))
Short Circuit 343 | Fourth Amendment Effects
Manage episode 442316959 series 3549279
Treść dostarczona przez Institute for Justice. Cała zawartość podcastów, w tym odcinki, grafika i opisy podcastów, jest przesyłana i udostępniana bezpośrednio przez Institute for Justice lub jego partnera na platformie podcastów. Jeśli uważasz, że ktoś wykorzystuje Twoje dzieło chronione prawem autorskim bez Twojej zgody, możesz postępować zgodnie z procedurą opisaną tutaj https://pl.player.fm/legal.
“Effects” isn’t a word that most people associate with “my stuff” these days. But that’s what it means in the Fourth Amendment. Our “effects” are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures just as much as “person, houses” and “papers.” Unfortunately, the D.C. police don’t agree and have been seizing people’s phones and other items and not giving them back even when they have no intention of prosecuting the property owners. Well, that may be changing because the D.C. Circuit recently issued a major decision recognizing that a “seizure” is ongoing as long as the police have your stuff in their possession. Michael Perloff of the ACLU argued and won the case and he joins us to discuss its ramifications. Several other circuits have gone the other way on the question, making it a prime issue for another court in Washington D.C. Also, Rob Frommer of IJ’s Fourth Amendment Project treats us to a qualified immunity/Fourth Amendment opinion from the Ninth Circuit about someone who was severely injured by foam baton round fired by a police officer. The judges address the extremely odd question of whether an officer gets the benefit of case law getting better for him after he commits a constitutional violation when it comes to qualified immunity. “Um, no” is the Ninth Circuit’s answer, which leads into a discussion of how qualified immunity may be changing.
300 odcinków
Udostępnij
