I watched it; I loved it; it’s right on the law, and everybody should see it.
— Judge Napolitano on 10 Rules for Dealing with Police
In case you haven’t seen it yet, Flex board of advisors member and LEAP Executive Director Neill Franklin had a terrific piece in the Huffington Post last week discussing the proper way to handle police encounters.
Here are some choice bits.
What few people understand, but police know all too well, is that your constitutional rights only apply if you understand and assert them. Unless they have strong evidence (i.e. probable cause) police need your permission to search your belongings or enter your home. The instant you grant them permission to invade your privacy, many of your legal protections go out the window and you’re left on the hook for anything illegal the police find, as well as any damage they cause in the process.
Of course, even if you know your basic rights, police officers are trained to shake your confidence. If you refuse a search, I might respond by threatening to call in a drug-sniffing dog and sternly reminding you that things will go much easier if you cooperate. Creating a sense of hopelessness for the suspect enables us to break down their defenses and gain compliance. In the film, we show several variations on these common threats, but the main lesson is that it doesn’t matter what the officer says; you still have to remain calm and protect your rights.
Luckily for us, Neill’s article became a big hit around the web, bringing in a flood of orders and emails from folks who hadn’t heard about Flex Your Rights before.
That’s what one student said after attending a screening of 10 Rules for Dealing With Police at West Virginia University. After another showing at Quinipac University in Connecticut, a student commented that, "I didn’t think I had the right to refuse." We hear that reaction all the time, and that’s why know-your-rights events like these are so important.
It’s been less than a year since we released 10 Rules for Dealing With Police, so this Fall semester has been our first opportunity to really begin debuting the film on college campuses. Groups like Students for Sensible Drug Policy and Students for Liberty have done an amazing job putting together events across the country, and we’ve recently partnered with NAACP, which should create lots of great opportunities as well.
Of course, you don’t have to be a student, or a lawyer, or an experienced activist to help educate your friends and family about how to deal with police. We’ve put together a helpful guide for anyone who wants to organize a know-your-rights event in their community. It’s easier than you think, and just one event can empower dozens, even hundreds, of people to protect their rights during police encounters.
In our last alert I mentioned that Columbia, MO police Chief Ken Burton has been using 10 Rules for Dealing with Police to educate the public about constitutional rights.
I also recently participated in an NPR affiliate interview with Chief Burton and policing expert David A. Harris. It’s an in-depth look at problems in modern policing — including some great discussion of SWAT raids, police accountability, racial profiling, and the importance of know-your-rights education.
We’ve come a long way since our first video was released on VHS tape. What began as an effort to educate activists is now influencing entire police departments to be mindful of citizens’ constitutional rights.
That’s how Crawford County State’s Attorney Tom Wiseman justifies his decision to bring five felony charges against an Illinois man who recorded an encounter with police officers. As the debate over the right to record police heats up, I’ve often found myself wondering how on earth anyone in law-enforcement could justify arresting citizens simply for recording video of a public encounter.
Alas, this piece by Radley Balko answers my question and it isn’t pretty. Imagine my surprise to find the same folks who coined the phrase, "If you’ve got nothing to hide, then what are you worried about?" suddenly claiming a right to privacy after videos of police misconduct began springing up all over the web.
The 200-member audience was mostly high school and college-aged, and I couldn’t have hoped for a better reception. The video got an enthusiastic round of applause. More importantly, everyone stayed for the Q&A, which went beyond the allotted hour.
Before the screening, I asked if anyone had received any kind of know-your-rights training. Only a handful raised their hands. But afterward, their new knowledge inspired sophisticated questions covering Miranda rights, PATRIOT Act, videotaping police and more.
Ta-Nehisi Coates at The Atlantic comments on a recent incident in which a 57-year-old school-teacher was tased after calling police to report a prowler.
New York Times reports on a section of Brooklyn that’s become a focal point for NYPD’s out-of-control stop and frisk tactics. “These encounters amounted to nearly one stop a year for every one of the 14,000 residents of these blocks.” Yikes.
The controversy over last year’s arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates is back in the press following the release of a new police report investigating the incident. Interestingly, the findings don’t really address the issue of race, which is surprising given the role that racial tension played in the encounter and subsequent debate.
NPR had a great piece last week on the right of citizens to videotape police, featuring Radley and Carlos Miller. USA Today also has an excellent editorial defending the pratice of recording officers in public.
