DOCSLIB.ORG

Law Enforcement Bulletin Number 3

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. '\ '". \ \ . " ..... ~; ........... .: ,\,.. ")\'1:1 -...... A '~ U.S, Department of ,)ustic(l Nalionallnslilule of Justice -- nilS duel,!,,&nt lidS bepn replOdlJced eAilGUy as rel81ved from tile pers()n O! c'rgdr:lzatlun Oflglniltlr1g It P,)lflts of view or oplfllons stated In lt1!~ dOCUn1wll die ttlOse of H,e a~thors and do not nrocessanly :.,' ,d. represent the off!clal Pllsltlon or pollLies 0' the ~,atlondl In~'tltLJte of .Justice. Pt::I"r11I':-- m tu 1~'"'~rodUl.£~ ttmJ UJpyrrgtltet1 materldi tldS th'fm g!antelll'y FBI Law Enforcef.1ent Bulletin , 'r,: .I' .tll" I (,I~ (~:tlt; d 1i 'I i.t., lH~·; ". ~ tt:'111 fl-.lq,.ill t.:~ pr~rr. I ~ I~),;nqt~[ G:, r'I(":r !P[ftQ)fiIlJ~~ffftiJf!J) ...~~"~~' .. :." ... , 7" -'''.'~ I F / March 1992 lJ5W1J Volume 61 Law Enforcement Bulletin Number 3 Features Air Passenger Processing 1 By Stephan M. Garich A Name is Just a Name-Or Is It? \ 3 ~ ~ ~ 4 By J. Philip Boller, Jr. A Guide to Chinese Names \.3 ~3i 10 By C. Fredric Anderson and Henriette Liu Levy Page 4 Police Recruits 13 t-H~ ~ . ~~ 19 By Gary M. Post • Transnational Crimes ~.:B 9-\-'19'!3 M CJ ~ Sl 26 By Austin A. Andersen MAR" ~ f ' ' ~ CQ U R~ nT ~'b\~ '$ ,,:-.~ 9 Bulletin Reports 18 Book Review 16 Point ofView 24 Police Practices By Glenda' E. Mercer Page 26 '. unlteds"lI08pa~~"tO."~.tl~ ·Edltpl'-Dr.$teRhenD. GJ~dis Federal B~ ....u of Inv8.tl~tlon· . Af.nlJglngEdltor~KathrynE. SuleWs\<i .Washlrigtoi1I~2O$.35' . Art I1lfeCtor~Qh"E. Ott ASB~tllnt Edltortf,-:Alice S~Cole . William S. Sessions, DIrector '. ", '.' .": '. '. .... .' .' KarenF~ McCarron Contdbutj)rs'opirl!onsaht;lstatemenb~ . Pro(Iu,ctlon.1!IIInllllfr-Andrew DiRosa· $houldnotbecohri!ld~r~ aslln ..... ~tlA"'''''n~~rlene J. Butl~r endorsemenlfor any poliCy,programior ~ervice by the F~I: ..... ...... The FBI Law IErifot:~meht BUIl9t}n' (ISSN~PO.14~5aa8) 1$ p(jblish~l!lonthIY by .. The AUomey General has determiri~d that .' the Federal Bureau oflnvesbgatlon, 10th and the PlIl;>lication oUhis periodicali$.necessarY· PennsyivaniaAvenu~,N~W.,Wa$hington,.·· inthetr~n$8ctlonofthepUbl/c.busines$.· .. ' . D.C.2053S •. Second-Class postagsl?aid at 0' req.·... u.i.red....... b.Ylll.W.·o .. f.th~.Dep. art. me. ot O.f. JUstl.c.e. Washingtor.,D~C •• and additional mallln~ '.' Use.of funds fpr printing this p~riod.ical has offices;Postmari!t~r; send address changes b~en approv~ bythepirector of, th&'· Office .to FBlLawiEnforceinentBulletin, .Federal . of M~nageme!)t a.nd J3udget. .. .'. , .. ~~~~. of Investigation,Washlngton, D.C. ISSN 0014-5688 USPS 383-310 1 .... -------------------------------------------------- .I TransnanonalCritnes A Global Approach By AUSTIN A. ANDERSEN n estimated $50 billion-a­ year cocaine industry A flourishes in the United States because drug cartels control a transnational criminal mosaic. This mosaic consists of coca plant culti­ vation sites in Peru and Bolivia; processing laboratories for the coca leaves in Colombia, Brazil, and Ar­ gentina; importation networks that ship the drug into the United States; and money laundering channels that direct cashflow into "legitimate" in­ vestments all over the world.' Glob­ al conglomerates dealing in illicit activities survive and flourish be­ cause unilateral enforcement efforts by a single country generally dis­ able only small segments of such operations. Unlike criminal investigations enforce­ of the United coordinated within the jurisdiction ment offi­ States that af­ of a particular country, the interna­ cers in one fect the global tionallaw enforcement community country to in­ approach to transna­ faces two formidable obstacles vestigate and ........--- .....~tional crime. Of particular interest when developing prosecutable prosecute criminal activities that are the following developments: In­ cases against criminal enterprises extend into another. creased attention by the U.S. judi­ with tentacles that extend through­ Because of the enormous dam­ cial system to the application of out the world. First, evidence ad­ age caused by international crime constitutional standards to evidence missible in one country may be sup­ cartels, however, legal systems from foreign sources, the passage of pressed in another with more throughout the world are changing statl~tes that provide U.S. courts restrictive procedural standards. to facilitate the international efforts with jurisdiction to try crimes that Second, the doctrine of sovereignty, of police agencies. This article pro­ . occur beyond U.S. boundaries, and or self-government within national vides an overview of recent changes treaties that clarify the ability of boundaries, limits the ability of law in the caselaw, statutes, and treaties some police agencies to assist their 26/ FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin ----------------------------- foreign counterparts in investiga­ quired by foreign police for their tions, searches, and seizures. own purposes is admissible in U.S. courts, despite the fact that such APPLYING THE BILL OF evidence, if seized in the same man­ RIGHTS TO FOREIGN ner by American police, would be INVESTIGATIONS excluded as violative of the fourth amendment.7 Searches and Seizures This rule applies even when the The fourth amendment of the evidence is seized from American U.S. Constitution requires law en­ citizens.8 An exception to this rule, forcement officers in the United though infrequently applied, occurs States to conduct searches and sei­ when the behavior of the investigat­ zures in a "reasonable"2 manner. ing officers is so inhumane or outra­ The U.S. Supreme Court has held geous that a court, .e~e:~ising its Special Agent Andersen is Chief of the that as a general rule, a reasonable supervisory responSIbIlIties, sup­ Legal Research Unit, Legal Counsel search is one conducted with a presses evidence obtained pursuant Division, at FBI Headquarters. search warrant requiring ajudicially to the offending action.9 approved showing of probable Another exception to the gen­ cause and limitations on the scope eral rule of admissibility of evi­ of the search.3 In addition, the Court dence located by foreign police oc­ border. The next day, the Director of recognized a number of exceptions curs when there is substantial the MFJP, at the request of DBA to the warrant requirement as rea­ participation in the search by U.S. agents, authorized a warrantless sonable, namely, emergency law enforcement agents, thereby search of Verdugo's two residences searches, searches based on consent, converting the investigation into a in Mexico. During the searches, the motor vehicle exception, and joint venture implicating the fourth conducted by both MFJP officers search incident to arrest.4 amendment and the exclusionary and DBA agents, one of the DBA agents found and seized documents As a deterrent to unreasonable rule. JO Recently, however, the Su­ searches by police officers, the preme Court limited this exception allegedly reflecting the volume of Court adopted the exclusionary by determining that the fourth marijuana smuggled into the United rule, which requires the suppres~ion amendment does not apply to the States by Verdugo's organization. of evidence derived from investIga­ search and seizure by U.S. authori­ Because the searches, which tions that violate the Constitution.5 ties of property owned by a nonresi­ were unrelated to any contemplated Because police in foreign countries dent alien and located in a foreign Mexican prosecution, were initiated are generally unaware of the proce­ country. and participated in by DBA agents dural standards of the American ju­ In United States v. Verdugo­ (who also took custody of the evi­ dence), the lower COutts found that dicial system, the danger exists that Urquidez, II Verdugo-Urquidez, a under certain circumstances, evi­ Mexican national suspected of the the participation of the DBA agents dence collected by foreign police torture-murder of an undercover was substantial enough to make the will be suppressed in this country. DBA agent, became a fugitive after searches joint ventures subject to the strictures of the fourth amend­ In many instances, however, the being charged by the DBA with ~ exclusionary rule does not apply to merous drug violations in ftr"e ment. Holding that a warrant was searches and seizures conducted in United States. Based on the out­ required to ensure reasonableness in foreign countries. Because the Bill standing American warrant, the search of the Mexican premises of Rights has been interpreted as Verdugo-Urquidez was atTested in of Verdugo-Urdquidez, the lower applying only to the actions of the Mexico by the Mexican Federal Ju­ courts suppressed the evidence. U.S. Government and its employ­ dicial Police (MFJP) and remanded The Supreme Court reversed, ees,6 evidence independently ac- to U.S. marshals at the California and in a plurality opinion, con- March 1992 / 27 cluded that the use of the words "the gal alien voluntarily enters the ings in accordance with Miranda v. people" in the fourth amendment United States and "accepts some Arizona. 19 was intended as a term of art refer­ societal obligations,"17 fourth Several years ago, the Supreme ring to a class of persons who are amendment protections extend to Court rejected the claim that aliens part of a national community or who criminal prosecutions. are entitled to fifth amendment pro­ have otherwise developed sufficient At the same time, Verdugo­ tections outside the United States.20 connection with the United States to Urdquidez does not alter the ap­ The Court in Verdugo-Urquidez, be considered part of that commu­ plicability of fourth amend­ however, observes that the "privi­ nity.l2 Therefore, the Court rea­ ment protections for U.S. lege against self-incrimination soned that the protections of the citizens in foreign countries guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment fourth amendment were not in­ with respect to searches and sei­ is a fundamental trial right of crimi­ tended by the framers of the Consti­ ____ zures by U.S.
Recommended publications
  • Fourth Amendment--Requiring Probable Cause for Searches and Seizures Under the Plain View Doctrine Elsie Romero

