Tim Connolly notes, re: the St. Paul police settlement:
>At a minimum, there ought to have been provision for a
>signed document saying the person searched understood
>their rights and voluntarily consented to a search.
I'm another one of the media jackals reporting on St. Paul's deal, so I will
refrain from taking sides on Tim's post.
For everyone's info, though:
In Minneapolis, since 1997, citizens who are asked to undergo consent
searches must sign a three-page form. St. Paul has required no notice until
the most recent agreement. The experts I spoke to in the wake of St. Paul's
deal are divided on whether a verbal warning, or written consent, provides a
better check on police intimidation.
Also, FYI: the California Highway Department is apparently the first in the
nation to ban consent (non-probable cause) searches. They are currently in
the midst of a six-month trial. A few city police departments require the
written consent form; St. Paul's is the first to offer a "verbal Miranda"
(though Minneapolis chief Olson says his officers also ask permission
verbally.)
Also, at least a couple of law professors who have studied the topic told me
that the most significant thing St. Paul is doing is setting up official
complaint intake centers within minority organizations. Complainants still
have to go through the current civilian-police review process, but the
centers should reduce the intimidation factor for those who don't want to
deal with government first.
David Brauer
King Field - Ward 10
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
