DOCSLIB.ORG

Initiation-Of-Contact Rules Under the Fifth Amendment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Initiation-Of-Contact Rules Under the Fifth Amendment INITIATION-OF-CONTACT RULES UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT By John R. Wasberg Former Senior Counsel (Retired) Washington State Attorney General’s Office Materials current through July 1, 2020 Updated annually: No substantive changes of significance have been made to the July 1, 2019 version TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................1 II. THERE IS NO SIXTH AMENDMENT INITIATION-OF-CONTACT BAR ....................1 III. FIFTH AMENDMENT INITIATION OF CONTACT RULE .............................................3 A. TWO RULES: RIGHT TO SILENCE AND RIGHT TO COUNSEL ..........................3 B. MICHIGAN v. MOSLEY -- ASSERTION OF RIGHT TO SILENCE ..........................3 1. Michigan v. Mosley Decision .................................................................................3 2. Ambiguous Assertions ...........................................................................................5 3. Initiation Of Contact By The Suspect ..................................................................12 4. Questioning Re New Crimes Or After Meaningful Break In Custody ................12 C. EDWARDS v. ARIZONA -- ASSERTION OF RIGHT TO COUNSEL ......................13 1. The Edwards And Roberson Decisions ................................................................13 2. Ambiguous Assertions .........................................................................................14 3. Initiation Of Contact By The Suspect Lifts Bar ...................................................15 4. Non-Custodial, Non-Interrogation Situations Not Covered; Attempts By Third Persons To Assert Rights On Suspect's Behalf Do Not Count ...................15 5. New Crimes May Or May Not Be Covered .........................................................17 6. Break In Custody Of At Least 14 Days Lifts Bar ................................................18 7. Consultation With Counsel Does Not Lift Bar ....................................................19 IV. EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE BASED ON INITIATION VIOLATIONS ......................20 V. PAM LOGINSKY'S GUIDE ..............................................................................................20 VI. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................20 Page i Current through July 1, 2020 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Alston v. Redman, 34 F.3d 1237 (3d Cir. 1994) ....................................................................................................... 15 Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675 (1988) ........................................................................................... 13, 14, 16, 18, 20 Berghuis v. Thompkins, 130 S. Ct. 2250 (2010) ......................................................................................... 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12 Bobby v. Dixon, 132 S. Ct. 26 (2011) ..................................................................................................................15 Charles v. Smith, 894 F.2d 718 (5th Cir. 1990) ........................................................................................................ 4 Davis v. U.S., 512 U.S. 452 (1994) ...................................................................................................... 8, 9, 10,15 Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) ................................................................................. 3, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20 Fellers v. U.S., 124 S. Ct. 1019 (2004) ................................................................................................................ 2 Grounds v. Sessoms, 133 S. Ct. 2886 (2013) .............................................................................................................. 14 Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971) .................................................................................................................. 20 In re Personal Restraint Petition of Cross, 180 Wn.2d 664 (2014) ................................................................................................................ 5 Jacobs v. Singletary, 952 F.2d 1282 (11th Cir. 1992) .................................................................................................... 4 Maryland v. Shatzer, 130 S. Ct. 1213 (2010) ............................................................................................ 13, 17, 18, 19 McNeil v. Wisconsin, 115 L.Ed.2d 158 (1991) ............................................................................................................. 15 Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625 (1986) ................................................................................................................. 1-2 Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (1975) ............................................................................. 3, 4, 5, 7, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20 Page ii Current through July 1, 2020 Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. 146 (1990) ................................................................................................................... 19 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) ........................................ 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20 Montejo v. Louisiana, 129 S. Ct. 2079 (2009) ............................................................................................................. 1-2 North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369 (1979) ................................................................................................................... 10 Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039 (1983) ................................................................................................................. 15 Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985) ..................................................................................................................... 9 Patterson v. Illinois, 487 U.S. 285 (1988) .................................................................................................................... 2 People v. Warner, 250 Cal. Rptr. 462, 203 Cal. App. 3d 1122 (1988) ....................................................................... 4 Salinas v. Texas, 537 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 2174 (June 17, 2013) ........................................................................ 