Check out the brand new redesigned Flex Your Rights website, which is so filled with delicious know-your-rights info and advice that it might even make you wanna go out looking for trouble. Of course, the point is not to embolden you (being cocky is a huge mistake), but rather to provide answers that aren’t available elsewhere and help people heal just a little from the pressure and confusion of living in a nation that jails more of its citizens than any other.

So please take a look and share it with friends and family. This is your first -- and sometimes only -- line of defense.

Leading a Liberal-National Party coalition government, Western Australia Premier Colin Barnett is introducing legislation this week to roll back reforms to the state's marijuana laws.

The Texas district attorney accused of participating in an egregious asset forf

The Texas district attorney accused of participating in an egregious asset forfeiture scheme in the East Texas town of Tenaha now wants to use the very cash seized to pay for her legal defense in a federal civil rights lawsuit filed by victims of the practice. The ACLU of Texas, which, along with the national ACLU, is representing the plaintiffs in the case, filed a brief last Friday with the Texas Attorney General's office seeking to block her from doing so.

Lynda Russell is the district attorney in Shelby County, where Tenaha is located. She is accused of participating in a scheme where Tenaha police pulled over mostly African-American motorists without cause, asked them if they were carrying cash, and if they were, threaten them with being immediately jailed for money laundering or other serious crimes unless they signed over their money to authorities.

Representing a number of victims, attorneys from the ACLU of Texas and the ACLU Racial Justice Project filed a civil lawsuit in federal court in June 2008. According to the suit, more than 140 people, almost all of whom were African-American, turned over their assets to police without cause and under duress between June 2006 and June 2008. If a federal judge agrees that assets were in fact illegally seized, they should be returned to their rightful owners, whose civil rights were violated.

In one case, a mixed race couple, Jennifer Boatwright and Ronald Henderson, were stopped by a Tenaha police officer in April 2007. According to the lawsuit, they were stopped without cause, detained for some time without cause, and asked if they were carrying any cash. When they admitted they had slightly more than $6,000, a district attorney's investigator then seized it, threatening them with arrest for money laundering and the loss of their children if they refused to sign off. There was never any evidence they had committed a crime, and they were never charged with a crime.

The town mayor, the DA, the DA's investigator, the town marshal, and a town constable are all named in the lawsuit. While they claim to have acted legally under Texas asset forfeiture law, the lawsuit argues that "although they were taken under color of state law, their actions constitute abuse of authority." The suit argues that the racially discriminatory pattern of stops and searches violated both the Fourth Amendment proscription of warrantless searches and the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause.

While either the county or the state would normally be expected to pony up for the DA's legal expenses for a lawsuit filed as a result of her performance of her duties, neither has done so. That's why Russell—with a tin ear for irony—requested that she be allowed to use the allegedly illegally seized money stolen from motorists. She has asked the state attorney general's office for an opinion on whether using the funds for her defense violates the state's asset forfeiture law.

"It would be completely inappropriate for the district attorney to use assets which are the very subject of litigation charging her with participating in allegedly illegal activity to defend herself against these charges," said Lisa Graybill, legal director at the ACLU of Texas. "Texas has a long history of having its law enforcement officials unconstitutionally target racial minorities in the flawed and failed war on drugs and it is of paramount importance that those officials be held accountable."

"The government must account for the misconduct of officials who operate in its name," said Vanita Gupta, staff attorney with the ACLU Racial Justice Program, who represented African-American residents of Tulia, TX in high-profile litigation challenging their wrongful convictions on drug charges. "The state of Texas has seen egregious examples of racial profiling that result from poor oversight of criminal justice officials."

The ACLU of Texas is using the Tenaha case to push for asset forfeiture reform in the Lone Star State. One such bill stalled in the state legislature this year. "The misuse of asset forfeiture laws by local officials is exacerbated by inadequate oversight," said Matt Simpson, policy strategist for the group. "The legislature must squarely address these reported civil rights violations via reform of forfeiture laws that strengthen protection against unconstitutional conduct and racial profiling."

The Bush administration sold the PATRIOT Act's expansion of law enforcement powers, including "sneak and peek" searches in which the target of the search is not notified that his home has been sear

I hate how easy it is to find new and insane stories of drug war villainy each and every day. Today's episode comes to us by way of Detroit, where a couple young drug cops have become known as the "Booty Boys" due to their thorough approach when searching drug suspects:

Two Detroit cops dogged by accusations of illegal body cavity searches during various traffic stops in 2006 are finally getting their day in court.
…
A civil trial is under way in which Terence Hopkins of Highland Park says he was groped by the officers known on the streets of southwest Detroit as the "Booty Boys."
…
Two other men who sued the cops on similar allegations, Elvis Ware and Marcus Wrack, are expected to testify on Hopkins’ behalf. Both men received small settlements from the city.