    Fourth Amendment--Requiring Probable Cause for Searches and Seizures Under the Plain View Doctrine Elsie Romero

    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 78 Article 3 Issue 4 Winter Winter 1988 Fourth Amendment--Requiring Probable Cause for Searches and Seizures under the Plain View Doctrine Elsie Romero Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Elsie Romero, Fourth Amendment--Requiring Probable Cause for Searches and Seizures under the Plain View Doctrine, 78 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 763 (1987-1988) This Supreme Court Review is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/88/7804-763 THE JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAw & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 78, No. 4 Copyright @ 1988 by Northwestern University, School of Law Printed in U.S.A. FOURTH AMENDMENT-REQUIRING PROBABLE CAUSE FOR SEARCHES AND SEIZURES UNDER THE PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE Arizona v. Hicks, 107 S. Ct. 1149 (1987). I. INTRODUCTION The fourth amendment to the United States Constitution pro- tects individuals against arbitrary and unreasonable searches and seizures. 1 Fourth amendment protection has repeatedly been found to include a general requirement of a warrant based on probable cause for any search or seizure by a law enforcement agent.2 How- ever, there exist a limited number of "specifically established and
  • 19-292 Torres V. Madrid (03/25/2021)

    19-292 Torres V. Madrid (03/25/2021)

