DOCSLIB.ORG

Seattle Police Department

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Seattle Police Department Seattle Police Department Policy and Procedure Manual Seattle Police Department Audit, Accreditation and Policy Section Building Address: 610 Fifth Avenue Mailing Address: PO Box 34986 Seattle, WA 98124-4986 (206) 684-4116 Fax (206) 684-4112 An Accredited Law Enforcement Agency Originally Published 12/2000 Revised 1/2/2008 http://www.cityofseattle.net/police/ Table of Contents Title I - Administration Chapter Title Date 1.000 Department Mission Statement &Priorities 7/22/02 1.001 General Information & Definitions 3/1/97 1.003 Standards & Duties 06/01/06 1.005 Authority & Jurisdiction 3/11/02 1.010 Unbiased Policing 01/28/04 1.013 Appointments, Probation & Evaluations 05/10/05 1.014 Special Recruit Program 4/15/02 1.017 Appointment of Civilian Personnel 1/16/02 1.025 Resignations & Separations 01/05/05 1.030 Supervisor/Employee Relationships 7/14/03 1.033 Employee Political Activity 4/9/02 1.037 Chain of Command 3/27/03 1.041 Functional Structure & Command of the Department 6/9/04 1.045a Unit Number Assignment 12/17/07 1.045 Organizational Structure & Unit Assignment Numbers 1/10/06 1.049 Organization and Function: - Chief of Police 6/25/04 1.049A Organization and Function: - Operations 6/25/04 1.049B Organization and Function: - Administration 6/25/04 1.057 Budget 6/30/03 1.061 Inspections 5/10/02 1.065 Media Relations 10/4/01 1.069 Criminal Case Testimony 4/19/02 1.073 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 7/1/96 1.077 Reasonable Accommodation (ADA) 1/16/02 1.085 Workplace Safety 7/14/03 1.087 Early Intervention System (EIS) 10/18/06 1.089 Alcohol & Substance Use 4/9/02 1.097 Collection of Information For Law Enforcement Purposes 7/1/96 1.101 Informant Management 3/25/02 1.105 Mutual Assistance 7/1/96 1.109 University of Washington 7/1/96 1.113 Use of Non-SPD Canines 4/19/02 1.117 Public & Internal Complaint Process 10/18/06 1.125 EEO Complaints & Investigations 1/29/02 1.129 Harassment in the Workplace 7/1/96 1.131 Employee Involvement Committees & JLMC 08/09/04 1.132 Collective Bargaining & Contract Management 03/27/03 1.133 Grievances 5/10/02 1.137 Civil Actions 10/10/02 1.141 Vehicle Pursuits 8/13/03 1.145 Use of Force 1/31/06 1.147 Hazard Reports 05/16/05 1.153 Firearms 2/18/04 1.155 Department Firearms Management 2/18/04 1.157 Firearms in the King County Courthouse 2/25/02 1.159 Holster 12/28/05 1.165 Shotgun Safety 7/1/96 - i - Table of Contents Title I - Administration Chapter Title Date 1.166 Rifle Policies & Safety 07/28/04 1.173 Full Restraint Position 7/1/96 1.177 Employee Dress Standards 12/08/03 1.185 Uniforms & Equipment (Police Officer) 3/15/06 1.185a Uniform Illustrations 6/9/04 1.193 Uniform & Equipment Reimbursement 3/5/02 1.197 Care and Use of City Equipment & Property 2/18/04 1.201 Use of Department Vehicles 2/18/04 1.203 Specialty Vehicles & Equipment 8/19/03 1.205 Collisions Involving City Vehicles 12/21/03 1.209 Driver Training Accidents 3/21/02 1.213 Use of Private Vehicles for City Business 7/1/96 1.217 Parking at Department Facilities 1/28/04 1.221 Physical Security of Police Facilities 1/28/04 1.222 Precinct Trusty Protocol 7/10/01 1.225 Telephone & Facsimile Machine Use 7/1/96 1.229 Timekeeping 10/28/03 1.233 Holiday Schedule & Vacation Time Accrual 7/1/96 1.237 Absence From Duty 7/1/96 1.239 Restricted Time Off 1/11/02 1.241 Overtime 9/5/01 1.245 Court Appearances & Overtime 9/16/99 1.249 Out of Classification 7/1/96 1.253 