14 Sessoms v. Runnels, 776 F.3d 615 (9th Cir. (2015) (other decisions in this case cited only in body of article) ............. 14 Smith v. Illinois, 469 U.S. 91 (1984) ................................................................................................................. 5, 14 State v. Bradford, 95 Wn. App. 935 (Div. III, 1999) ............................................................................................... 16 State v. Brown and State v. Duke, 158 Wn. App. 49 (Div. III, 2010) ................................................................................................. 4 State v. Corn, 95 Wn. App. 41 (Div. III, 1999) ................................................................................................. 16 State v. Earls, 116 Wn.2d 364 (1991) .................................................................................................... 1, 11, 16 State v. Elkins, 188 Wn. App. 386 (Div. III, June 15, 2015) ........................................................................ 4, 15 State v. Gasteazoro-Panigua,, 173 Wn. App. 751 (Div. II, 2013) .............................................................................................. 14 State v. Greer, 62 Wn. App. 779 (Div. I, 1991) ................................................................................................. 16 Page iii Current through July 1, 2020 State v. Hodges, 118 Wn. App. 668 (Div. I, 2003) ..................................................................................................... 5 State v. I.B., 187 Wn. App. 315 (Div. III, 2015) ............................................................................................... 5 State v. Kirkpatrick, 89 Wn. App. 407 (Div. II, 1998) ................................................................................................ 16 State v. McReynolds, 104 Wn. App. 560 (Div. III, 2001) ............................................................................................. 15 State v. Medlock, 86 Wn. App. 89 (Div. III, 1997) ........................................................................................... 1, 11 State v. Nicholson, 77 Wn.2d 415 (1969) .................................................................................................................. 3 State v. Nysta 168 Wn. App. 30 (Div. I, 2012) ................................................................................................14 State v. Piatnitsky, 180 Wn.2d 407 (2014) ................................................................................................................. 5 State v. Pierce, 169 Wn App. 533 (Div. II, 2012) ............................................................................................17 State v. Radcliffe, 164 Wn.2d 900 (2008) ................................................................................................ 1, 8, 11, 14 State v. Stackhouse, 90 Wn. App. 344 (Div. III, 1998) ............................................................................................... 15 State v. Stewart, 113 Wn.2d 462 (1989) ............................................................................................................... 15 State v. Trochez-Jimenez, 180
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Drawing a Line Between Terry and Miranda: the Degree and Duration of Restraint Katherine M
    Drawing a Line between Terry and Miranda: The Degree and Duration of Restraint Katherine M. Swifit INTRODUCTION A felon answered the door in his underwear. Three police officers and three parole officers were there to search his apartment for a gun on the basis of a tip from his mother.! The police handcuffed him in the hallway outside his apartment, but told him he was not under ar- rest; the handcuffs were for his safety and the safety of the officers. Then they took him inside and asked about the gun, which he told them was in a shoebox on the table. The police never read the suspect his Miranda warnings. Was he "in custody"? Or was this merely a tem- porary detention? Mirandav Arizona' held that police may not interrogate a suspect who has been taken into custody without first issuing the familiar warnings Investigative stops, valid under Terry v Ohio,' are not sub- ject to Miranda's notice requirements.! Courts have not settled on a workable rule for determining custody in Terry stop cases. Part of the problem is that custody cases involve so many factors.! But more im- portant, coercive police behavior that would have required Miranda warnings in 1966 often is deemed reasonable under Terry today. This has led to a circuit split over whether coercive Terry stops constitute Miranda custody. The First, Fourth, and Eighth circuits hold t B.A., BJ. 1998, University of Missouri-Columbia; J.D. 2006, The University of Chicago. I The facts used in this example are drawn from United States v Newton, 369 F3d 659, 663 (2d Cir 2004).
    [Show full text]
  • CASE 0:12-Cr-00045-SRN-JJG Doc. 269 Filed 02/08/13 Page 1 of 62
    CASE 0:12-cr-00045-SRN-JJG Doc. 269 Filed 02/08/13 Page 1 of 62 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA United States of America, Crim. No. 12-0045 (SRN/JJG) Plaintiff, v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Mark Edward Wetsch, Defendant. JEANNE J. GRAHAM, United States Magistrate Judge This case came before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for a pretrial motions hearing on August 27, 2012. Deidre Aanstad and Kevin Ueland appeared on behalf of the United States of America. Caroline Durham and Reynaldo Aligada, Jr., appeared on behalf of Defendant Mark Edward Wetsch. Following the hearing on these motions, Defendant has exercised his right to proceed pro se and has represented himself since September 12, 2012. Since the hearing on these motions, the case has progressed significantly. In a report and recommendation dated February 8, 2013 (ECF No. 267), the Court recounted many of the noteworthy procedural developments that have occurred since Defendant began to proceed without the benefit of counsel. Defendant is under indictment for thirteen counts of armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d). The robberies with which Defendant is charged occurred on March 9, 2011; April 26, 2011 (two robberies); May 13, 2011; June 13, 2011; November 4, 2011; November 9, 2011; November 22, 2011; December 20, 2011; December 22, 2011; December 27, CASE 0:12-cr-00045-SRN-JJG Doc. 269 Filed 02/08/13 Page 2 of 62 2011; December 29, 2011; and January 3, 2012. Defendant was taken into state custody on January 3, 2012, and he has remained in either state or federal custody since that date.