    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2020 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus TORRES v. MADRID ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT No. 19–292. Argued October 14, 2020—Decided March 25, 2021 Respondents Janice Madrid and Richard Williamson, officers with the New Mexico State Police, arrived at an Albuquerque apartment com- plex to execute an arrest warrant and approached petitioner Roxanne Torres, then standing near a Toyota FJ Cruiser. The officers at- tempted to speak with her as she got into the driver’s seat. Believing the officers to be carjackers, Torres hit the gas to escape. The officers fired their service pistols 13 times to stop Torres, striking her twice. Torres managed to escape and drove to a hospital 75 miles away, only to be airlifted back to a hospital in Albuquerque, where the police ar- rested her the next day. Torres later sought damages from the officers under 42 U. S. C. §1983. She claimed that the officers used excessive force against her and that the shooting constituted an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Affirming the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to the officers, the Tenth Circuit held that “a suspect’s continued flight after being shot by police negates a Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim.” 769 Fed.
  • Studying the Exclusionary Rule in Search and Seizure Dallin H

    Studying the Exclusionary Rule in Search and Seizure Dallin H

    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. Reprinted for private circulation from THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW REVIEW Vol. 37, No.4, Summer 1970 Copyright 1970 by the University of Chicago l'RINTED IN U .soA. Studying the Exclusionary Rule in Search and Seizure Dallin H. OakS;- The exclusionary rule makes evidence inadmissible in court if law enforcement officers obtained it by means forbidden by the Constitu­ tion, by statute or by court rules. The United States Supreme Court currently enforces an exclusionary rule in state and federal criminal, proceedings as to four major types of violations: searches and seizures that violate the fourth amendment, confessions obtained in violation of the fifth and' sixth amendments, identification testimony obtained in violation of these amendments, and evidence obtained by methods so shocking that its use would violate the due process clause.1 The ex­ clusionary rule is the Supreme Court's sole technique for enforcing t Professor of Law, The University of Chicago; Executive Director-Designate, The American Bar Foundation. This study was financed by a three-month grant from the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration of the United States Department of Justice. The fact that the National Institute fur­ nished financial support to this study does not necessarily indicate the concurrence of the Institute in the statements or conclusions in this article_ Many individuals assisted the author in this study. Colleagues Hans Zeisel and Franklin Zimring gave valuable guidance on analysis, methodology and presentation. Colleagues Walter J.
  • 357 Fourth Amendment

    357 Fourth Amendment

    Fourth Amendment — Search and Seizure — Automobile Exception — Collins v. Virginia The axiom is familiar: searches conducted without warrants are per se unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment — “subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.”1 The rule has been eroded by its exceptions in most contexts.2 But it has held strong in one: the home.3 Last Term, in Collins v. Virginia,4 the Supreme Court continued the tradition by holding that the warrant requirement’s automobile exception could not justify an officer’s warrantless search of a vehicle parked in the immediate surroundings of a home.5 The Court reversed the contrary decision of the Supreme Court of Virginia and remanded. Limiting its holding to the automobile exception, the Court noted that the intrusion “may have been reasonable on a differ- ent . exception to the warrant requirement.”6 On remand, however, the lower court cannot find the officer’s entry justified on the basis of any rec- ognized warrant exception while remaining faithful to the Collins reasoning. In July 2013, Officer David Rhodes spotted defendant Ryan Collins driving a motorcycle at 100 miles per hour, nearly twice the speed limit on the Virginia road.7 Officer Rhodes tried to stop him, but Collins zipped away at a speed of over 140 miles per hour.8 Just weeks earlier, a motorcyclist had outrun one of Officer Rhodes’s colleagues under sim- ilar circumstances.9 In the interest of safety, that officer had also aban- ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 1 Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967) (footnote omitted).
  • STATE of NEW HAMPSHIRE JOHN H. LYNCH GOVERNOR Raymond S. Burton John D. Shea Beverly A. Hollingworth Raymond J. Wieczorek Debo