Physical Fitness 9/10/01 1.257 Illness and Injury 05/13/05 1.265 Exposure Control - General Information 4/14/04 1.265a Exposure Control - Bodily Fluids 7/1/96 1.265b Exposure Control - TB/Airborne Pathogens 6/30/03 1.265c Post Exposure Procedures - Bodily Fluid/Airborne 7/1/96 1.269 Limited-Duty Assignments 8/26/02 1.273 Family & Medical Leave 7/1/96 1.277 Pregnancy 3/25/02 1.281 Military Leave 7/1/96 1.285 Leave of Absence 1/16/02 1.289 Secondary Employment 3/6/02 1.292 Training Review Committee 8/19/03 1.293 Education & Travel Expenses 12/08/03 1.294 Pre-Service, In-Servce & Specialized Training 8/19/03 1.297 Collision Review Board 7/1/96 1.305 Firearms Review Board 1/24/02 1.309 Firearms Qualification Review Board 3/25/02 1.311 Employee Recognition Awards Program 6/1/99 1.313 Personnel Assistance Committee 10/4/01 1.317 Police Charity Committee 1/29/02 1.319 Coordinating Officer Fatalities 7/1/96 1.321 Honor Guard 3/5/02 1.321a Honoring Those Killed in the Line of Duty 7/1/96 - ii - Table of Contents Title I - Administration Chapter Title Date 1.324 Department Forms Control 9/12/02 1.325 Department Publications 3/27/03 1.329 Departmental Correspondence 3/30/03 1.333 Department Records Access, Inspection & Dissemination 6/9/04 1.337 Criminal Records 4/21/06 1.341 Records Inventory, Retention & Disposal 7/1/96 1.345 Computer Software 7/1/96 1.346 Computer Hardware and Devices 12/04/06 1.347 Mobile Reporting Entity (MRE) Laptops 12/12/07 1.349 Use of Department E-mail & Internet Systems 3/27/03 1.352 Citizen Rider Program 2/10/06 1.354 In-Car Video 8/13/07 - iii - Table of Contents Title II - Operational Procedures Chapter Title Date 2.001 Arrest Procedures 10/20/03 2.005 Booking Procedures 3/25/02 2.009 Tickets - General 3/27/03 2.010 Terry Stops & Arrests 5/10/02 2.013 Juvenile Investigations & Arrests 7/14/03 2.017 Warrant Arrests 7/14/03 2.021 Citizen Arrests 11/13/01 2.025 Retail Theft Program 3/25/02 2.029 Task Force Mobilization 7/1/96 2.031 Unusual Occcurrences 10/20/99 2.035 Extraordnary Street Closures 3/15/02 2.037 Prisoner Handling & Transport 3/1/97 2.038 Interview & Interrogation Rooms 10/1/07 2.039 Detainee Management 10/31/06 2.041 Guarding Hospitalized Prisoners 07/15/04 2.045 Physical Evidence 3/25/02 2.049 Evidence / Private Property Collection & Release 09/07/04 2.051 Film, Polaroid, Digital & Video Imaging 3/27/03 2.053 Firearms as Evidence 7/25/02 2.057 Submitting Cash as Evidence 5/30/03 2.059 Converting Property/Evidence for Departmental Use 6/6/2006 2.061 Investigatory Holds of Vehicles 3/25/02 2.065 Vehicle Evidence & Seizures 3/25/02 2.071 Narcotics & Firearms Evidence Released for Training Canines 6/15/04 2.073 Communications 6/30/03 2.075 Policing by Mountain Bike 4/10/02 2.077 Emergency Vehicle Operations 8/13/03 2.081 Traffic Enforcement 8/13/03 2.082 Traffic Direction & Control 6/30/03 2.089 Impounding Vehicles 3/25/02 2.093 Stolen Vehicles 7/1/96 2.097 False Alarm Response 7/1/96 2.101 Animal Control 3/25/02 2.105 Bomb Threats & Explosive Devices 3/30/04 2.109 Hazardous Conditions 7/1/96 2.113 Fish & Game Enforcement 7/1/96 2.117 Police Action on Military Reservations 7/1/96 2.121 Arrests and Detentions of Foreign Nationals 3/25/02 2.122 Foreign Nationals Seeking Asylum 10/25/99 2.125 Public Urination & Defecation 10/10/02 2.129 Unlawful Possession of Liquor 10/10/02 2.133 Street Vendors 7/1/96 2.137 Death Notifications 06/30/03 - iv - Table of Contents Title III - Preliminary Investigations Chapter Title Date 3.005 Miranda Warnings 3/11/02 3.009 