Rules Co-writer

P.S. Please email your suggestions to steve[at]flexyourrights[dot]org

Surveillance cameras are great for catching bad guys red-handed. Unfortunately, far too often, the outrageous crimes caught on camera are committed by police officers:

As is common in excessive force cases, the victim received several criminal charges, all of which will likely be dropped in light of the compelling video evidence. Whether the officer responsible for this savage assault will be disciplined remains to be seen, but this story certainly has "major lawsuit" written all over it.

Meanwhile in Florida, the same exact thing happened. The suspect was charged with felony assault on a police officer, until this video surfaced:


Anyone can plainly see that it was the police who were guilty of assault, not the other way around. And worse yet, the prosecutor who dropped the charges couldn’t even bring himself to admit that the guy was innocent:

"We thought based on the facts and the evidence, including the videotape, that there was no reasonable likelihood of conviction at trial," said Lee Cohen, assistant state attorney in charge of misdemeanor cases.

Of course, it shouldn’t be a question of whether or not you can convict him. The guy didn't do anything wrong. The police broke his nose, lied about it, and dragged him through a terrifying six-month legal battle that could have ruined his life. After all that, the only decent thing to do is admit he's innocent, give him the mother of all apologies, and hope he doesn't sue the department for all it's worth.

As video technology grows cheaper and more ubiquitous, examples of gratuitous police brutality, cover-ups and false arrests are emerging routinely. Simultaneously, the web provides an efficient mechanism for exposing such conduct to the public and drawing much-needed attention to patterns of police abuse and misconduct that would otherwise have been known only to the victims. It should go without saying that police are responsible for protecting public safety – as opposed to beating up innocent people – and it's just shameful that it's even necessary to constantly review the tape to make sure our police officers are telling us the truth.

Alas, the real turning point in the fight against police brutality may come not because police culture takes a meaningful stand against misconduct, but rather because it may soon become nearly impossible for police to horribly abuse their power without getting caught on hidden camera.

10 Rules Director Rubin Whitmore II (center)

I'm thrilled to announce our next video, Flex Your Rights: 10 Rules for Dealing with Police (previously titled Street Law), is scheduled for release this fall!

Thanks to a terrific group of individual and foundation givers we've raised $100,000 and are carrying out our vision to produce the most outstanding know-your-rights video ever.

The vision emerged as we traveled the nation teaching (and learning) about the best strategies for dealing with police. We've also made friends with some of the nation's most brilliant legal minds and champions of social justice.

Among them, legendary criminal defense attorney Billy Murphy, Jr. stood out as the natural choice to star as narrator. He's given himself generously to the project and is committed to its success. With a completed budget, a dynamic narrator, and a fast-paced screenplay, the cameras begin rolling this spring!

See Your Name in 10 Rules' Credits!
While $100,000 is a lot of money, it's barely enough to fulfill our vision. Our current budget allows us three shoot days for four scenes -- giving us zero margin of error. Your additional support can allow us to hire the production crew for four shoot days (or one day per scene). This will allow us to capture more takes to create more lifelike scenarios, so we can avoid cutting back on quality or essential lessons.

If you donate $100 to 10 Rules between now and production time, your name will appear in the screen credits! For each additional $100 you may add a friend or family member's name too... So invite your whole family to become part of what's destined to become the freedomtastic film of the millennium!

To help build the production fund and get your name in the credits, click here to donate. Or you can write a check to Flex Your Rights and enter "10 Rules" in the notes section. Of course smaller donations are greatly appreciated too.

Thanks for helping us bring 10 Rules into your community, living room and computer screen!

He's no longer a threat to the officer

For many years, the Supreme Court has permitted police to search the passenger compartment of a vehicle any time an occupant of the car is arrested. These so-called "searches incident to arrest" were authorized in New York v. Belton (1981) based in large part on concerns about officer safety, namely that the suspect might dive for a weapon hidden in the car. As a result, police have grown accustomed to searching vehicles for "safety reasons" even after the suspect has been taken into custody. This doesn't protect officers, but it certainly encourages police to make more arrests so they can do more searches.

Well, that's finally going to change. The Supreme Court ruled today in Arizona v. Gant that vehicle searches following an arrest are legal only if the suspect has access to the vehicle or if officers reasonably believe the vehicle contains evidence related to that arrest. In other words, police are now required to have an actual reason to justify the vehicle search, instead of being allowed to do it automatically. This decision restores some much needed logic and common sense to the way many warrantless vehicle searches are analyzed under the 4th Amendment.

We've long been concerned about the ability of police to use arrests for minor crimes as a way of overriding a citizen's refusal of consent. Since many states (and Supreme court precedent) allow officers to perform a full arrest for certain traffic offenses, we've often worried that police could sometimes strong-arm their way into a vehicle by arresting the driver for a traffic violation instead of just writing a ticket. Today's ruling in Gant, however, creates an obstacle to these types of "pretext arrests," because traffic violations are observed infractions for which relevant evidence will not be contained in the vehicle. In that sense, the ruling will likely result in some extra protection for citizens who exercise 4th Amendment rights during a traffic stop.

