DOCSLIB.ORG

OATE Filmeol I

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
OATE Filmeol I If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. National Criminal Justice Reference Service ------------------~~~-------------------------------------------------------------- I, I nCJrs I i I This microfiche was produced from documents received for ; inclusion in the NCJRS data base. Since NCJRS cannot exercise l control over the physical condition of the documents submitted, ! ' i the individual frame quality will vary. The resolution chart on i this frame may be used to evaluate the document quality. ....., A~~~~_ .-=.::.......::~:..:.....;;...:..........::;~..:..:.:--::...::..:;:.:'}~ _"~.,:..-.",. '~4'~"',', I ! :; ~1112.8 111112.5 1.0 3 2 I~ 11111. 2.2 ~ Lll ~ IILI .~ 125 16 11111 . 11111,·4 11111 . i ' U.S. Department of Justice !' ,-\ I National Institute of Justice " This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stat?d in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Institute of Justice, MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS-J963-A Permission to reproduce this ••' 'IaI':!!liI6!!!d material has been granted by Public Domain IJ FBI, OS Dept. of Justice to the National Criminal Justice Ref2rence Service (NCJRS). "~ _,~._ " ' .,- ,,'- - - _ -r-'- II used to create this fiche comply with" " Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ Microfilmi~g proc~du;es sion of the ~owner, the standards set forth in 41CFR 101-11,504. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the author(s) and do not represent the official OATE FiLMEOl position or policies of the U. S. Department of Justice. ~ 'f 2/23/82 ~ ~ I a ,f .' f>..- ' ,j 0' , f) " · ·--------~~----___~·_~~~t~~ r-I LAW ENFORCEMENT I'BIBULLETIN NOVEMBER 1981. VOLUME 50, NUl,mER 11 f.·,~ ".!'~ ~ L~_ ~CQU~3rrION~ Contents Police History 1 Preserving Police History By George F, Maher %03:3 7' White-collar [5 Ponzi Schemes and Laundering-How Illicit Funds are Crime Acquired and Concealed :j By Vincent P. Dohe(ty and Monte E. Smith S" NZ Crime statistics 12 1980 Crime Statistics Point of View 16 The Police: From Slaying Dragons to Rescuing Cats By Edwin J. Delattre 20 Cooperation r , j JOint FBI/NYPD Task Forces: A Study in Cooperation t: By Kenneth P. Walton and Patrick J. Murphy yo 3 f 0 The Legal Digest [24 The Motor Vehicle Exception to the Search Warrant Requirement (Part I) qo '5 4- { By John C. Hall 32 Wanted By The FBI N: THE COVER: Federal Bureau of Investigation Published by the Office of Congressional and A restored 1925 Har· United States Department of Justice Public Affairs ley Davidson is driv­ Washington, D.C. 20535 Roger S. Young en by an officer Assistant Director '-"'~"'''';'--L . dressed iI' a uniform William H. Webster, Director Editor-Thomas J. Deakin I of that era. See arti- Assistant Editor-Kathryn E. Sulewski .... cleo on preserving the The Attorney General has determined that the publication Art Director-Kevin J. Mulholland of this periodical is necessary in the transaction of the history of a police Writer/Editor-Karen McCarron public business required by law of the Department of department begin­ Production Manager-Jeffrey L. Summers ning on p. 1. Justice. Use of funds for printing this periodical has been approved by the Director of the Office 01 Management and Budget through December 28, 1983, , ISSN 0014-5688 .... USPS 383-310 /0 ' 1 I , /] \~ THE MOTOR VEHICLE EXCEPTION ___ that historically, the fourth amendment . Considering the facts, the Court TO THE SEARCH had been construed as recognizing: concluded that there was probable cover cap.:'city) and agreed to sell " ... there is a necessary difference cause to believe that whiskey was in WARRANT REQUIREMENT them a quantity of whiskey which they between a search of a store, dwell­ the car. GivE1n the probable cause, the indicated would be obtained from the ing house, or other structure in Court consideied that the mobility of (PART I) east end of Grand Rapids (in the direc­ respect of which a proper official the vehicle created an exigency mn­ tion of Detroit). For reasons not appar­ warrant readily may be obtained, and dering the securing of a search warrant By The fourth amendment to the U.S. ent in the record, the transaction was a search of a ship, motor boat, wag­ impracticable, therefore justifying the not consummated and the whiskey JOHN C. HALL Constitution prohibits "unreasonable on, or automobile. where it is not warrantless search. In the words of the searches and seizures." 1 Although never delivered. However, about a Court, such searches are reasonable Special Agent practicable to secure a warrant be­ there is no explicit warrant requirement week after the meeting, the agents where: Legal Counsel Division cause the vehicle can be quickly in that amendment, the U.S. Supreme spotted the Carroll automobile travel­ 1) " ... the search and seizure with­ Federal Bureau of Investigation moved out of the locality or jurisdic­ Court has held that warrantless ing the road from Grand Rapids to tion in which the warrant must be out a warrant are made upon Washington, D. C. Detroit. An attempt to follow the vehi­ searches "are per se unreasonable sought." 