Interpreters / Translators 7/1/96 3.013 Recordings 7/1/96 3.017 Searches - General 7/1/96 3.019 Service of Search Warrants Outside of City 4/19/02 3.021 Strip Searches 10/10/02 3.025 Body Cavity Searches 7/1/96 3.029 Primary Investigations 7/1/96 3.031 Domestic Violence Firearms 4/18/05 3.033 Fingerprints 3/27/03 3.037 Serious Incident Plan 3/17/04 3.038 After-Action Reports 1/10/02 3.039 Death Investigation (Non-Traffic) 5/14/01 3.040 Officer Discharge of Firearm 12/08/03 3.041 Serious Injury or Fatality to Officer 7/1/96 3.043 Follow-up Unit Notification & Follow-up Investigation 5/14/04 3.045 Collision Investigations 10/28/03 3.049 Boating Accidents 3/1/97 3.053 Arson Investigations 6/22/01 3.054 Fireworks Disposal & Disposition 8/30/01 3.057 Adult Entertainment 7/1/96 3.061 Alley Closures 2/14/02 3.065 Breath and Blood Alcohol Content Tests 7/1/96 3.069 Child Welfare 08/09/04 3.073 Children in Dangerous Circumstances 7/1/96 3.077 Criminal Trespass 6/17/02 3.085 DUI Investigations 02/11/04 3.093 Kidnapping 7/1/96 3.097 Malicious Harassment 6/22/01 3.101 Missing Persons 10/20/03 3.105 Sick & Injured Persons 7/1/96 3.109 Narcotics 3/1/97 3.113 Stay Out Of Drug Areas (SODA)-Defined/Boundaries 7/1/96 3.117 Stay Out of Areas of Prostitution (SOAP) 7/1/96 3.125 Unlawful Signs 7/1/96 3.126 Disorderly Conduct on a Bus or in a Bus Stop 7/26/07 - v - Law Enforcement Code of Ethics The Seattle Police Department Law Enforcement Code of Ethics As a Law Enforcement Officer, my fundamental duty is to serve humanity; to safeguard lives and property; to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression or intimidation, and the peaceful against violence or disorder; and to respect the Constitutional right of all people to liberty, equality and justice.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Section 7: Criminal Offense, Criminal Responsibility, and Commission of a Criminal Offense
    63 Section 7: Criminal Offense, Criminal Responsibility, and Commission of a Criminal Offense Article 15: Criminal Offense A criminal offense is an unlawful act: (a) that is prescribed as a criminal offense by law; (b) whose characteristics are specified by law; and (c) for which a penalty is prescribed by law. Commentary This provision reiterates some of the aspects of the principle of legality and others relating to the purposes and limits of criminal legislation. Reference should be made to Article 2 (“Purpose and Limits of Criminal Legislation”) and Article 3 (“Principle of Legality”) and their accompanying commentaries. Article 16: Criminal Responsibility A person who commits a criminal offense is criminally responsible if: (a) he or she commits a criminal offense, as defined under Article 15, with intention, recklessness, or negligence as defined in Article 18; IOP573A_ModelCodes_Part1.indd 63 6/25/07 10:13:18 AM 64 • General Part, Section (b) no lawful justification exists under Articles 20–22 of the MCC for the commission of the criminal offense; (c) there are no grounds excluding criminal responsibility for the commission of the criminal offense under Articles 2–26 of the MCC; and (d) there are no other statutorily defined grounds excluding criminal responsibility. Commentary When a person is found criminally responsible for the commission of a criminal offense, he or she can be convicted of this offense, and a penalty or penalties may be imposed upon him or her as provided for in the MCC. Article 16 lays down the elements required for a finding of criminal responsibility against a person.