The officers have been the focus of eight lawsuits claiming such searches filed by 10 men in U.S. District and Wayne County Circuit courts in Detroit.

Two men, Byron Ogletree and Marjjo Clyburn, with similar allegations against the officers, received payouts from the city two years ago of $349,000 each without filing a lawsuit. [Detroit Free Press]

The officers claim it's all just a conspiracy, but it sure sounds like a lot of different people have the same beef with them. I don't know these cops, but I know the drug war, which makes me a sympathetic audience for claims of excessive anal cavity searches.

This is what happens when you tell police their top priority is to catch people in possession of tiny objects. It's bad enough that our stupid drug laws would ever lead people to hide drugs in their butt. But when police actually begin operating under that assumption, that's just a nightmare for everybody.

Now that the cops' faces are in the paper, I wonder how many more victims will come forward. Moreover, I wonder how many more headlines like this it will take to convince the American public that modern drug enforcement is inherently abusive and disgusting. We've created a monster and there's just no limit whatsoever to the perversion that it unleashes on our streets every hour of the day. As long as these laws exist, as long as police are incentivized to do these unbelievable things, no one will be safe.

Many of our readers are familiar with the widely-viewed film Busted: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters, produced by the organization Flex Your Rights.

The next Flex movie, 10 Rules for Dealing with Police, is set to come out before the end of the year. Filming took place in Baltimore a couple of weeks ago, and it is now in editing. Click here to check out photos; it really is looking pretty nice.

narrated by the famous attorney William "Billy" H. Murphy, Jr.

In a 2-1 decision last Friday, the Alberta Court of Appeals ruled that Calgary police violated Canadian privacy protections when they persuaded a utility company to attach a device to create a record of electricity usage in a home where they suspected marijuana was being grown. The case is Crown vs. Gomboc.

Daniel James Gomboc was arrested and convicted of marijuana cultivation after Calgary police on another call noticed his home showed signs that a marijuana grow was taking place. After spotting suggestive evidence, Calgary police then went to the utility provider Enmax without a warrant and persuaded it to attach a digital recording amp-meter (DRA) to Gomboc's home. The meter monitored Gomboc's power usage for five days, and police used the results to obtain the search warrant that resulted in his arrest and subsequent conviction.

Gomboc appealed his conviction, arguing that the warrantless use of the DRA violated his privacy rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Alberta appeals court agreed, overturning his conviction and ordering a new trial. That new trial will take place without any of the evidence seized under the search warrant based on the DRA information.

"It has been famously said that 'the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation,'" wrote Justice Peter Martin. "The actual prohibition is much broader: in our society, absent exigent circumstances, the state has no business in the homes of the nation without invitation or judicial authorization."

Martin added that the expectation of privacy extends beyond the simple information-gathering on the timing and amount of electricity used to the behavior of utility companies. "It is also objectively reasonable to expect that the utility would not be co-opted by the police to gather additional information of interest only to police," wrote Martin. "Indeed, I expect that the reasonable, informed citizen would be gravely concerned, and
would object to the state being allowed to use a utility to spy on a homeowner in this way."

The decision could be a precedent that will lead to more reversals, Gomboc's attorney, Charlie Stewart, told the Calgary Herald. "It's interesting to think of all the people who have pleaded guilty or been convicted under these circumstances," said Stewart. "It's a question of the legitimacy of the search."

press release from Vote Hemp

New York's Albany County and Albany Medical Center Hospital will pay $125,000 to a New York man who was first strip-searched and then hospitalized and sedated against his will while hospital employ

In the first ruling of its kind, the California 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento held Wednesday that medical marijuana patients and growers can sue police for illegally raiding their prop

Following the Supreme Court's recent decision that school officials violated the 4th Amendment when they strip-searched a 13-year-old girl, another similar lawsuit has been filed and the story is equally sickening:

According to the complaint, the incident began when the bus arrived at the school and two employees boarded it in order to resolve a dispute in which the girls were not involved. The employees "smelled what they thought was marijuana," the complaint states, and five girls seated at the back of the bus, including Gaither and S.C., were detained and searched.
…
During an interrogation that lasted the entire school day, and after being denied repeated requests to call their parents, the girls were required to "remove their shoes and socks, unbuckle their belts, unbutton their pants, and unzip their pants," the complaint says. They also had their "waistlines physically touched and searched" by a male employee while their pants were undone, and were made to "lift up their bras while their shirts remained on and jump up and down."

The searches were all performed behind closed doors and without the presence of police offices or female staff, the suit says. No marijuana was found. [Courthouse News]

The whole thing is so perverse and disturbing, it really ought to be examined in criminal court as well as civil. By the time a group of teenage girls was ordered lift their bras and hop up and down, it wasn't just a drug search anymore. This was something much sicker than that. But you can thank decades of propaganda-fueled marijuana hysteria for creating the environment in which school officials think they can get away with stuff like this.

