DOCSLIB.ORG

MDTA Police Directives Will Be Amended Directives Recently Issued During Roll Call

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
MDTA Police Directives Will Be Amended Directives Recently Issued During Roll Call Mission: The Maryland Transportation Authority (MDTA) Police provides Safety, Security and Service in partnership with the community to all who use and work on MDTA facilities and other vital transportation assets located throughout Maryland. Vision: The MDTA Police will provide transparent, dedicated, professional law enforcement services, in partnership with the citizens that use Maryland’s premier transportation assets. The men and women of the MDTA Police will be held to the highest standards in the law enforcement profession and will uphold our core values of Dedication, Integrity, Mindfulness, Pride, and Service. We will ensure a safe and secure workplace for our co-workers and a safe and secure environment for the public. We will promote a culture of inclusivity through compassion, selfless service, and mindfulness. Core Values: Dedication Commitment to providing fair and equitable treatment to every individual we serve, to include our fellow co-workers Integrity Honest and ethical treatment of all people while holding ourselves and each other accountable in order to ensure the public's trust Mindfulness Attentive to experiences occurring in the present moment without judgement Pride Portraying the agency in a positive manner while conducting ourselves with honor and professionalism Service Unwavering, compassionate service to the public and the community through thoughtful and diligent execution of our duties Goals: Secure Transportation Infrastructures Promote Highway Safety and the Efficient Flow of Traffic Deter and Interdict Criminal Activity and Homeland Security Threats Assist and Educate Customers and Co-Workers with Compassion and Pride Employ, Train, Equip, and Develop a Model Workforce that is Diverse, Healthy, and Mindful Colonel Kevin M. Anderson Chief, Maryland Transportation Authority Police MARYLAND TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY POLICE DIRECTIVES MANUAL TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 Organization & Administration Chapter 2 Direction Chapter 3 Law Enforcement Role & Authority Chapter 4 Agency Jurisdiction & Memorandums of Understanding Chapter 5 Compensation, Benefits & Conditions of Employment Chapter 6 Fiscal Management & Agency Owned Equipment Chapter 7 Communications Chapter 8 Records Chapter 9 Public Information Chapter 10 Code of Conduct & Disciplinary Procedures Chapter 11 Uniforms, Equipment & Grooming Standards Chapter 12 Performance Evaluation & Personnel Early Warning System Chapter 13 Grievance Procedures Chapter 14 Recruitment & Selection Chapter 15 Training & Career Development Chapter 16 Patrol Chapter 17 Traffic Chapter 18 Arrest Procedures Chapter 19 Juvenile Operations Chapter 20 Use of Force & Weapons Qualification Chapter 21 Temporary Detention Facilities & Prisoner Transportation Chapter 22 Collection & Preservation of Evidence Chapter 23 Property & Evidence Control Chapter 24 Search & Seizure Chapter 25 Asset Forfeiture Chapter 26 Criminal Investigation, Intelligence & Crime Analysis Chapter 27 Victim/Witness Assistance Chapter 28 Mobilization & Emergency Operations Chapter 29 Inspectional Services Chapter 30 Specialized Units Chapter 31 Employee Awards & Promotions Chapter 1 – Organization & Administration Directives Manual Revision Date: 08/07/2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE Section I – The Chief of Police…..…………………………………………………………………..……1 This section describes the organizational structure and the components of the Office of the Chief. Section II – Bureaus/Divisions…………………..……………………………..........................................2 This section describes the components of the MDTA Police Divisions. Section III – The Chain of Command and General Management………………..................................6 This section describes the order of rank, chain of command, span of control, temporary and specialized assignments, and job classifications. Section IV – Goals, Objectives, and Planning………………………………...…………………………8 This section describes the requirements for components when setting goals and objectives, the multi–year plan, and the planning and research function. Section V – Detachment Coordinators………………………………………………………………….10 This section gives an overview of all detachment/unit coordinator duties. 1 Chapter 1 – Organization & Administration Directives Manual Revision Date: 08/07/2020 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Section I - The Chief of Police discussions to resolve cases and present those cases before a hearing board convened pursuant to the LEOBR. 1. The Structure 2.4 Division Commanders - Division Commanders are 1.1 The organization structure is designed so that each appointed by the Chief of Police and report directly to the component is under the direct command of only one appropriate Bureau Chief. supervisor or commander. 