POLICE OFFICERS TODAY ALLOWED MORE FREEDOM

You should always be aware of your rights. Everyone has rights, from a
newborn who has just drawn its first breath, to an elderly grandmother.

You must also be aware that your rights are limited.

If a police officer pulls you over on the highway for having a taillight
out, he can write you a citation. He may then ask if he can take a look
inside your car. What do you do?

Even though you may have nothing to hide, you can allow the officer to take
a look through your vehicle ... or you can politely refuse. That is your
right. If it is an inconvenience, then it is your right to say "no." It is
also the officer's right to detain you.

Many people assume that they must comply with the police officer's request,
but according to the Supreme Court the officer is not required to tell you
you're free to go. This is a trend toward broader police discretion.

We agree that the officer should retain control of the situation, but it is
also the matter of courtesy and common sense. If there is good reason to
suspect that a motorist may be violating the law, then the officer is
justified in asking to search the vehicle.

Fictional television shows have long influenced people's perceptions of the
criminal justice system, and what rights they have in dealing with the
system. Today's shows, like "Law and Order," "Family Law," "Judging Amy"
and others are well researched and keep the viewer informed of the legal
process.

The shows of 15 to 20 years ago focused on the Miranda rule, which was
established in 1966. How many television detectives have you heard say,
"Read him his rights"? A confession obtained without the suspect's signing
a waiver of rights, was often thrown out, because the courts would presume
that the confession was coerced.

In the final three decades of the 20th century, the Supreme Court has
become more relaxed in applying the Miranda rule ... relinquishing more
control to law enforcement officers.

The fourth amendment has been challenged recently in a number of
well-documented cases, and law enforcement usually wins. A Texas mother was
stopped, because her children were not wearing seat belts. She was
handcuffed and taken into police custody.

She challenged the case to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the fourth
amendment doesn't prevent police from making a full custodial arrest for a
very minor criminal offense.

Some states prevent officers from taking an individual into custody for a
minor offense, which leaves the law in limbo. This emphasizes that an
officer must use common sense in his discretion as to whether the violation
is a serious offense ... or a petty matter.

The court has also ruled that it doesn't matter what an officer's
motivation is for stopping someone, and further, that if a stop results in
a custodial arrest the officer may search the entire passenger compartment,
including closed containers such as purses and briefcases belonging to
passengers.

This leads to claims of "pretext arrest" -- stopping someone for a minor
offense, in order to search the vehicle.

Today's police officers are better educated, more professional, and have
the advantage of high technology in providing security for our citizens.
For that reason, many law enforcement officials make the argument that they
should have more freedom ... and no longer need as many controls.

We have no problem with increasing the limits of responsibilities for our
law enforcement officers. But their burden also increases to protect our
rights that remain.