The US Supreme Court ruled Thursday that school officials who strip searched a 13-year-old Arizona school girl based on an uncorroborated accusation by a classmate that she had previously possessed

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 school officials 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 caselaw 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.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 6/25/09
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

U.S. Supreme Court Declares Strip Search Of 13-Year-Old Student Unconstitutional

Ruling In ACLU Case Is Vindication of Students' Constitutional Rights

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that school officials violated the constitutional rights of a 13-year-old Arizona girl when they strip searched her based on a classmate's uncorroborated accusation that she previously possessed ibuprofen. The American Civil Liberties Union represents April Redding, the plaintiff in the lawsuit, whose daughter, Savana Redding, was strip searched by Safford Middle School officials six years ago.

"We are pleased that the Supreme Court recognized that school officials had no reason to strip search Savana Redding and that the decision to do so was unconstitutional," said Adam Wolf, an attorney with the ACLU who argued the case before the Court. "Today's ruling affirms that schools are not constitutional dead zones. While we are disappointed with the Court's conclusion that the law was not clear before today and therefore school officials were not found liable, at least other students will not have to go through what Savana experienced."

Savana Redding, an eighth grade honor roll student at Safford Middle School in Safford, Arizona, was pulled from class on October 8, 2003 by the school's vice principal, Kerry Wilson. Earlier that day, Wilson had discovered prescription-strength ibuprofen - 400 milligram pills equivalent to two over-the-counter ibuprofen pills, such as Advil - in the possession of Redding's classmate. Under questioning and faced with punishment, the classmate claimed that Redding, who had no history of disciplinary problems, had given her the pills.

After escorting Redding to his office, Wilson demanded that she consent to a search of her possessions. Redding agreed, wanting to prove she had nothing to hide. Wilson did not inform Redding of the reason for the search. Joined by a female school administrative assistant, Wilson searched Redding's backpack and found nothing. Instructed by Wilson, the administrative assistant then took Redding to the school nurse's office in order to perform a strip search.

In the school nurse's office, Redding was ordered to strip to her underwear. She was then commanded to pull her bra out and to the side, exposing her breasts, and to pull her underwear out at the crotch, exposing her pelvic area. The strip search failed to uncover any ibuprofen pills.

"The strip search was the most humiliating experience I have ever had,"
said Redding in a sworn affidavit following the incident. "I held my head down so that they could not see that I was about to cry."

The strip search was undertaken based solely on the uncorroborated claims of the classmate facing punishment. No attempt was made to corroborate the classmate's accusations among other students or teachers. No physical evidence suggested that Redding might be in possession of ibuprofen pills or that she was concealing them in her undergarments.

Furthermore, the classmate had not claimed that Redding currently possessed any pills, nor had the classmate given any indication as to where they might be concealed. No attempt was made to contact Redding's parents prior to conducting the strip search.

In response to today's ruling, Redding said, "I wanted to make sure that no other person would have to go through this, so I am pleased by the Court's decision. I'm glad to have helped make students feel safer in school."

The case, Safford Unified School District v. Redding, was appealed from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which found the strip search to be unconstitutional. A six-judge majority of the appeals court further held that, since the strip search was clearly unreasonable, the school official who ordered the search is not entitled to immunity. In today's Supreme Court decision, despite deeming the strip search of Redding unconstitutional, the Court found that the school officials involved are immune from liability. The decision leaves open the possibility, however, that the Safford Unified School district could be held liable.

"Neither the Constitution nor common sense permits school officials to treat a strip search the same as a locker or backpack search," said Steven R. Shapiro, the ACLU's national Legal Director. "Today's ruling eliminates any confusion that school officials may have had about this seemingly obvious point."

The ACLU and ACLU of Arizona were joined in the case by Bruce Macdonald, with the law firm McNamara, Goldsmith, Jackson & Macdonald, and Andrew Petersen, with the firm Humphrey & Petersen.

In addition, a broad constellation of adolescent health experts and privacy rights advocates filed friend-of-the-court briefs in support of Redding, including the National Education Association, National Association of Social Workers (NASW), CATO Institute, Rutherford Institute, Goldwater Institute and Urban Justice Center, among others.

Today's decision is available online at: www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/search/40031lgl20090625.html

The ACLU's brief in the case is available online at: www.aclu.org/scotus/2008term/saffordunifiedschooldistrictv.redding/39160...

CONTACT: Jennifer Carnig, 212.607.3363 / jcarnig@nyclu.org

NYCLU to School District: Mass Student Search Illegal, Humiliating & Invasive

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

May 28, 2009 – The New York Civil Liberties Union has called on the Red Creek Central School District in upstate New York to publicly apologize to high school students subjected to illegal, humiliating and invasive searches by state police and school officials.