1.2 A detailed and updated organizational chart will be available to all personnel on the intranet. 2. Office of the Chief of Police 2.1 Chief of Police - The Chief of Police is responsible for the oversight of all functions of MDTA Police and representing the agency throughout the State government and to the public. 2.2 Chief’s Executive Officer - The Chief’s Executive Officer is appointed by the Chief of Police and supervises the daily administrative functions of the Office. The Executive Officer supervises the PIO and the Security and Emergency Management Unit. 2.2.1 Public Information Unit - Public Information Officers (PIO) coordinate with the MDTA Director of Communications to distribute authorized information to the media and the public. 2.2.2 Security and Emergency Management Unit - The Security and Emergency Management Unit is responsible for maintaining and monitoring MDTA facility security at MDTA buildings throughout the state, to include access control systems, intrusion detection devices and Closed-Captioned Television Cameras (CCTV). The Unit is also responsible for conducting Fire Safety Drills at all MDTA Buildings and assisting all MDTA Police detachments with preparing and conducting tabletop exercises throughout the year. The Unit also updates the Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP), provides New Employee Orientation, provides Homeland Security “See Something, Say Something,” provides Active Shooter video training, and processes ID/Access Badges for all new employees. 2.3 Legal Advisor - Staffed by an Assistant Attorney General for the State of Maryland. The Legal Advisor provides guidance on policies and Federal, State, and local laws. The Legal Advisor serves as the Director of Administrative Hearings. The Legal Advisor will oversee all investigations, review any misconduct charges, act as the representative of the Chief of Police in settlement ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2 Chapter 1 – Organization & Administration Directives Manual Revision Date: 08/07/2020 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Section II - Bureaus 3.2.3.1.1 Polygraph Unit - The Polygraph Unit consists of certified polygraph examiners. The Administrative Bureau Polygraph unit conducts criminal, background, and internal polygraph examinations. 1. Administrative Bureau - The Administrative Bureau Chief is normally a Lieutenant Colonel that is responsible 4. Logistics Division for the supervision of the Support Services Division, Logistics Division, and the Internal Affairs Unit. 4.1 The Commander of the Logistics Division is normally a major that is responsible for the supervision of 2. Internal Affairs Unit - The Commander of the Internal the Logistics Operation’s Officer and the Commander of Affairs Unit is normally a Captain who supervises the unit Communications. and conducts internal investigations regarding allegations of misconduct against sworn MDTA Police employees. 4.2 The Operations Officer is normally a Captain responsible for the supervision of Fleet, Electronic 3. Support Services Division Enforcement Unit, Information and Technology Unit, Central Records Unit, Property & Evidence Unit. 3.1 The Commander of the Support Services Division Quartermaster Unit and Facilities Management. is normally a Major that is responsible for the supervision of the Budget and Planning Command. 4.2.1 Fleet Coordinator - The Fleet Coordinator is responsible for assigning and coordinating 3.2. Budget & Planning Command - The Commander of maintenance for all MDTA Police vehicles. The Fleet the Budget & Planning Command is normally a Captain Coordinator is the liaison with the MDTA Fleet responsible for supervising the Human Resources Unit, Coordinator. Accreditation Unit, Training Unit, and Budget and Grants Manager. 4.2.1.1 Electronic Enforcement Unit - Enforces chronic violations of the EZ-Pass system, as well 3.2.1 Human Resources Unit - The Commander of as reviews and approves Automated Speed the Human Resources Unit is normally a Lieutenant Enforcement (ASE) citations. that is responsible for the supervision of Human Resources personnel assigned to the MDTA Police, 4.2.2 Information Technology Law Enforcement acts as a liaison between non-sworn employees and Unit - The Information Technology Law Enforcement the MDTA Human Resources Office and oversees the Unit works in cooperation with the MDTA Division of MDTA Police Promotional Process. Information Technology to maintain programs involving computers and other police technology. 3.2.2. Accreditation Unit - The Commander of the Accreditation Unit is normally a Lieutenant that is 4.2.3 Central Records Unit - The Director of Central responsible
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fourth Amendment Litigation