    [Show full text]
  • A Federal Criminal Case Timeline
    A Federal Criminal Case Timeline The following timeline is a very broad overview of the progress of a federal felony case. Many variables can change the speed or course of the case, including settlement negotiations and changes in law. This timeline, however, will hold true in the majority of federal felony cases in the Eastern District of Virginia. Initial appearance: Felony defendants are usually brought to federal court in the custody of federal agents. Usually, the charges against the defendant are in a criminal complaint. The criminal complaint is accompanied by an affidavit that summarizes the evidence against the defendant. At the defendant's first appearance, a defendant appears before a federal magistrate judge. This magistrate judge will preside over the first two or three appearances, but the case will ultimately be referred to a federal district court judge (more on district judges below). The prosecutor appearing for the government is called an "Assistant United States Attorney," or "AUSA." There are no District Attorney's or "DAs" in federal court. The public defender is often called the Assistant Federal Public Defender, or an "AFPD." When a defendant first appears before a magistrate judge, he or she is informed of certain constitutional rights, such as the right to remain silent. The defendant is then asked if her or she can afford counsel. If a defendant cannot afford to hire counsel, he or she is instructed to fill out a financial affidavit. This affidavit is then submitted to the magistrate judge, and, if the defendant qualifies, a public defender or CJA panel counsel is appointed.
    [Show full text]
  • Nvcc College-Wide Course Content Summary Lgl 218 - Criminal Law (3 Cr.)
    NVCC COLLEGE-WIDE COURSE CONTENT SUMMARY LGL 218 - CRIMINAL LAW (3 CR.) COURSE DESCRIPTION Focuses on major crimes, including their classification, elements of proof, intent, conspiracy, responsibility, parties, and defenses. Emphasizes Virginia law. May include general principles of applicable Constitutional law and criminal procedure. Lecture 3 hours per week. GENERAL COURSE PURPOSE This course is designed to introduce the student to the various substantive and procedural areas of criminal law. ENTRY LEVEL COMPETENCIES Although there are no prerequisites for this course, proficiency (at the high school level) in spoken and written English is recommended for its successful completion. COURSE OBJECTIVES Upon completion of this course, the student should be able to: - describe the structure of the criminal justice system - describe the elements of various federal and Virginia state crimes - understand the ways in which a person can become a party to a crime - describe the elements of various affirmative defenses to federal and Virginia state crimes - understand the basic structure of the law governing arrest, search and seizure, and recognize Constitutional issues posed in these areas - describe the stages of criminal proceedings, in both federal and state courts, and assist a prosecutor or defense lawyer at each stage of such proceedings MAJOR TOPICS TO BE INCLUDED - crimes versus moral wrongs - felonies vs. misdemeanors - criminal capacity - actus reas, mens rea and causation - elements of various federal and Virginia state crimes - inchoate crimes: attempt, solicitation, and conspiracy - parties to a crime - affirmative defenses - insanity - probable cause - arrest, with and without a warrant - search and seizure, with and without a warrant - grand jury indictments - bail and pretrial release - pretrial proceedings - steps of trial and appeal EXTRA TOPICS WHICH MAY BE INCLUDED - purposes of criminal law and punishment - sentencing, probation and parole - special issues posed by mental illness - special issues posed by the death penalty .
    [Show full text]
  • Access to Justice for Children: Mexico
    ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR CHILDREN: MEXICO This report was produced by White & Case LLP in November 2013 but may have been subsequently edited by Child Rights International Network (CRIN). CRIN takes full responsibility for any errors or inaccuracies in the report. I. What is the legal status of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)? ​ A. What is the status of the CRC and other relevant ratified international instruments in the national legal system? ​ The CRC was signed by Mexico on 26 January 1990, ratified on 21 November 1990, and published in the Federal Official Gazette (Diario Oficial de la Federación) on 25 ​ ​ January 1991. In addition to the CRC, Mexico has ratified the Optional Protocols relating to the involvement of children in armed conflict and the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. All treaties signed by the President of Mexico, with the approval of the Senate, are deemed to constitute the supreme law of Mexico, together with the Constitution and the laws of the Congress of the Union.1 The CRC is therefore part of national law and may serve as a legal basis in any proceedings before the national courts. It is also part of the supreme law of Mexico as a whole and must be implemented at federal level and in all the individual states.2 B. Does the CRC take precedence over national law The CRC has been interpreted to take precedence over national laws, but not the Constitution. According to doctrinal thesis LXXVII/99 of November 1999, international treaties are ranked second immediately after the Constitution and ahead of federal and local laws.3 On several occasions, Mexico’s Supreme Court has stated that international ​ treaties take precedence over national law, mainly in the case of human rights.4 C.