    [Show full text]
  • PTC Within 30 Days of the Appointment Date
    Division of Criminal Justice State of New Jersey Police Training Commission Notice of New Appointment P.O. Box 085 for Law Enforcement and Trenton, NJ 08625 Corrections Officers Phone 609-984-0960 Fax 609-984-4473 Completion of this form is required whenever a law enforcement (or corrections) officer is appointed (hired) Please type or legibly print (in ink) all required information Mail or fax this notice to the PTC within 30 days of the appointment date Identification Information 1. Social Security Number 2. Name (Last) (First) (M) suffix 3. Birth date 4. Gender 5. Maiden name or any previous name (Last) (First) (M) Suffix Male Female 6. Race/Ethnicity (mark the box that best describes the applicant’s race/ethnicity 7. Education (Mark highest level completed) American Indian or Native Hawaiian or HS Bachelor’s Master’s Filipino Grade 11 Alaskan Native Other Pacific Islander Diploma Degree Degree Hispanic or Grade 12, Associate Asian White Law Latino no diploma Degree Black or African Some College - Other GED Doctorate American credits completed: Appointment Information 8. Employing Agency Name 9. County 10. Employing Agency ORI 11. Job Title Code 12. Date of Appointment (mm/dd/yyyy) 13. If Civil Service, date of test (mm/dd/yyyy) NJ 14. Attestation of reporting official I attest that the information provided on this form is true and correct and is based on my personal knowledge or inquiry. The personnel records of this agency substantiates the information on this form. Signature of department head or authorized designee Full name and title (type or print legibly) Date Phone Job Title Codes Arson Investigator AINV Investigator, Dept.
    [Show full text]
  • Honoring Law Enforcement by Worshiping Together
    NEW HANOVER COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE THE WORD ON THE STREET Professionalism, Responsibility, Accountability, and Integrity Q3 Issue 4 VIPR UNIT October 2017 Honoring Law Enforcement by Worshiping Together Sheriff's Office: 3950 Juvenile Center Road • Castle Hayne, NC 28429 • Phone 910-798-4200 • Fax 910-798-4212 From the Desk of Sheriff McMahon Hello Everyone! It has been a very busy summer for all of us and I’m excited to be entering the fall season, which is one of my favorite times of the year. I would like to sincerely thank all of the Deputies for their in- credibly hard work and professionalism in the Douglas Edwards case. This predator will spend the rest of his life in prison! We also could not have done it without the help of our Community. I’m extremely proud of all of you! Sincerely, Sheriff Ed In This Issue Websites and Social Media Contact Information From the Desk of Sheriff McMahon (pg 2) www.newhanoversheriff.com Emergency 911 Law Enforcement Appreciation Day (pg 3) www.facebook.com/ Sheriff’s Office 910-798-4200 Division Highlights (pg 4 –8) newhanoverso Animal Services 910-798-7500 Officer of the Year Awards (pg 8) twitter.com/newhanoverso A Second Chance (pg 9) Non-Emergency 910-452-6120 Join Us at the Fair for Child IDs (pg 10) [email protected] Autumn Safety Tips for Pets (pg 10) Look Out! Crossing Guards (pg 11) 15th Sheriff’s Citizen Academy (pg 11) Back to School Bash (pg 12) The Word on the Street Contributors: Sheriff Ed McMahon, Kristy Williams, Detective/Lt David Swan, Jane Love, Per- ry Campbell, and Carol Scheidegger, Capt.