    Still the American Frontier: Fourth Amendment Litigation Deja Vishny September 2012 United States Constitution: The Fourth Amendment 1 Wisconsin State Constitution Article 1 Sec. 11 The Exclusionary Rule The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine Attenuation Inevitable Discovery Independent Source Other exceptions to the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine Applicability of the Fourth Amendment: The Expectation of Privacy Cars Sample list of areas the court has found to private and non-private. Deemed Non-Private: Standing & Overnight Guests Searches by Private Parties Requirement of Search Warrant Determination of probable cause Definition of the Home: Curtilage Permissible scope of search warrants Plain View Good Faith Knock and Announce Challenging Search Warrants Permissible warrantless entries and searches in homes and businesses Exception: Search Incident to Arrest Exception: Protective Sweep Exception: Plain View Exception: Exigent Circumstances : The Emergency Doctrine Exception: Exigent Circumstances: Hot Pursuit Exception: Imminent Destruction of Evidence Warrantless searches without entry Consent Searches Who may consent to entry and searches of the home Scope of consent Seizures of Persons: The Terry Doctrine Defining a Seizure Permissible Length of Temporary Seizures Permissible reasons for a Seizure: 2 Seizures bases on anonymous tips Seizures on Public Transportation Requests for Identification Roadblocks: Reasonable Suspicion: Frisk of Suspects Scope of Terry Frisk Seizures of Property Arrest Probable Cause for Arrest Warrantless
    [Show full text]
  • Submission to the Senior Salaries Review Body January 2016
    The National Police Chiefs’ Council Submission to the Senior Salaries Review Body January 2016 1 NPCC submission to the Police Remuneration Review Body 2016 Contents Contents……………………………………………………………………………………2 Executive Summary The Policing Landscape……………………………………………………………….....4 1. Operational Context…………………………………………………………………7 1.1. Recorded Crime 1.2. The Changing Risk 1.3. National Threats 1.4. The Terrorist Threat 1.5. Demand on the Police 1.6. Summary of Operational Findings 2. Organisational Context……………………………………………………………. 14 2.1. National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) 2.2. National Design Advisory Group (NDAG) 2.3. Structural Reform and Specialist Capabilities 2.4. Police Efficiency 2.5. Summary of Organisational Findings 3. The Financial Context……………………………………………………………....17 3.1. Summary of Financial Findings 4. The Workforce………………………………………………………………………. 20 4.1. The Workforce Context 4.2. Gender 4.3. Ethnicity 4.4. Recruitment 4.5. Entry Routes into Policing 4.6. Leavers 4.7. Severance 4.8. Attendance 4.9. Morale 4.10. Wellbeing 4.11. Summary of Workforce Findings 5. Workforce Reform………………………………………………………………….. 33 5.1. Future options for Change 5.2. Update on Winsor Reform 5.3. Reforming the Powers of Police Staff and Volunteers 5.4. Enabling Closer Working Between the Emergency Services 5.5. Policing Education Qualification Framework (PEQF) 5.6. College of Policing Leadership Review 5.7. Workforce Futures 5.8. Pension Changes 5.9. Tax Changes 5.10. Home Secretary’s Direction in the PRRB Remit Letter for 2016/17 5.11. Summary of Workforce Reform Findings 6. 2016 Proposals……………………………………………………………………… 40 6.1. Pay Proposals 2 NPCC submission to the Police Remuneration Review Body 2016 6.2.
    [Show full text]
  • Policy Guidance on Support to Policing in Developing Countries
    POLICY GUIDANCE ON SUPPORT TO POLICING IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES Ian Clegg, Robert Hunt and Jim Whetton November 2000 Centre for Development Studies University of Wales, Swansea Swansea SA2 8PP [email protected] http://www.swansea.ac.uk/cds ISBN 0 906250 617 Policy Guidance on Support to Policing in Developing Countries ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We are grateful for the support of the Department for International Development, (DFID), London, who funded this work for the benefit of developing/ transitional countries. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily of DFID. It was initially submitted to DFID in November 1999 as a contribution to their policy deliberations on Safety, Security and Accessible Justice. It is now being published more widely in order to make it available to countries and agencies wishing to strengthen programmes in this field. At the same time, DFID are publishing their general policy statement on SSAJ, (DFID, 2000). Our work contributes to the background material for that statement. We are also most grateful to the authors of the specially commissioned papers included as Annexes to this report, and to the police advisers and technical cooperation officers who contributed to the survey reported in Annex B. It will be obvious in the text how much we are indebted to them all. This report is the joint responsibility of the three authors. However, Ian Clegg and Jim Whetton of CDS, University of Wales, Swansea, would like to express personal thanks to co-author Robert Hunt, OBE, QPM, former Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, London, for contributing his immense practical experience of policing and for analysing the survey reported in Annex B.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case for Searches on Public Transportation