    STATE of NEW HAMPSHIRE JOHN H. LYNCH GOVERNOR Raymond S. Burton John D. Shea Beverly A. Hollingworth Raymond J. Wieczorek Debo

    STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE JOHN H. LYNCH GOVERNOR Raymond S. Burton John D. Shea Beverly A. Hollingworth Raymond J. Wieczorek Deborah Pignatelli Executive Councilors Department of Justice Kelly A. Ayotte Attorney General June 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. THE LAW REGARDING ON-THE-STREET ENCOUNTERS AND INVESTIGATIVE DETENTIONS...................................................................................................1 A. Introduction.........................................................................................1 B. Initial Encounter .................................................................................1 C. When An Encounter Constitutes A Seizure........................................2 1. Factors Relevant In Determining Whether A Person Has Been Seized .............................................................................2 2. Submission Is Not Necessary For A Seizure To Occur ..........3 D. Investigative Or Terry Stops...............................................................4 1. An Investigative Stop Must Be Supported By Reasonable Suspicion..................................................................................4 2. General Factors That May Support Reasonable Suspicion To Justify A Terry Stop...........................................................5 3. Specific Factors That May Support Reasonable Suspicion To Justify A Terry Stop...........................................................6 a. Officer’s Personal Knowledge And Observations .......6 b. Officer’s Training And Experience..............................6
  • 41M-Search & Seizure

    41M-Search & Seizure

    Policy Number: Subject: Search & Seizure Accreditation Standards: 41M Lexington Police Reference: 1.2.4(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g) Effective Date: Department 3/11/13 ☐New Revision 1/24/19 ☒ Revised Dates: By Order of: Mark J. Corr, Chief of Police The Municipal Police Institute, Inc. (MPI) is a private, nonprofit charitable affiliate of the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association. MPI provides training and model policies and procedures for police agencies. This policy is an edited version of MPI Policy 1.08, “Search & Seizure.” GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS AND GUIDELINES The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures, and the Supreme Court has consistently held that unless they come within one of the few carefully limited exceptions to the search warrant requirement, warrantless searches and seizures are considered unreasonable.i 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.ii The following procedures have been prepared to provide basic guidelines that are both legal and practical in the technical area of searches and seizures. It is the policy of the Lexington Police Department that: Warrants shall be obtained for all searches whenever possible and practicable once the foundation for constitutional regulations have been triggered. Searches are subject to constitutional regulation when the following three conditions are met: • State action: The search must be undertaken by a state actor, (law enforcement official/ agent of the government).
  • The Knock-And-Announce Rule and Police Arrests: Evaluating Alternative Deterrents to Exclusion for Rule Violations

    The Knock-And-Announce Rule and Police Arrests: Evaluating Alternative Deterrents to Exclusion for Rule Violations

    \\jciprod01\productn\S\SAN\48-1\san103.txt unknown Seq: 1 3-JAN-14 14:43 The Knock-and-Announce Rule and Police Arrests: Evaluating Alternative Deterrents to Exclusion for Rule Violations By DR. CHRISTOPHER TOTTEN† & DR. SUTHAM COBKIT(CHEURPRAKOBKIT)‡ * Introduction IN ARRIVING AT THE DETERMINATION that the exclusionary rule no longer applies to knock-and-announce violations,1 the Supreme Court’s rationale in Hudson v. Michigan2 included the idea that factors other than exclusion exist to prevent police misconduct concerning the knock-and-announce rule.3 Particular examples of these alterna- tive factors relied upon by the Court are improved training, educa- tion, and internal discipline of police: † Dr. Christopher Totten is an Associate Professor of Criminal Justice (Law) in the Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice at Kennesaw State University. He has a JD and LLM from Georgetown University Law Center and an AB from Princeton University. He is the criminal law commentator for Volumes 46 through 50 of the Criminal Law Bulletin. ‡ Dr. Sutham Cobkit (Cheurprakobkit) is a Professor of Criminal Justice and Director of the Master of Science in Criminal Justice Program in the Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice at Kennesaw State University. He has a PhD in Criminal Justice from Sam Houston State University. * Both authors would like to thank the College of Humanities and Social Sciences at Kennesaw State University for providing a grant that partially funded the study described in this Article. 1. The knock-and-announce rule usually requires police to knock and to give notice to occupants of the officer’s presence and authority prior to entering a residence to make an arrest or conduct a search.
  • The Uncertain Scope of the Plain View Doctrine