    [Show full text]
  • FBI-L Insighter 2015Q4 Hires.Pdf
    November 2015 - Issue IV FEATURED IN THIS ISSUE: Changes in Recruiting Strategies Page 4 The Effective Use of Social Media by Police Leaders Page 10 University of Oklahoma Undergraduate Credit Program Memorandum Of Understanding Page 20 DID YOU KNOW: LifeLock partners with FBI-LEEDA, Inc. (Law Enforcement Executive Development Association), a non-profit training agency, to present educational programs about identity theft and fraud across the United States. Summits are open to all law enforcement including: prosecutors, command level, investigative personnel, and patrol officers. Also open to financial industry investigators and analysts. Together, we have educated more than 11,500 law enforcement officials representing over 4,000 agencies in all 50 states. FBI-LEEDA InFBI-LEEDAsighterNovember 2015 - Issue IV 2015-2016 Executive Board Feature Articles: PRESIDENT | Changes in Recruiting Strategies – Larry Barton, Ph.D. David Boggs, Chief 4 Broken Arrow Police Department 6 | From the Desk of DHS – Heather Fong, Department of Homeland Security 2302 S. First Place, Broken Arrow, OK 74012 Telephone: 918-451-8394 8 | Using Social Media Data to Help Identify Homegrown Extremists – Email: [email protected] Louis F. Quijas, Wynward Group FIRST VICE PRESIDENT 10 | Membership Spotlight – The Effective Use of Social Media by Police Leaders – Paul Shastany, Chief Chris D. Lewis Stoughton Police Department 15 | Social Media Policy - Why Do We Need One? – Eric Daigle, Esq. 26 Rose Street Stoughton, MA 02072 16 | Develop a Brand Image for Social Media Structure – Eric Kowalczyk, Telephone: 781-232-9311 Instructor, Media & Public Relations, FBI-LEEDA Email: [email protected] 20 | University of Oklahoma Undergraduate Credit Program SECOND VICE PRESIDENT | FBI Youth Leadership Program "Letter of Thanks" Thomas Alber, Chief 23 Garden City Police Department 26 | FBI Update - The FBI’s Police Executive Fellowship Program – 107 N.
    [Show full text]
  • Furlow V. Belmar
    Case: 4:16-cv-00254-CEJ Doc. #: 14 Filed: 07/08/16 Page: 1 of 36 PageID #: 324 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION DWAYNE FURLOW, RALPH TORRES ) and HOWARD LINER, individually and ) on behalf of all others similarly situated, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) Cause No.: 4:16-cv-00254-CEJ JON BELMAR, THE COUNTY OF ) ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED and ST. LOUIS COUNTY POLICE ) OFFICER KEVIN WALSH, ) ST. LOUIS COUNTY POLICE OFFICER ) CHRISTOPHER PARTIN, ) ST. LOUIS COUNTY POLICE ) DETECTIVE CLEMENTS, ) and ST. LOUIS COUNTY POLICE ) OFFICERS JOHN DOES 1-20, ) ) Defendants. ) FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Plaintiffs Dwayne Furlow, Ralph Torres, and Howard Liner by and through the undersigned counsel, for their First Amended Complaint in the above-referenced matter hereby state as follows: INTRODUCTION For years, St. Louis County has allowed individual police officers to unilaterally issue the equivalent of a statewide arrest warrant without ever going before a neutral and detached magistrate to obtain a judicial determination of probable cause. St. Louis County police officers refer to this warrantless arrest procedure as issuing a “Wanted.” Under this system, ordinary police officers have been given the power to order the arrest of anyone at any time, without any Case: 4:16-cv-00254-CEJ Doc. #: 14 Filed: 07/08/16 Page: 2 of 36 PageID #: 325 judicial oversight whatsoever. Because this unconstitutional tool has been left in the hands of police officers and is not subject to judicial oversight, police in Missouri have issued over 2 Million Wanteds1 in a state with a population of only 6 Million people.2 These Wanteds are often issued and executed without probable cause and in retaliation for an individual’s exercise of his Fifth Amendment right to refuse questioning by law enforcement officials.