    3 THE CASE FOR SEARCHES ON PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION By Jocelyn Waite Attorney Reno, Nevada 2. Focus I. INTRODUCTION The balance of the Introduction presents the histori- cal background and context for the possible need for A. Statement of the Problem transit authorities to conduct searches and briefly ad- dresses the legal background and context: basic Fourth Due to increased concerns about security, transit Amendment3 requirements, particularly the warrant agencies—of their own volition or at the request of fed- and individualized suspicion requirements, and the eral, state, or local governments—may seek to institute exceptions to those requirements. However, the primary search procedures analogous to those done in airports to focus for legal analysis of security screening is on the ensure that explosives, biological weapons, etc., do not exceptions to the warrant and individualized suspicion enter the transit system. While security screenings are requirements. Therefore, the main body of the paper routine in airports, they have to date been rare in the discusses the categories of warrantless searches that 1 transit environment. Given their open nature, their provide likely legal models for analyzing transit high volume of traffic, and the type of trips taken on searches,4 most notably cases involving airport security them, transit systems present a very different security screening and other types of entry screening. After re- environment than airports. These differences give rise viewing the applicable legal authority, the paper pre-
    [Show full text]
  • Police-Media Relations
    0EASTHAMPTON POLICE Department Manual: DEPARTMENT Policy No. 1.08 Subject: Searches & Seizures MASSACHUSETTS POLICE ACCREDITATION GENERAL ORDER STANDARDS REFERENCED: 1.2.4, a, b, c, d, e, f, g; 74.3.1 M.G.L. Chapter 276 Section 2D (12/21/20) Issue Date: 01-17- Issuing Authority 2021 Robert J. Alberti Effective Date: 01- Robert J. Alberti 27-2021 Chief of Police I. General Considerations and Guidelines: The term “searches and seizures” includes the examination of persons or places for the discovery of contraband, property stolen or otherwise unlawfully obtained or held, or of evidence of the commission of crime, and the taking into legal custody of such property or evidence for presentation to the court. Failure to comply with the legal technicalities which govern these procedures results in more failures to obtain convictions than any other source. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to require that, whenever possible and practicable, with certain limited exceptions, a police officer should always obtain a valid search warrant in advance.1 The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides as follows: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Page 1 Article XIV of the Massachusetts Constitution provides as follows: Every subject has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches, and seizures, of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions.
    [Show full text]
  • Title 3 – Tribal Court Chapter 3 – Rules of Criminal Procedure
    Title 3 – Tribal Court Chapter 3 – Rules of Criminal Procedure Sec. 3-03.010 Title 3-03.020 Authority 3-03.030 Purpose and Scope 3-03.040 Definitions 3-03.050 Time Computation 3-03.060 Assistance from State and Federal Agencies Subchapter I - Complaints 3-03.070 Form of Complaint 3-03.080 Time of Complaint 3-03.090 Tolling of Time for Complaint 3-03.100 Amendments to Complaints Subchapter II - Arrests, Summons and Warrants 3-03.110 Cause for Arrests 3-03.120 Arrest Warrants or Summons Upon Complaint 3-03.130 Notification of Rights Subchapter III - Search Warrants 3-03.140 Who May Issue 3-03.150 Probable Cause 3-03.160 Content and Service 3-03.170 Effective Date of Search Warrant 3-03.180 Search and Seizure 3-03.190 Disposition of Seized Property Subchapter IV - Probable Cause Hearing & Arraignments 3-03.200 Bail or Bond - Release Before Trial 3-03.210 Procedure Following Warrantless Arrest 3-03.215 Right to Counsel 3-03.220 Commitment and Arraignment 3-03.230 Receipt of Plea 3-03.240 Copy of Complaint and/or Citation and Order on Release 3-03.250 Withdrawal of Guilty Plea Subchapter V - Disclosure of Information and Discovery 3-03.260 Prosecutor's Obligations 3-03.270 Defendant's Obligations 3-03.280 Additional Disclosures 3-03.290 Matters Not Subject to Disclosure 3-03.300 Regulation of Discovery 3-03.310 Depositions Title 3, Chapter 3 Page 1 Subchapter VI - Pretrial Proceedings 3-03.320 Confession Procedure 3-03.330 Pretrial Motion Procedure Subchapter VII - Speedy Trial 3-03.340 Speedy and Public Trial 3-03.350 Length of Time SubchapterVIII
    [Show full text]
  • Chief Constables' Council Minutes