    The Uncertain Scope of the Plain View Doctrine

    University of Baltimore Law Review Volume 16 Article 4 Issue 2 Winter 1987 1987 The nceU rtain Scope of the Plain View Doctrine Howard E. Wallin University of Baltimore School of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Wallin, Howard E. (1987) "The ncU ertain Scope of the Plain View Doctrine," University of Baltimore Law Review: Vol. 16: Iss. 2, Article 4. Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr/vol16/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Baltimore Law Review by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE UNCERTAIN SCOPE OF THE PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE Howard E. Wallint t In recent years the Supreme Court has expanded the plain view ex­ ception to the warrant requirement by relaxing the prior valid intrusion and the inadvertency requirements. This article examines the resulting confusion in the state courts and identifies areas where judicial clarifica­ tion is needed. I. INTRODUCTION The fourth amendment of the United States Constitution provides that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, pa­ pers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures ..., shall not be violated." 1 A second clause directs "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."2 The United States Supreme Court has interpreted these two provisions to mean that any search and seizure conducted without a war­ rant is per se unreasonable and that evidence acquired from a warrantless search and seizure is inadmissible at trial.
  • 10 Search and Seizure

    10 Search and Seizure

    AGENCY: CSU CHANNEL ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT PART 5. POST FIELD TRAINING MODEL FIELD TRAINING PROGRAM GUIDE – VOLUME 2 DATE: 03/28/2018 SECTION 10 Search and Seizure 10.1 – 10.3 COMPETENCY REQUIREMENTS Contents 10.1 Search Concepts 10.2 Seizure Concepts 10.3 Warrants List of Subtopics Attestation Instructions to Administrators Instructions to FTOs Note to Administrators In order for POST to review and approve your agency’s Field Training Guide, you MUST submit the following electronic files: 1) The POST FTP Approval Checklist (Form 2-230) 2) Your department’s Policy & Procedure Manual 3) Your completed Guide (Volumes 1 & 2), including ALL competency requirements covered in Part 5, Sections 1–18. Page 1 of 30 FIELD TRAINING PROGRAM GUIDE – VOLUME 2 PART 5. POST FIELD TRAINING MODEL LIST OF SUBTOPICS 10.1 SEARCH CONCEPTS 10.3 WARRANTS 10.1.01 Terminology 10.3.01 Obtaining Search and Arrest Warrants 10.1.02 Circumstances Allowing Legally Authorized Searches 10.3.02 Serving Search and Arrest Warrants 10.1.03 Items Which May Be Legally Searched 10.3.03 Demonstrating Proper Procedures for Obtaining and Serving 10.1.04 Limits of Searches Warrants 10.1.05 Exclusionary Rule 10.2 SEIZURE CONCEPTS 10.2.01 Lawful Evidence Seizure 5.10 Search and Seizure Page 2 of 30 FIELD TRAINING PROGRAM GUIDE – VOLUME 2 PART 5. POST FIELD TRAINING MODEL SECTION 10 SEARCH AND SEIZURE CHECK ONE ONLY: PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 PHASE 5 Trainee FTO 10.1 SEARCH CONCEPTS 10.1.01 Terminology The trainee shall review and explain the following terms relative to searches: A.
  • Am I Being Detained? Am I Free to Go? by Sgt. Les L. Moody Jr. Texarkana