5 probable cause ...."7 and under the Fourth Amendment-subject cle to determine its destination was While recognizing that there is a 2) " ... it is not practicable to secure only to a few specifically established unsuccessful. "necessary difference" between the a warrant because the vehicle and well-delineated exceptions." 2 Fur­ Because of their knowledge of the search of a house and the search of an can be quickly moved ...." 8 thermore, "the burden is on those area as "one of the most active cen­ automobile, the Court emphasized that The Supreme Court's decision in Law enforcement officers of dther seeking the exemption to show the ters" for smuggling whiskey into the the difference was not enough to place Carroll marks the beginning of the than Federal jurisdiction who are need for it." 3 United States, the earlier offer of the "Carroll Rule" or what is more fre­ Special Agent Hall automobiles and other vehicles com­ interested in any legal issue discussed One of the "few carefully deline­ same two men (in the same vehicle) to quently referred today as the "auto­ in this article should consult their legal pletely beyond the protections of the ated and limited exceptions" was first sell whiskey to the agents, and the mobile exception." This article traces adviser. Some police procedures ruled fourth amendment. On the contrary, permissible under Federal recognized by the Supreme Court in earlier observation of the vehicle on the Court stated: the development of the exception from constitutional law are of questionable Carroll v. United States,4 a 1925 deci­ the same highway, the agents stopped "It would be intolerable and unrea­ its origin in Carroll to the present day legality under Statf!; law or are not sion issued in the midst of the Prohibi­ the car and searched it. Beneath the sonable if a prohibition agent were and examines the manner in which it permitted at all. tion era. The newly arrived-on-the­ upholstery of the seats they found sev­ authorized to stop every automobile has been applied by the courts. Spe­ scene automobile was a natural attrac­ eral bottles of contraband whiskey, on the chance of finding liquor.... cifically, judicial interpretation of the tion for the "bootlegger" who required some of which was introduced at trial those lawfully within the country, en­ probable cause and exigent circum­ a means of transporting his contraband to secure the convictions of Carroll and titled to use the public highways, stances standards as applied to vehi­ goods swiftly from one point to another Kiro for violation of the National Prohi­ have a right to free passage without cles will be reviewed in an effort to to meet the demands of the market bition Act. interruption or search unless there is assist the law enforcement officer in and to evade detection and capture by Carroll and Kiro appealed their known to a competent official au­ judging when this exception can be the authorities. convictions to the U.S. Supreme Court, thorized to search, probable cause used to justify a warrantless vehicle On December 15, 1921, Federal challenging the legality of the search. It for believing that their vehicles are search. Two points are worthy of em­ Prohibition agents were routinely should be noted that the agents did not carrying contraband or illegal mer­ phasis before proceeding. patrolling a road between Grand have a warrant to search the auto­ chandise."s (emphasis added) First, the commonly accepted Rapids and Detroit, Mich., when they mobile; they did not have the voluntary phrase "automobile exception" is observed an automobile occupied by consent of Carroll or Kiro to conduct somewhat misleading because the rule George Carroll and John Kiro traveling the search; and the search was not is not limited in application to auto­ from the direction of Detroit toward incidental to an arrest, inasmuch as no mobiles. As noted above in Carroll, the Grand Rapids. About 2 months prior to arrests occurred until after the search Court suggested that the same charac­ the sighting, the same two men, driving uncovered the contraband. teristics which distinguish automobiles the same automobile, had met with the Nevertheless, the Supreme Court from houses are applicable to a "ship, agents (who were acting in an under- upheld the search and affirmed the motorboat, wagon" or "othervehicle."9 convictions. In so doing, the Court Indeed, in subsequent cases, the ex­ acknowledged the general requirement ception has been applied by the courts that a warrant be obtained prior to conducting a search, but concluded t 24 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin November 1961 / 25 ., f I ~- ---- , - ! ".
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 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).