    [Show full text]
  • Guilt, Dangerousness and Liability in the Era of Pre-Crime
    Please cite as: Getoš Kalac, A.M. (2020): Guilt, Dangerousness and Liability in the Era of Pre-Crime – the Role of Criminology? Conference Paper presented at the 2019 biannual conference of the Scientific Association of German, Austrian and Swiss Criminologists (KrimG) in Vienna. Forthcoming in: Neue Kriminologische Schriftenreihe der Kriminologischen Gesellschaft e.V., vol. 118, Mönchengladbach: Forum Verlag Godesberg. Guilt, Dangerousness and Liability in the Era of Pre-Crime – the Role of Criminology? To Adapt, or to Die, that is the Question!1 Anna-Maria Getoš Kalac Abstract: There is no doubt that, in terms of criminal policy, we have been living in an era of pre-crime for quite some time now. Whether we like it or not, times have changed and so has the general position on concepts of (criminal) guilt, dangerousness and liability. Whereas once there was a broad consensus that penal repression, at least in principle, should be executed in a strictly post-crime fashion, nowadays same consensus has been reached on trading freedom (from penal repression) for (promised) security, long before an ‘actual crime’ might even be committed. In this regard the criminalisation of endangerment and risks only nomotechnically solves the issue of ‘actual’ vs. ‘potential’ crimes – in essence it merely creates a normative fiction of pre-crime crimes, whereas in reality ‘actual crimes’ do not exist at all. The starting point of criminalisation has clearly shifted away from the guilt of having committed a crime, to the mere dangerousness of potentially committing a crime, which potential as such is purely hypothetical and beyond the grasp of empirical proof.
    [Show full text]
  • The United States Supreme Court Adopts a Reasonable Juvenile Standard in J.D.B. V. North Carolina
    THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT ADOPTS A REASONABLE JUVENILE STANDARD IN J.D.B. V NORTH CAROLINA FOR PURPOSES OF THE MIRANDA CUSTODY ANALYSIS: CAN A MORE REASONED JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR JUVENILES BE FAR BEHIND? Marsha L. Levick and Elizabeth-Ann Tierney∗ I. Introduction II. The Reasonable Person Standard a. Background b. The Reasonable Person Standard and Children: Kids Are Different III. Roper v. Simmons and Graham v. Florida: Embedding Developmental Research Into the Court’s Constitutional Analysis IV. From Miranda v. Arizona to J.D.B. v. North Carolina V. J.D.B. v. North Carolina: The Facts and The Analysis VI. Reasonableness Applied: Justifications, Defenses, and Excuses a. Duress Defenses b. Justified Use of Force c. Provocation d. Negligent Homicide e. Felony Murder VII. Conclusion I. Introduction The “reasonable person” in American law is as familiar to us as an old shoe. We slip it on without thinking; we know its shape, style, color, and size without looking. Beginning with our first-year law school classes in torts and criminal law, we understand that the reasonable person provides a measure of liability and responsibility in our legal system.1 She informs our * ∗Marsha L. Levick is the Deputy Director and Chief Counsel for Juvenile Law Center, a national public interest law firm for children, based in Philadelphia, Pa., which Ms. Levick co-founded in 1975. Ms. Levick is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania and Temple University School of Law. Elizabeth-Ann “LT” Tierney is the 2011 Sol and Helen Zubrow Fellow in Children's Law at the Juvenile Law Center.