In a letter to Superintendent David Sholes, the NYCLU also urged the district to take steps to prevent invasive searches and protect students’ rights. Students subjected to the April 9 searches were passengers on a school bus parked outside of Red Creek High School. Every student was pulled off the bus and searched.

“This was one of the most humiliating moments of my life,” said 18-year-old graduating senior Stephanie Schultz, who is attending college in the fall. “My school taught me about the Constitution and about my rights, and then pushed them both aside and made me feel like my rights didn’t matter.”

Schultz and at least 17 other students on a Williamson BOCES school bus were removed from the bus in mixed gender pairs and ordered to the Red Creek High School principal’s office by a uniformed state trooper.  In the principal’s office, the students, male and female, were subjected to invasive searches in full view of each other.

Schultz was searched by a female librarian in front of three males – her principal, a police officer and a classmate. Though she asked that she be searched in a room without men, her request was denied. She cried as she was forced to roll down her waistband and expose part of her underwear and buttocks.

“The principal walked out because I was crying so much,” Schultz said. “I knew it wasn’t right what was happening, but there was nothing I could to. I felt helpless and humiliated.”

Nothing was found on the culinary arts student. In fact, the school district did not have suspicion that any of the students searched were engaged in any illegal activity at that time.

“Students must not be stripped of their rights and their dignity at the schoolhouse door,” NYCLU Executive Director Donna Lieberman said. “While drug abuse is a serious matter, it can be addressed without public humiliation. These students are now afraid of their teachers, they are afraid of the police, and they are afraid of what their classmates think of them. They deserve a public apology to ease these fears and restore their reputations.”

The male students were searched by Principal Noel Patterson as a state trooper watched. Female students were searched just a few feet away by a female school employee. Each student was ordered to remove their jacket, shoes and socks, and empty their pockets. Some students were “patted down,” others were asked to lift shirts and undershirts, and one student was asked to remove an outer pair of pants.

“This was humiliating, embarrassing, frustrating and a waste of my time,” said 18-year-old graduating senior and honor roll student Stephanie Forsythe. “Everyone saw me escorted by the police and thought I was arrested. I shouldn’t have had to go through that and I don’t want this to happen to my little siblings.”

According to the district, each student was subjected to a “waistband search,” which in some cases entailed turning down the waistband to reveal parts of their underwear, buttocks and pelvic area, in view of male and female school staff and the male state trooper. Backpacks, purses and other containers were also searched. At least one student was charged criminally and suspended for a year.

The NYCLU maintains that the searches violated the students’ rights under both the U.S. and New York State constitutions. The April 9 searches of the BOCES students were not based on individualized suspicion that any particular student was engaged in illegal behavior at the time of the search. Moreover, even if the school district had adequate ground for a search, the search that was conducted was far more intrusive and humiliating than is constitutionally permissible.

“Educators should know better than to do this to kids,” said Tim Cosser, whose 17-year-old son was searched. “I know they have to keep schools safe, but I don’t understand this. It’s not right. The district needs new guidelines that protect students’ rights.”

In light of the constitutional violations that occurred on April 9, the NYCLU urges the district to take the following steps:

·         Issue a public apology making clear to the community that the vast majority of the students on the bus were guilty of no wrongdoing and acknowledging the illegality of the searches.

·         Revise its policy on student searches to state that no reasonable search may be conducted without individualized suspicion of wrongdoing.  Individualized suspicion must be based on facts known to the official about the particular student that support a belief that a search will uncover evidence of a crime or violation.

·         Clarify and enhance its memorandum of understanding with the New York State Police with the goal of with the goal of creating clear guidelines for police and school officials that protects student rights.

·         Provide all school district employees who may be involved in student searches and interrogations annual training on students’ rights.

The district covers the towns of Butler and Wolcott in Wayne County and the village of Fair Haven and parts of Victory, Sterling and Conquest in Cayuga County.

To read the NYCLU’s full letter, visit http://www.nyclu.org/node/2411.

-xxx-

Under an amendment to South Australia's Controlled Substances Act of 1984 approved last year, police are allowed to use drug-sniffing dogs as part of their

• read full post
• 2 comments

A narrowly divided US Supreme Court Tuesday refused to expand police search powers at the expense of privacy rights, ruling that police cannot search a suspect's vehicle after the suspect has been

The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in Safford Unified School District #1 v.

At age 13, Savana Redding was strip-searched by school officials who suspected her of possessing prescription Ibuprofen. It turned out their information was bad, but they are so proud of what they did that they've defended their actions all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Soon, the right to drug-search young girls' underpants may be firmly enshrined in our jurisprudence, so that the whims of drug hysteria will decide when it's appropriate to do that, rather than some old list of high-minded legal principles.

That this incident even happened is disturbing enough before one tries to come to terms with the fact that the Supreme Court appears likely to uphold the search. Perverts.