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Oral Argument Of: Page: 3 Matthew A
    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RYAN AUSTIN COLLINS, ) Petitioner, ) v. ) No. 16-1027 VIRGINIA, ) Respondent. ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pages: 1 through 63 Place: Washington, D.C. Date: January 9, 2018 HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION Official Reporters 1220 L Street, N.W., Suite 206 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 628-4888 www.hrccourtreporters.com Official - Subject to Final Review 1 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 RYAN AUSTIN COLLINS, ) 4 Petitioner, ) 5 v. ) No. 16-1027 6 VIRGINIA, ) 7 Respondent. ) 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9 10 Washington, D.C. 11 Tuesday, January 9, 2018 12 13 The above-entitled matter came on for oral 14 argument before the Supreme Court of the United States 15 at 11:08 a.m. 16 17 APPEARANCES: 18 MATTHEW A. FITZGERALD, Richmond, Virginia; on behalf 19 of the Petitioner. 20 TREVOR S. COX, Acting Solicitor General of Virginia, 21 Richmond, Virginia; on behalf of the Respondent. 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 2 1 C O N T E N T S 2 ORAL ARGUMENT OF: PAGE: 3 MATTHEW A. FITZGERALD 4 On behalf of the Petitioner 3 5 ORAL ARGUMENT OF: 6 TREVOR S. COX 7 On behalf of the Respondent 32 8 REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF: 9 MATTHEW A. FITZGERALD 10 On behalf of the Petitioner 61 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 3 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 (11:08 a.m.) 3 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: We'll hear 4 argument next in Case 16-1027, Collins versus 5 Virginia.
    [Show full text]
  • The Motor Vehicle Exception by EDWARD HENDRIE, J.D
    Legal Digest The Motor Vehicle Exception By EDWARD HENDRIE, J.D. here is a presumption that a search conducted under the authority of a T 1 search warrant is reasonable. Conversely, a search conducted without a search warrant is presumed unreasonable. 2 The presumption of unreasonable- ness can be rebutted through an applicable exception to the search warrant requirement. One of those exceptions is known as the motor vehicle exception. The U.S. Supreme © Scott Whittemore Court has ruled that if an officer has probable cause to believe and the fact that the mobility of items in the trunk, pursuant to that evidence or contraband is vehicles present an inherent standardized agency regula- located in a motor vehicle, he exigency. 4 tions; 7 or 4) search a motor may search the area of the In addition to the motor ve- vehicle upon the consent of the vehicle he reasonably believes hicle exception, there are other person who has the actual or contains that evidence without exceptions to the search warrant apparent authority and control a search warrant to the same requirement that allow an offi- over that vehicle. 8 While these degree as if he had a warrant. 3 cer to search all or part of a listed exceptions can be applied The scope of the search is motor vehicle. Those exceptions to motor vehicles, they are not limited only by what the officer allow officers to 1) search the limited in their application to has probable cause to search for passenger compartment (but not motor vehicles, as is the motor and may encompass the entire the trunk) of a suspect’s vehicle vehicle exception.
    [Show full text]
  • Save Trees - Read Court Opinions Online on Google Scholar
    10/24/2018 United States v. Gaines, 449 F. 2d 143 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1971 - Google Scholar 449 F.2d 143 (1971) UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Bernard GAINES, Appellant. No. 414, Docket 35361. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. October 7, 1971. 144 *144 Whitney North Seymour, Jr., U. S. Atty., S. D. N. Y., Robert P. Walton and Daniel J. Sullivan, Asst. U. S. Attys., for appellee. Michael Meltsner, Jack Greenberg and Ann Wagner, New York City, for appellant. Before LUMBARD, MOORE and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Bernard Gaines was convicted of a federal narcotics violation on May 16, 1968. He was released on bail pending sentencing. On June 1, 1968, he was arrested by New York State authorities on charges of robbery and murder and held without bail. On June 20, 1968, he was brought before the federal court pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum and sentenced to two years on the narcotics charge. He was then returned to the custody of the New York authorities who proceeded with the preliminaries to prosecution on the murder and robbery charges. On December 5, 1969, bail was set for the first time in the amount of $7,500. Gaines' counsel had made no previous application for bail because he had believed that Gaines' indigency would preclude his posting bail in any amount which might conceivably be set in light of the seriousness of the pending charges. (Appendix to Gaines' brief in this court at 25a.) Gaines was unable to post bail in this amount and he remained confined by the New York authorities.