    [Show full text]
  • A Content Analysis of Crimes Posted on Social Media Platforms Abstract I. Introduction
    82 — Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communications, Vol. 9, No. 1 • Spring 2018 A Content Analysis of Crimes Posted on Social Media Platforms Alessandra Brainard Strategic Communications Elon University Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements in an undergraduate senior capstone course in communications Abstract With an increasing rate of violent crimes across the country as well as an uptick in crime in the news, perpetrators have turned to social media to gain attention, posting their crimes online. This study analyzed the motives of individuals who post their crimes on social media. By incorporating Sigmund Freud’s theories on guilt and utilizing a narrative criticism of testimony, the findings demonstrate a lack of remorse and guilt on the part of criminals who conduct unlawful acts, such as drunk driving, gang rape, and murder. The study concluded that the rationale behind committing the crime and posting evidence of the illegal activities on social media outlets stems from the drive of human beings to be recognized by others in their environment and social media communities. I. Introduction Historical Context With a skyrocketing presence of violent crimes across the country as well as an increase in crime in the news, perpetrators are turning to social media to gain attention by posting their crimes on social media platforms. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report showed an increase in violent crime in 38 out of 50 states in 2016 (FBI, 2016). Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who has attempted to raise awareness around this issue, has declared, “The Department of Justice is committed to working with our state, local, and tribal partners across the country to deter violent crime, dismantle criminal organizations and gangs, stop the scourge of drug trafficking, and send a strong message to criminals that we will not surrender our communities to lawlessness and violence” (The United States Department of Justice, 2017).
    [Show full text]
  • The Police Response to Homelessness
    CRITICAL ISSUES IN POLICING SERIES The Police Response to Homelessness CRITICAL ISSUES IN POLICING SERIES The Police Response to Homelessness June 2018 This publication was supported by the Motorola Solutions Foundation. The points of view expressed herein are the authors’ and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the Motorola Solutions Foundation or all Police Executive Research Forum members. Police Executive Research Forum, Washington, D.C. 20036 Copyright © 2018 by Police Executive Research Forum All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America ISBN: 978-1-934485-43-9 Graphic design by Dave Williams. Text photos by Sarah Mostyn, PERF. Cover photo credits, from upper left, clockwise: • NYPD Officer Lawrence DePrimo offers a new pair of boots he purchased for a homeless man. Photo by Jennifer Foster. • Hillsborough County, FL Sheriff’s Deputy Linda Ruggerio shares her lunch with a young homeless man. Photo by Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office. • Miami Beach, FL police officers deliver mosquito repellent to community members. Photo by Valerie Navarrete. • Santa Cruz, CA police officers conducting a survey of homeless persons in order to gather information and direct individuals to services. Photo by Santa Cruz Police Dept. • Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office deputies and employees of Safe Harbor, a homeless shelter and jail diversion created by the Sheriff’s Office. See pp. 12-13 of this report. Photo by PCSO. Contents Acknowledgments .....................................................................................................1 The Police Response to Homelessness: Problem-Solving, Innovation, and Partnerships ....................... 3 By Chuck Wexler Sidebar: Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office Opens a $2.3 Million Facility to Help Homeless Persons ...................................................................................12 What We Know About Homelessness .....................................
    [Show full text]
  • CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM GLOSSARY of TERMS Arraignment
    CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM GLOSSARY OF TERMS Arraignment: The court hearing in which the defendant is formally charged with a crime and enters a plea of guilty or not guilty. Bail: An amount of money which is sometimes imposed by the court to ensure the defendant’s appearance at future court hearings. A defendant held in custody is required to post bail in order to be released. Bail can be posted either at court or at the House of Correction. Bail Hearing: A hearing to determine whether or not an incarcerated defendant or convicted offender will be released from custody and to determine what amount (if any) he/she must pay as a bond to assure his/her presence at future proceedings (e.g., trial). This may also include specific conditions of bail, e.g., no contact with the victim or witness, must attend treatment programs, etc. Continuance: A delay or postponement of a court hearing. CORI report: Criminal Offender Record Information report prepared by the state Criminal History Systems Board. A CORI report includes the history of each criminal charge, from pre‐trial through court proceedings through sentencing. Default: A defendant's failure to appear at a required legal proceeding. Defendant: A person formally charged with a crime. Disposition: What happened with your case. Felony: A crime punishable by incarceration in the state prison for a period of years. Grand Jury: A group of 23 people that hear evidence presented by a prosecutor to determine if a formal criminal charge (indictment) shall be issued in a case. Misdemeanor: A crime punishable by a fine or incarceration in the House of Correction for a maximum of 2 1/2 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Bail Reform Revisited: the Impact of New York's Amended Bail Law On
