Quantcast The Rotunda
College Media Network

The Rotunda

LoginRegister

Open Forum Causes Students to Assess Basic Amendment Rights

Issue date: 4/29/09 Section: News
  • Print
  • Email
By Jillian Beuschel
Rotunda Reporter

After the recent decision of the Farmville Town Council to hire an investigator to assess the police department, many have realized that what they are confused about their basic amendment rights.

Junior Amy Bogozi attended the open forum that was held on Thursday, April 2. Afterward she said, "I didn't realize how much the Farmville police were getting over on us because we really don't know the law."

During the forum, junior Kevin Goolsby complained of officers obtaining individual keys to their rooms inside their house and then the officer entering without a search warrant. According to the United States Constitution, the officer entered without a warrant violated the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that every person has the right to "due process of law." This means that everyone is entitled to a fair procedure. Goolsby should have been presented with a search warrant. If he did not give consent to the search, then the officers could not have come in unless they had a good reason to be suspicious or they felt they were in danger. In this instance, according to public.findlaw.com, "the officers could search you and your immediate surrounding but they that does not include going upstairs or in other rooms." Since none of these circumstances seemed to be the case in this instance, Goolsby was robbed of his Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Junior Cameron Ring made a complaint during the open forum, that a Farmville cop pulled over a designated driver's car and made everyone get out of the car, breathalyzed them, and gave them all tickets even though they were being safe by having a ride. Although this sounds terrible, the police officer was not doing anything wrong. According to encyclopedia.com, as long as the officer was suspicious or felt in danger they are covered under the Supreme Court ruling 7-2 which says that, "the need to protect police officers' safety justifies the 'minimal' intrusion on a passenger's rights."
Page 1 of 2 next >

Article Tools

Be the first to comment on this story

  • NOTE: Email address will not be published

Type your comment below (html not allowed)

  I understand posting spam or other comments that are unrelated to this article will cause my comment to be flagged for deletion and possibly cause my IP address to be permanently banned from this server.

Issue Summary

Advertisement

Poll

Should the SGA conduct a 'new' election?
Submit Vote

View Results

Advertisement