    [Show full text]
  • Essex Observer the Essex County COMMUNITY JUSTICE UNIT NEWSLETTER Prosecutor’S Office
    The Essex Observer The Essex County COMMUNITY JUSTICE UNIT NEWSLETTER Prosecutor’s Office VOLUME TWO • WINTER 2008 50 W. Market St., Newark, NJ 07102 • (973) 621-4700 • www.njecpo.org observed a drive by ECPO Speakers Bureau: shooting of four men from his apartment window. Gang Awareness “I didn’t dare wear red or blue and was careful about where I went. I The Essex County Prosecutor’s Office Speaker’s Bureau is comprised never imagined this (gang of experienced assistant prosecutors, detectives and administrative violence) would come professionals. They share their expertise on various topics including gang Gang graffiti on a house in Essex County to New Jersey,” added awareness, substance abuse prevention, internet safety, child abuse, Detective Williams. Jimmy crime prevention and careers in law enforcement with the Essex County Williams is a Gulf War veteran who holds both bachelor and master community. degrees from Fairleigh Dickinson University. He is a certified chaplain and Once regulated to the western coast of the United States, gang violence G.R.E.A.T. instructor. Detective Williams began his law enforcement career spread throughout the country like wildfire. Violent street gangs such as at the Essex County Youth House. the Bloods and Crips emerged in Essex County in the mid nineties. Essex “I want to have a great impact in the lives of children,” continued Detective County witnessed increased murder rates, drug and weapons distributions. Williams, who also served as a corrections officer at Northern State Prison There could no longer be denial about the existence of Los Angeles based and a police officer with the East Orange Police Department.
    [Show full text]
  • REQUIREMENTS for a PRIVATE DETECTIVE LICENSE 22 Pa
    REQUIREMENTS FOR A PRIVATE DETECTIVE LICENSE 22 Pa. C.S.A. (Private Detective Act of 1953) QUALIFICATIONS All applicants must be at least twenty-five (25) years of age. All applicants must meet the following qualifications: 1. A member of the U.S. Government investigative service; or 2. A Sheriff; or 3. A member of the Pennsylvania State Police; or 4. Regularly employed as a detective or as a member of a city police department of a rank or grade higher than that of patrolman for a period of not less than three (3) years. All applicants must submit with their application the statements of not less than five (5) reputable citizens in accordance with 22 Pa. C.S.A. §14. Any citizen related to the applicant by blood or marriage does NOT qualify. All statements must be notarized. Any applicant who has been convicted of any FELONY or any of the following offenses fails to qualify for a license: • Illegal use, carrying or possessing a pistol or other dangerous weapon; • Making or possessing burglar’s instruments; • Buying or receiving stolen property; • Unlawful entry of a building; • Aiding escape from prison; • Possessing or delivery of a controlled substance; • Picking pockets or attempting to do so; • Soliciting any person to commit sodomy or other lewdness; • Recklessly endangering another person; • Making terrorist threats; or • Committing simple assault. No applicant who is a holder of an employment agency license may be licensed under this act. If the applicant will carry a lethal weapon as an incident with employment, proof of a current and valid certification under the “Lethal Weapons Training Act” must also be submitted to the Court.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft 12/11/2015 10:44 Am United States District
    Case 2:11-cv-00119-ERK-ARL Document 71 Filed 12/11/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: <pageID> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------- DARIUS BURRIS, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM & ORDER 11-CV-0119 (MKB) v. NASSAU COUNTY, NASSAU COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, NASSAU COUNTY POLICE COMMISSIONER LAWRENCE MULVEY, COMMANDING OFFICER INSPECTOR STEVEN WILLIAMS, COMMANDING OFFICER NIEL DELARGY, CHIEF OF DETECTIVES JAY CAPUTO, LIEUTENANT KEECHANT SEWELL, LIEUTENANT MARC TIMPANO, DETECTIVE DAVID SULZ, DETECTIVE ANTHONY NICOLIC, BUREAU OF SPECIAL OPERATIONS OFFICERS JOHN DEZELIC and CHRISTOPHER FEHLING, “JOHN DOE” POLICE OFFICERS FROM THE NASSAU COUNTY BUREAU OF SPECIAL OPERATIONS and OTHER UNKNOWN “JOHN DOE” POLICE OFFICERS EMPLOYEED BY NASSAU COUNTY AND YET TO BE NAMED and DETECTIVES EMPLOYED BY NASSAU COUNTY, NASSAU COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, SHERIFF MICHAEL J. SPOSATO, THE NASSAU COUNTY CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT and “JOHN DOE” CORRECTIONS OFFICIALS and OFFICERS YET TO BE NAMED, Defendants. --------------------------------------------------------------- MARGO K. BRODIE, United States District Judge: Plaintiff Darius Burris commenced the above-captioned action on January 7, 2011, against Defendants Nassau County, Nassau County Police Department, Nassau County Police Commissioner Lawrence Mulvey, Commanding Officer Inspector Steven Williams, DRAFT 12/11/2015 10:44 AM Case 2:11-cv-00119-ERK-ARL Document 71 Filed 12/11/15 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: <pageID> Commanding Officer Neil Delargy, Chief of Detectives Jay Caputo, Lieutenant Keechant Sewell, Lieutenant Marc Timpano, Detective David Sulz, Detective Anthony Nicolic, Bureau of Special Operations Officers John Dezelic and Christopher Fehling, John Doe Nassau County Police Officers and Detectives, John Doe Nassau County Bureau of Special Operations Officers, Nassau County Sheriff’s Department, Sheriff Michael J.