    Chief Constables' Council Minutes Wednesday 11 – Thursday 12 July 2018, London Security classification: Official Authors: Susan Paterson, Richard Hampson, Ben Gasson and Richard Cooper Force/organisation: National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) Date created 17 July 2018 Attendees CC Sara Thornton NPCC Chair DCC Sarah Crew Avon and Somerset CC Alec Wood Cambridgeshire A/CC Janette McCormick Cheshire Commissioner Ian Dyson City of London CC Mike Veale Cleveland DCC Mark Webster Cumbria CC Peter Goodman Derbyshire CC Shaun Sawyer Devon and Cornwall CC James Vaughan Dorset CC Mike Barton Durham DCC Darren Davies Dyfed-Powys CC Stephen Kavanagh Essex CC Rod Hansen Gloucestershire DCC Ian Pilling Greater Manchester ACC Rhiannon Kirk Gwent DCC Sara Glen Hampshire CC Charlie Hall Hertfordshire DCC Chris Rowley Humberside CC Andrew Rhodes Lancashire CC Simon Cole Leicestershire DCC Craig Naylor Lincolnshire CC Andy Cooke Merseyside Cmsr Cressida Dick Metropolitan Police Service AC Neil Basu Metropolitan Police Service AC Helen Ball Metropolitan Police Service AC Martin Hewitt Metropolitan Police Service CC Mark Polin North Wales CC Simon Edens Northamptonshire National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) 1st Floor, 10 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0NN - 020 3276 3795 CC Craig Guildford Nottinghamshire CC Winton Keenan Northumbria T/CC Lisa Winward North Yorkshire CC Matt Jukes South Wales CC Stephen Watson South Yorkshire CC Gareth Morgan Staffordshire CC Gareth Wilson Suffolk CC Nicholas Ephgrave Surrey ACC Jeremy Burton Surrey CC Giles York Sussex CC
    [Show full text]
  • Scope of Consent Searches: Are Police Officers and Judges Misguided by the Objective Reasonableness Test
    Missouri Law Review Volume 57 Issue 3 Summer 1992 Article 12 Summer 1992 Scope of Consent Searches: Are Police Officers and Judges Misguided by the Objective Reasonableness Test Marc L. Edmondson Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Marc L. Edmondson, Scope of Consent Searches: Are Police Officers and Judges Misguided by the Objective Reasonableness Test, 57 MO. L. REV. (1992) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol57/iss3/12 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Missouri Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Edmondson: Edmondson: Scope of Consent Searches Scope of Consent Searches: Are Police Officers and Judges Misguided by the Objective Reasonableness Test? Florida v. Jimeno' These [Fourth Amendment rights], I protest, are not mere second-class fights but belong in the catalog of indispensable freedoms. Among deprivations of rights, none is so effective in cowing a population, crushing the spirit of the individual and putting terror in every heart. Uncontrolled search and seizure is one of the first 2and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every arbitrary government. I. INTRODUCTION Law enforcement officials will arrest or temporarily detain over 14 million Americans this year for offenses ranging from murder to speeding. During these stops, the police officer will frequently ask for and receive the individual's consent to search his or her belongings.
    [Show full text]
  • Consent Searches and Fourth Amendment Reasonableness Alafair S
    Florida Law Review Volume 67 | Issue 2 Article 2 January 2016 Consent Searches and Fourth Amendment Reasonableness Alafair S. Burke Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Alafair S. Burke, Consent Searches and Fourth Amendment Reasonableness, 67 Fla. L. Rev. 509 (2016). Available at: http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr/vol67/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UF Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida Law Review by an authorized administrator of UF Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Burke: Consent Searches and Fourth Amendment Reasonableness CONSENT SEARCHES AND FOURTH AMENDMENT REASONABLENESS Alafair S. Burke* Abstract This Article builds on a growing body of scholarship discussing the role of reasonableness in consent-search doctrine. Although the language of “voluntary consent” implies a subjective inquiry into the state of mind of the person granting consent, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly injected an objective standard of reasonableness into its analysis of a citizen’s consent. Several scholars have characterized the Court’s consent jurisprudence as focusing not on true voluntariness but on the reasonableness of police conduct, which they argue is appropriate because the touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is “reasonableness.” While the renewed scholarly focus on the role of reasonableness in the Court’s consent jurisprudence is helpful in explaining the puzzling disconnect between language and doctrine, much of this current emphasis has been distorted by the dichotomy between coercion and voluntariness: Did police use (unreasonable) coercive tactics that would override a (reasonable) person’s free will? However, the Fourth Amendment’s default concept of reasonableness is based not on coercion or volition but on its requirement of a warrant based on probable cause.
