Do you think wearing on-body cameras on duty should be mandatory?
Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court made the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule binding on the states in the 1961 decision in Mapp v. Ohio, thousands of published decisions from state and federal courts have applied the exclusionary rule to thousands of searches and seizures. It's no wonder the 50-year tidal wave of exclusionary decisions has left confusion and misunderstanding in its wake. Here are five areas of the law that seem to suffer the most in translation.
Some search-and-seizure rules are not very clear, and state and local federal courts might apply them differently. How can you be expected to pick and choose the right rule on an issue for which there doesn't seem to be just one "right" rule?
Two U.S. Supreme Court cases from Florida have clarified the use of police dogs by officers for search vehicles and private properties. Law enforcement appeared to score a victory in Florida v. Harris, in which the court validated a search that resulted in the discovery of narcotics in a vehicle. View our gallery of K-9 vehicle searches. Photos courtesy of Becki and John Johnston/AceK9.com.
Under what circumstances would the Fourth Amendment allow routine collection of DNA samples upon arrest and booking? A recent Supreme Court decision addressed this issue.
A female Texas trooper has been fired and her male partner suspended over a roadside cavity search of a bikini-clad woman in Brazoria County. Read the full story here.
Dash-cam footage shows a Lakeland (Fla.) Police officer requiring a woman to twice shake out her bra during a vehicle stop to prove she didn't have drugs. Read the full story here.