    Bail Reform Revisited The Impact of New York’s Amended Bail Law on Pretrial Detention By Michael Rempel and Krystal Rodriguez Bail Reform Revisited: The Impact of New York’s Amended Bail Law on Pretrial Detention By Michael Rempel and Krystal Rodriguez © May 2020 Center for Court Innovation 520 Eighth Avenue, 18th Floor New York, New York 10018 646.386.3100 fax 212.397.0985 www.courtinnovation.org For correspondence, please contact Michael Rempel ([email protected]) or Krystal Rodriguez ([email protected]) at the Center for Court Innovation. Acknowledgements We would like to express our profound gratitude to a range of partners across New York who came together to forge an understanding of how New York’s bail statute has been amended and its significance for the future use of money bail and pretrial detention statewide. We are especially indebted to Alex Rhodd and Vincent Ciaccio at the Legal Aid Society who read and coded more than 600 case files of people charged with burglary in the second degree to help us estimate the significant, yet elusive, changes in the handling of this common charge. We thank Scott Levy at The Bronx Defenders who conducted a similar analysis in the Bronx. Also at the Legal Aid Society, we thank Marie Ndiaye for her valuable comments on an earlier draft. At the New York City Council, we benefited from the timely leadership of Brian Crow and Maxwell Kampfner-Williams, who organized an early multi-agency working session on April 3 and continued to offer suggestions and guidance in the days and weeks that followed.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Justice Terms & Definitions
    Criminal Justice Terms & Definitions Arraignment - A hearing in which the defendant is formally charged and can plead either guilty, not guilty or no contest. In felony cases, an arraignment follows a preliminary hearing. Bind over - At the time of the preliminary hearing, if the judge finds there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed a crime, the defendant is ordered to stand trial. Criminal Complaint - A formal charging document, filed by the District Attorney, setting forth the charge(s) and facts of an alleged crime. Defendant – The person charged with a criminal offense. This is the person alleged to have committed a particular crime. Dismissal - The charge or charges against the defendant are dismissed. No conviction. District Attorney - Under state law, the prosecuting attorney who represents the state in each county. Assistant District Attorney - An attorney who acts on the District Attorney's behalf. Felony - A crime that is punishable by confinement in a state prison for a term exceeding one year. Information - A charging document that is filed with the Court after the preliminary hearing. This document formally charges the defendant. Initial Appearance - A defendant's first appearance in court. The court advises the defendant of the charge(s), penalties, rights and sets bond. In felony cases, a date is often set for a preliminary hearing. In misdemeanor cases, the initial appearance is also the arraignment and, often times, the defendant will enter a plea. Misdemeanor - A crime that is punishable by confinement to a county jail for one year or less and/or a fine. Motions - Court hearings held to answer legal questions.
    [Show full text]
  • FIRST SECTION CASE of ZALYAN and OTHERS V. ARMENIA
    FIRST SECTION CASE OF ZALYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA (Applications nos. 36894/04 and 3521/07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 17 March 2016 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. ZALYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Zalyan and Others v. Armenia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, President, Ledi Bianku, Kristina Pardalos, Aleš Pejchal, Robert Spano, Pauliine Koskelo, judges, Siranush Sahakyan, ad hoc judge, and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 23 February 2016, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in two applications (nos. 36894/04 and 3521/07) against the Republic of Armenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by three Armenian nationals, Mr Arayik Zalyan (“the first applicant”), Mr Razmik Sargsyan (“the second applicant”) and Mr Musa Serobyan (“the third applicant”) (jointly “the applicants”), on 23 September 2004 by the first applicant and 9 November 2006 by all three applicants jointly. 2. The applicants were represented by Mr H. Alumyan and Mr S. Voskanyan, lawyers practising in Yerevan. The Armenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr G. Kostanyan, Representative of the Republic of Armenia at the European Court of Human Rights. 3. The applicants alleged, in particular, that they had been subjected to torture during the period from 19 to 23 April 2004 and there had been no effective investigation into their allegations of ill-treatment.
    [Show full text]