Beyond the basic legal issues at hand, the case has additional symbolic significance because it truly affects every officer on the street. Every cop is trained to search vehicles automatically after making an arrest, and now every officer will have to learn a new, more nuanced, policy on car searches that is designed to protect individual rights. With today's ruling, the Supreme Court sends an important message to law enforcement that the 4th Amendment still means something in America.

This story has been circulating around the web and is generating some media attention as well:



Obviously, this is a deeply troubling example of a worst-case outcome for a citizen who asserted constitutional rights during a police encounter. Given that our mission is to help people understand and assert these rights, we regret that events like this happen as often as they do.

Fortunately, the internet itself has become a useful tool not only for educating the public about their rights, but also for exposing police who violate the constitutional rights of the people they're supposed to protect. Some might say Steven Anderson's experience is an example of how police just do whatever they want. Yet Steven Anderson is exactly the type of brave citizen whose decision to assert his rights could ultimately have a meaningful impact.

It is precisely because too many police officers continue to recklessly disregard the basic rights of innocent people that we must make sure all citizens have the tools to confidently assert their rights if they choose to do so. This incident will likely culminate in a high-profile lawsuit that could change the way similar situations are handled in the future. If it weren't for Anderson's decision to flex his rights, there's no question that the officers he encountered would be out there right now abusing other people, instead of being investigated for civil rights violations.

Protecting Yourself at Police Checkpoints

Inside-the-border checkpoints like the one Anderson encountered are dubious in their legality and rely heavily on coercion. Although you are not technically obligated to answer any questions or agree to a search, officers will generally expect you to comply and will usually become aggressive if you don’t cooperate. If you choose to flex your rights in this situation, do so politely and don't be surprised if the situation escalates.

If officers ask to search your vehicle and you refuse, they can legally conduct a dog-sniff of the outside of your vehicle (provided that a dog is present at the scene). If the dog indicates that there is contraband in your vehicle, that creates probable cause for officers to conduct a search. Unfortunately, officers sometimes falsely claim that the dog has detected contraband so that they can perform a search legally. In this situation, state clearly that you don't agree to the search, but do not resist. You can challenge the search later.

If you feel that your rights were violated, don't say anything to the officers. Write everything down as soon as possible and contact an attorney. Click here for more on responding to police misconduct.

The TSA got more than they bargained for when they detained Steve Bierfeldt, a staffer at Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty. They wanted to know why he was carrying $4,700 and he wanted to know whether he was legally obligated to tell them. Fortunately, he was able to record the incident on his phone. This FOX News clip has the audio:



All he did was ask what his rights are in this situation and they start cursing and threatening to call in the DEA. It's ridiculous. There are an infinite number of perfectly legitimate reasons why someone might travel with cash (in this case, the money came from selling merchandise at a conference).

Bierfeldt made it perfectly clear that he would answer the question if the law required him to do so. He wanted to know his rights and there's no excuse for public officials refusing to help a citizen understand the law, especially when the individual has been detained for allegedly suspicious activity.

Fortunately, TSA has now acknowledged that their staff handled the situation badly:

The tone and language used by the TSA employee was inappropriate. TSA holds its employees to the highest professional standards. TSA will continue to investigate this matter and take appropriate action.

This provides yet another example of the potency of recorded evidence towards exposing questionable behavior by public officials. Without the recording, I highly doubt Bierfeldt could have convincingly demonstrated the rudeness to which he was subjected.

Hopefully, TSA will do more than just remind its employees not to curse and insult people. All government officials should be trained to give an honest and helpful response when citizens ask questions about the law.

I wrote recently about the pending Supreme Court case stemming from the strip search of a 13 year-old student. School officials suspected Savana Redding of possessing prescription ibuprofen, so they searched from head to toe, including her underwear. Nothing was found.

Along with highlighting some interesting legal issues, the case reveals a great deal about the general lack of respect for students' rights that is all too common in our schools. This passage in the New York Times caught my attention:

"They didn’t even look at my records," she said. "They didn’t even know I was a good kid."

The school district does not contest that Ms. Redding had no disciplinary record, but says that is irrelevant.

"Her assertion should not be misread to infer that she never broke school rules," the district said of Ms. Redding in a brief, "only that she was never caught."

That is just a disgustingly cynical and unfair attempt to rationalize mistreating an innocent young woman. To insinuate that Redding may have engaged in other conduct violations that went undiscovered is absurd. It's irrelevant, unsubstantiated, and inappropriate.

This is really the perfect window into the mindset of the abusive authoritarian who, when concerned, insists that their victim must have done something to deserve it.