    [Show full text]
  • Berrien County Sheriff's Office
    Berrien County Sheriff’s Office Annual Report 2017 Table of Contents Mission Statement ..........................................................1 Board of Commissioners .................................................2 Introduction ..................................................................3 Recognition & Awards ...................................................4 Retirees ..........................................................................5 Deputy of the Year .........................................................5 Budget ..........................................................................6 Records ..........................................................................8 Reimbursements ............................................................9 Jail Division ..............................................................10 Inmate Accounting ...........................................................................11 Classification ....................................................................................11 Inmate Worker Program .................................................................12 Food Service ...................................................................................13 Honor Guard ................................................................................. 14 G.E.D. & Literacy Programs ........................................................14 Forgotten Man Ministries .................................................................15 Support Services .........................................................................16
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Annual Report
    Lake County Sheriff’s Office Annual Report 2016 Sheriff Mark C. Curran, Jr. “Keeping Lake County Safe” Introduction To the residents of Lake County, Keeping Lake County Safe remains a top priority, and ensuring our services are provided efficiently and effectively is our obligation as well. I would like to share a few of our 2016 public safety successes in our annual report. The purpose of the report is to provide transparency and outline the scope of the office, including programs and services provided to Lake County residents. Here are a few highlights: Saving lives is the first step in addressing the opioid epidemic. In 2016, Naloxone saves by Lake County’s law enforcement agencies nearly doubled, from 44 in 2015 to 841 in 2016. The good news is law enforcement is saving lives. The challenge is ensuring this population has access to addiction and/or mental health services to preserve the overall public safety and health of our community. The following pages will present how the opioid epidemic is being addressed by our office. To assist this population, the jail works together with several addiction treatment and cognitive behavior providers, providing inmate programming. In addition, the jail is collaborating with Armor Correctional Health and the Lake County Health Department on a Vivitrol Pilot program. • The Lake County Sheriff’s Office Gang Task Force seized 37 firearms and $3.8 million of drugs from gang members and drug dealers operating in Lake County. The task force participated in numerous gang and drug awareness programs throughout Lake County as well. • Lake County Sheriff’s Office Highway Patrol Division earned the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police 2015-2016 Illinois Traffic Safety Challenge.
    [Show full text]
  • Police Miranda Warning and Waiver Draft
    GENERAL POLICE ORDER CLEVELAND DIVISION OF POLICE ORIGINAL EFFECTIVE DATE : REVISED DATE: NO. PAGES: NUMBER: 8-20-2018 1 of 6 SUBJECT: MIRANDA WARNING AND WAIVER ASSOCIATED MANUAL: RELATED ORDERS: CHIEF OF POLICE: PURPOSE: To establish Cleveland Division of Police guidelines so that all questioning of criminal suspects comply with the Constitution, federal, and state laws. POLICY: It is the policy of the Division to respect the fundamental rights of all individuals. When a person is taken into custody, or otherwise deprived or his or her freedom of action in a significant way, and when he or she is to be questioned, the Division shall afford him or her the procedural safeguards required to protect his or her Fifth Amendment right against involuntary self-incrimination. DEFINITIONS: Custody: When an officer has arrested that individual or when a reasonable person in the individual’s position would not feel free to leave based on a totality of the circumstances. Questioning incident to a routine traffic stop are not considered custodial. Interrogation:Interrogation is any conduct that the officer knows or reasonably knows would elicit an incriminating response from a suspect. Interrogation is not just direct questioning but also any words or actions (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the officer knows or reasonably knows is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. Juvenile: An individual under the age of 18. PROCEDURES: I. The Miranda Warning General Requirements. A. The Miranda Warning is required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and applies only to sworn police officers who will be questioning or interrogating a suspect who is in custody.
    [Show full text]