You and I are well-trained to refuse certain police requests. But when I was approached by Columbia, MO Police Chief Ken Burton the other month, I was happy to consent.
The Chief called to ask my permission to use 10 Rules for Dealing with Police as part of a department-backed public education campaign to inform the public of their rights. Enthusiastically, I said yes.
Within weeks, a new report was released showing that in 2009 black motorists in Columbia were 127% more likely to be stopped than white motorists. At a public forum hosted by NAACP and other groups concerned about racial profiling, Chief Burton put 10 Rules to work.
The Columbia Daily Tribune editorialized in favor of the event, specifically citing 10 Rules.
State NAACP President Mary Ratliff called the video “a powerful teaching tool for both sides” and urged its wide distribution.
This is quite a coming-together. Ratliff has been critical of police in their confrontations with black people, and police have defended themselves in standoffs typically without a mutually agreeable resolution. The video gives both sides a way to communicate outside the context of a traumatic incident and might help subjects avoid trouble with the police.
The police department deserves credit for taking action to bridge the understanding gap, and Ratliff deserves similar credit for responding positively. This is a big deal, and I commend both parties.
Let’s follow Chief Burton and Mary Ratliff’s lead! If you or someone you know has a friendly relationship with your local police chief, why not give them a 10 Rules DVD a copy of the Daily Tribune editorial?
Let’s create hundreds of police-led screenings across the country!
This video of a police officer punching a young woman is generating a lot of discussion around the web:
Unlike most viral videos of police using force against a suspect, this one seems to be generating a considerable amount of sympathy for the officer involved. Even on sites like Digg.com with a history of exposing and condemning police brutality, a majority of commenters feel that the officer acted more or less appropriately under the circumstances.
Since we can't see what took place prior to the video footage, it's impossible to completely critique the officer's handling of the situation. But it's clear that the woman who was struck had shoved the officer in an attempt to help her friend resist arrest. Though hard to watch, I doubt the officer's actions were technically illegal under the circumstances. He'd been assaulted, and police are authorized to use force when that happens.
I think I agree with Radley Balko that the officer should never have let a jaywalking arrest escalate to this point, but there's a reasonable counter-argument that police shouldn’t let uncooperative suspects off the hook simply to avoid a conflict. Flex Your Rights teaches passive non-cooperation such as remaining silent and refusing to consent to searches, and we strongly discourage physically resisting police during a detention or arrest.
The punch was ugly and unnecessary, but the behavior of the suspects here was also completely out of control. Even the most unreasonable arrest is better resolved by pleading your case to the judge than wrestling the officer on the street. You can't win that way, and there's no limit to how badly you could be hurt. … Continued
The Supreme Court ruled today in Berghuis v. Thompkins that a criminal suspect must specifically invoke the right against self-incrimination in order for constitutional protections to apply.
The case centered around the interrogation of murder suspect Van Chester Thompkins, who remained virtually silent for hours, before giving a few brief responses to police questions. Most significantly, Thompkins answered “yes” when asked, “Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?” The statement was introduced at trial and Thompkins was convicted.
In a 5-4 ruling, the Court held that criminal suspects who do not clearly state their intention to remain silent are presumed to have waived their 5th Amendment rights. Ironically, suspects must literally open their mouths and speak in order for their silence to be legally protected. The new rule will defer to police in cases where the suspect fails to unambiguously assert their right to remain silent.
Naturally, Flex Your Rights is concerned about any retreat from the basic principle that criminal suspects should not be compelled or coerced into incriminating themselves. Today’s ruling will undoubtedly create additional challenges for suspects who already understand too little about how their constitutional rights apply during police interrogations.
Fortunately, however, the Berghuis decision leaves intact the best strategy for handling any police interrogation: keeping your mouth shut. Requiring suspects with limited legal knowledge to clearly assert their rights may seem a bit strict, but it’s irrelevant if the suspect never says a word to begin with. The point of the 5th Amendment isn’t to protect you after you’ve foolishly incriminated yourself, it’s to remind you that you’re not obligated to answer police questions in the first place.
Ultimately, the burden is on each of us to understand our rights and use that information to make the best decisions. It’s unlikely that any Supreme Court decision will ever change the fact that remaining silent is your best and only strategy if police are asking you incriminating questions. … Continued