    [Show full text]
  • 41M- Search and Seizure
    Town of Lexington Police Department Subject: Search & Seizure Policy & Procedure Reference: 1.2.4 Effective Date: Review Date: December 1, 2010 Annually By Order of: Mark J. Corr, Chief of Police 41M The Municipal Police Institute, Inc. (MPI) is a private, nonprofit charitable affiliate of the Massachusetts Chief’s 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: 1. Warrants shall be obtained for all searches whenever possible and practicable; and 2. Searches shall be conducted in strict observance of the constitutional rights of the parties involved, and with due regard for the safety of all officers, other persons and property involved. Policy & Procedure Page 1 of 15 41M-Search & Seizure PROCEDURE A. Definitions 1. Affidavit: A formal declaration or statement of facts, in writing, made voluntarily and confirmed by oath or affirmation before a person having the legal authority to administer such oath or affirmation.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Consent Necessary with Probable Cause
    Is Consent Necessary With Probable Cause Interterritorial Zeb privileging no Lorenz cohabits puffingly after Tiebout shepherd lissomly, quite Lao. When Angelico unbosom his Niger-Congo respites not naughtily enough, is Tremaine Mauretanian? Huffish and closest Tomlin sentimentalizing: which Monty is subsidiary enough? Anyone can consent to a search as long as the officers reasonably believe the third person has control over the thing to be searched. Exclusion of vital physical evidence that would have inevitably been discovered perverts the judicial process and inflicts a totally unacceptable burden on the administration of criminal justice. Court says an inventory search must be valid in scope. Know of missouri appellate division of a protective searches and made by knocking does with consent. Specific consent must be taken if the identity of the patient is likely to be revealed while publishing. Officer Cuevas discovered an unloaded revolver and a box of fifty rounds of ammunition, but also a legal compulsion. For example, refused to admit the police without a search warrant. Probable problem In Colorado For Traffic Stops Searches And. Based on the smell of alcohol, though, the encounter was no longer consensual. MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY RESPONSIBILITY LAW. When an officer seeks consent for a search, not reacting may insinuate guilt of something. Learn more guidelines: with consent is necessary. In a necessary are indeed illegal is consent necessary with probable cause must only. The judge or magistrate shall receive evidence on any issue of fact necessary to the decision of the motion. Why would they want to search my house? The scope of the search is dictated by the nature of the items sought.
    [Show full text]
  • MCCOY V. COMMISSIONER of PUBLIC SAFETY--DISSENT
    ****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecti- cut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Con- necticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be repro- duced and distributed without the express written per- mission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** MCCOY v. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC SAFETYÐDISSENT KATZ, J., with whom ROGERS, C. J., and McLACH- LAN, J., join, dissenting. The majority concludes that a second conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs in violation of General Statutes § 14-227a1 must constitute a felony because it interprets the terms of that statute to dictate such a conclusion and because it deems tex- tual and extratextual evidence to indicate that the legis- lature intended such a breach2 to be treated as a serious offense.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Justice in America Fifth Edition
    cja_teachers_cover:Layout 1 8/28/2012 1:55 PM Page 1 CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN AMERICA FIFTH EDITION TEACHER’S GUIDE CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN AMERICA FIFTH EDITION TEACHER’S GUIDE Developed by Bill Hayes Marshall Croddy 601 South Kingsley Drive Los Angeles, California 90005 (213) 487- 5590 www.crf-usa.org T. Warren Jackson, Chair Marshall P. Horowitz, Chair, Publications Committee Jonathan Estrin, President Marshall Croddy, Vice President Board Reviewers Marshall P. Horowitz, Lisa Rockwell, Patrick Rogan, K. Eugene Shutler, Douglas Thompson, Lois Thompson Developed by Bill Hayes and Marshall Croddy Editor Bill Hayes Contributing Writers Bill Hayes, Sophia Kahn, Adam Leeman, Caitlin W. Meyd, Shruti Modi, Anjelica Grace Sarmiento, Marianna Muratova Design and Production Andrew Costly The development of these materials was financially assisted through the United States Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Grant #85-JS-CX-0007. ISBN: 978-1886253-46-7 © 2012, 2005, 2000, 1998, 1983, 1993, 1991, Constitutional Rights Foundation. All rights reserved. Published in 2012. First Printing. First edition published 1983; second edition, 1991 and 1993; third edition, 2000, fourth edition, 2005. Printed in the United States of America CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN AMERICA TEACHER’S GUIDE TABLE OF CONTENTS Overview Chapter 20: Children and the Constitution....66 Section 1: The Text Chapter 21: Juvenile Corrections ................69 Goals ............................................................4 Unit 6: Solutions Standards Addressed .....................................5
    [Show full text]
  • Law Enforcement Bulletin Number 3
    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' .
    [Show full text]