    Am I Being Detained? Am I Free to Go? by Sgt. Les L. Moody Jr. Texarkana

    Am I being detained? Am I free to go? By Sgt. Les L. Moody Jr. Texarkana Arkansas Police Department School of Law Enforcement Supervision Session XLII Am I being detained, or am I free to go? As a Sergeant with the Texarkana Arkansas Police Department, I have discovered, during my twenty-two years on the job, that law enforcement officers are faced with these questions on a daily basis. As a law enforcement officer, you will frequently need to ask yourself if you are actually detaining an individual or if it is merely a consensual encounter. Law enforcement officers make traffic stops, set up roadblocks for various reasons, serve warrants, make arrests, and search houses, vehicles and people. In each of these common duties of the officer, the individual is protected against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires that no search or seizure shall be carried out unless a warrant has been issued. However, the United States Supreme Court has recognized it is not always possible to obtain a warrant and has provided law enforcement with certain exceptions to the warrant requirement. It is important for every officer to understand his or her limitations under the law. What constitutes a search? What constitutes a seizure? Is an arrest a seizure? An officer makes a traffic stop. Does he automatically have the right to search the vehicle and occupants? An officer responds to a domestic disturbance. Does he automatically have the right to search the residence? An officer sees an individual walking in a residential neighborhood at 3 a.m.
  • Effect of Illegal Abduction Into the Jurisdiction on a Subsequent Conviction

    Effect of Illegal Abduction Into the Jurisdiction on a Subsequent Conviction

    Indiana Law Journal Volume 27 Issue 2 Article 9 Winter 1952 Effect of Illegal Abduction Into the Jurisdiction on a Subsequent Conviction Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj Part of the Jurisdiction Commons Recommended Citation (1952) "Effect of Illegal Abduction Into the Jurisdiction on a Subsequent Conviction," Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 27 : Iss. 2 , Article 9. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol27/iss2/9 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Indiana Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INDIANA LAW JOURNAL right to exact any conditions it sees fit, seems preferable. If the United States were exempt from the rules of contract, considerations in support of or opposition to a claimed concession would become irrelevant. Con- versely, such considerations are determinative of controversies resolved under existing contract law. Blanket endorsement of such an exemption would invite extreme business practices with ramifications affecting a sizeable percentage of commercial transactions. Such a license, mani- festly impinging 'upon the security of government contractors, should be vindicated only upon a showing of positive necessity.' Contractors' familiarity with existing commercial practice and aversion to uncertain change might necessitate a substitute for security in the form of 'increased cost of goods and services to Government. It should not be prematurely assumed that contract doctrine lacks the flexibility to adapt itself to the changing position of Government in our economy.
  • In the United States District Court for the District of Kansas

    In the United States District Court for the District of Kansas

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 15-20014-01-JAR CHRISTOPHER A. PRYOR, Defendant. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Christopher Pryor’s Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. 13). Defendant contends that evidence seized by law enforcement from an encounter with Defendant on December 20, 2014 was seized in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The Government has responded (Doc. 16), and an evidentiary hearing was held on September 14, 2016. The Court has reviewed the evidence and arguments adduced at the hearing and is now prepared to rule. As explained in detail below, Defendant’s motion is denied. I. Factual Background Based on the testimony and evidence admitted at the hearing on this motion, the Court finds as follows. On December 20, 2014, Officer Nicholas Stein, an officer with the drug unit of the Olathe, Kansas Police Department, was conducting surveillance on a specific house on Loula Street in Olathe, Kansas where drug activity was suspected. Officer Stein observed a grey Toyota Corolla driven by an individual later identified as Defendant Christopher Pryor leave that home and turn north from Loula Street onto Pine Street without utilizing a left turn signal. Officer Stein attempted to get behind the vehicle, which then turned west on Santa Fe Street and north on Iowa Street. The vehicle made a right into an alleyway adjacent to Iowa Street. Based 1 on Defendant taking multiple turns and ducking into an alleyway, Officer Stein testified that he believed the driver of the vehicle was attempting to evade the police.