    [Show full text]
  • Police Corruption Is a Universal Problem, but It Is a Particular Challenge in Countries in Crisis and Emerging from Conflict
    UNITeD StateS INSTITUTe of Peace www.usip.org SPeCIAL RePoRT 2301 Constitution Ave., NW • Washington, DC 20037 • 202.457.1700 • fax 202.429.6063 ABOUT THE REPO R T David Bayley and Robert Perito Police corruption is a universal problem, but it is a particular challenge in countries in crisis and emerging from conflict. This report is based on the lessons gleaned from a review of public commissions of inquiry into police misconduct worldwide and their possible application in stability operations, such as those Police Corruption in Iraq and Afghanistan. The study attempts to determine whether past scandals can help us deal more effectively with the contemporary problems of nation building and police reform. What Past Scandals Teach about Current ABOUT THE AUTHO R S Challenges David Bayley is the former dean and current distinguished professor of the School of Criminal Justice at the State University of New York at Albany. He was a member of the International Summary Oversight Commission for police reform in Northern Ireland. Bayley is also a member of the UN Global Police Policy • Police corruption is an international problem. Historically, police misconduct has been a Community advisory group. He is the author of Changing the factor in the development of police institutions worldwide, but it is a particular problem in Guard: Developing Democratic Police Abroad (2006) and other counterinsurgency and peacekeeping operations, such as the U.S.-led North Atlantic Treaty books. Robert Perito is the director of the Security Sector Organization police training program in Afghanistan. There, police abuse and corruption Governance Center at the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Search Warrants -- Force, Detention, and Arrest
    Colorado Springs Police Department General Order 743 Section 7: Search Warrants -- Force, Detention, and Arrest Active Date: 6/26/2017 Supersedes Date: 1/9/2013 .1 Purpose To specify procedures for obtaining and executing search warrants. .2 Cross Reference GO 740, Determining Probable Cause GO 330, Damage to Non-Police Property GO 880, Deconfliction GO 1330, Ride-Along Program SOP P1-166, Search Warrant Checklist SOP M1-33, Raid Procedures SOP M1-02, Handling of Affidavits for 41.1 Orders: Search and Arrest Warrants SOP M1-16, Electronic Warrants SOP I2-02, Handling of Affidavits for 41.1 Orders Search and Arrest Warrants SOP I1-17, Fax Warrants .3 Discussion The nucleus of the Fourth Amendment is the warrant requirement and the essence of the warrant requirement is probable cause. A search warrant must be obtained to search areas where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy (e.g. a home) unless a recognized exception to the warrant requirement exists. Note: Colorado law pertaining to arrests, searches, and seizures is contained in Article 3, Title 16, of the Colorado Revised Statutes. The present General Order provides guidance for implementing its provisions concerning searches, but familiarity with the applicable statutes is essential. Every sworn member of the Department, regardless of present assignment, is expected to know the provisions of that Article thoroughly. .4 Policy The Colorado Springs Police Department will exercise utmost care to respect personal and property rights by following carefully-defined procedures in obtaining and executing all search warrants. Execution will be carried out thoroughly and vigorously, but with the minimum of force necessary to fulfill legitimate police purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • “Was That a Yes Or a No?” Reviewing Voluntariness in Consent Searches
    COPYRIGHT © 2018 VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW ASSOCIATION NOTE “WAS THAT A YES OR A NO?” REVIEWING VOLUNTARINESS IN CONSENT SEARCHES James C. McGlinchy* “Can we take a look inside your car?” More than half of all roadside searches begin this way. A consent search is a cop’s quickest and easiest way to look for evidence in a car, in a home, or on a suspect’s person. Perhaps because of that, it is not always clear in practice that answering no really means no. The Supreme Court has long held that consent searches must be completely voluntary or evidence stemming from that search may not be admitted against the suspect searched. This rule deters unconstitutional law enforcement tactics. But the Court has not provided the doctrinal tools to keep law enforcement in check. Appellate courts are currently free to review voluntariness only for “clear error” by the trial court, leading to a toothless review. This Note argues that voluntariness in consent searches must be reviewed de novo on appeal. This independent review doctrinally aligns with the Supreme Court’s criminal standard-of-review jurisprudence. In contrast, deferential review leaves criminal defendants with insufficient Due Process surrounding the waiver of constitutional rights. It allows individual trial courts, rather than appellate courts, to determine the substance of the law and allows similar facts to lead to different legal results. It thus leaves law enforcement officers with inadequate guidance on what the Fourth Amendment allows and demands. The inherent psychological pressure of being questioned by the police, cultural fear of law enforcement, and a pattern of discriminatory requests to search create situations likely to result in coercion.
    [Show full text]