DOCSLIB.ORG

Arrest, Search, and Investigation in North Carolina

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arrest, Search, and Investigation in North Carolina Arrest, Search, and Investigation in North Carolina Fourth Edition 2011 Robert L. Farb The School of Government at the University of North Michael R. Smith, Dean Carolina at Chapel Hill works to improve the lives of Thomas H. Thornburg, Senior Associate Dean North Carolinians by engaging in practical scholarship Frayda S. Bluestein, Associate Dean for Faculty Development that helps public officials and citizens understand and Todd A. Nicolet, Associate Dean for Operations improve state and local government. Established in 1931 Ann Cary Simpson, Associate Dean for Development as the Institute of Government, the School provides Bradley G. Volk, Associate Dean for Administration educational, advisory, and research services for state and local governments. The School of Government is FACULTY also home to a nationally ranked graduate program in public administration and specialized centers focused on Gregory S. Allison Christopher B. McLaughlin information technology, environmental finance, and civic David N. Ammons Laurie L. Mesibov education for youth. Ann M. Anderson Kara A. Millonzi A. Fleming Bell, II Jill D. Moore As the largest university-based local government training, Maureen M. Berner Jonathan Q. Morgan advisory, and research organization in the United States, Mark F. Botts Ricardo S. Morse the School of Government offers up to 200 courses, Michael Crowell C. Tyler Mulligan seminars, and specialized conferences for more than Shea Riggsbee Denning David W. Owens 12,000 public officials each year. In addition, faculty James C. Drennan William C. Rivenbark members annually publish approximately fifty books, Richard D. Ducker Dale J. Roenigk book chapters, bulletins, and other reference works Joseph S. Ferrell John Rubin related to state and local government. Each day that the Alyson A. Grine Jessica Smith General Assembly is in session, the School produces the Norma Houston Karl W. Smith Daily Bulletin, which reports on the day’s activities for Cheryl Daniels Howell Carl W. Stenberg III members of the legislature and others who need to follow Jeffrey A. Hughes John B. Stephens the course of legislation. Willow S. Jacobson Charles Szypszak Robert P. Joyce Shannon H. Tufts The Master of Public Administration Program is a full- Kenneth L. Joyner Vaughn Upshaw time, two-year program that serves up to sixty students Diane M. Juffras Aimee N. Wall annually. It consistently ranks among the best public Dona G. Lewandowski Jeffrey B. Welty administration graduate programs in the country, James M. Markham Richard B. Whisnant particularly in city management. With courses ranging Janet Mason Gordon P. Whitaker from public policy analysis to ethics and management, the program educates leaders for local, state, and federal governments and nonprofit organizations. Operating support for the School of Government’s programs and activities comes from many sources, including state appropriations, local government membership dues, private contributions, publication sales, course fees, and service contracts. Visit www.sog.unc.edu or call 919.966.5381 for more information on the School’s courses, publications, programs, and services. © 2011 School of Government The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill First edition 1986. Fourth edition 2011. Use of this publication for commercial purposes or without acknowledgment of its source is prohibited. Reproducing, distribut- ing, or otherwise making available to a non-purchaser the entire publication, or a substantial portion of it, without express permis- sion, is prohibited. Printed in the United States of America 15 14 13 12 11 1 2 3 4 5 ISBN 978-1-56011-680-6 This publication is printed on permanent, acid-free paper in compli- ance with the North Carolina General Statutes. Printed on recycled paper For Bonnie, Debbie, Jessica, Kevin, and Daphne Contents Preface xix Chapter 5 Interrogation and Confessions, Chapter 1 Lineups and Other Identification Procedures, and Undercover Officers An Introduction to Constitutional Law and Informants 527 and North Carolina Criminal Law and Procedure 1 Chapter 5 Appendix: Case Summaries 567 Chapter 2 Chapter 6 Law of Arrest and Investigative Rules of Evidence Stops 11 in Criminal Cases 671 Chapter 2 Appendix: Case Summaries 83 Index of Cases in the Case Chapter 3 Summaries 691 Law of Search and Seizure 171 Chapter 3 Appendix: Case Summaries 239 Subject Index 713 Chapter 4 Search Warrants, Administrative Inspection Warrants, and Nontestimonial Identification Orders 357 Chapter 4 Appendix: Case Summaries 437 Contents Preface xix Territorial Jurisdiction 14 State law enforcement officers 14 Local alcohol beverage control officers 14 Sheriffs, deputy sheriffs, and county police officers 14 City law enforcement officers 15 Chapter 1 Company police officers 15 The University of North Carolina campus An Introduction to Constitutional Law law enforcement officers 15 and North Carolina Criminal Law and Community college campus law enforcement officers 16 Procedure 1 Private nonprofit college campus Sources of Criminal Law 3 police officers 16 Statutes 3 Expanded Territorial Jurisdiction for DWI-Related Offenses 16 Common Law 4 Arrest after Continuous Flight (Hot Pursuit) 17 City and County Ordinances 4 Hot pursuit within the state 17 Constitutional Restrictions on Hot pursuit outside the state 17 Enactment of Criminal Laws 4 Subject-Matter Jurisdiction 17 Constitutional and Statutory Restrictions State Highway Patrol officers 18 on an Officer’s Authority 4 State Bureau of Investigation agents 18 Constitutional Restrictions 5 Alcohol law enforcement agents 18 United States Constitution 5 Officers who specialize in enforcing North Carolina Constitution 6 motor vehicle laws 18 Statutory Restrictions 6 Wildlife law enforcement officers 18 Criminal Pretrial and Trial Procedure 6 Marine fisheries enforcement officers 18 Misdemeanors and Infractions 6 Sheriffs, deputy sheriffs, and county police officers 18 Felonies 7 Local alcohol beverage control officers 18 Appellate Review 8 City law enforcement officers 18 Company police officers 19 Campus law enforcement officers 19 Probation and parole officers 19 Special Jurisdictional Issues 19 Chapter 2 Violations of federal laws 19 Immigration enforcement by North Carolina Law of Arrest and law enforcement officers 19 Desertion and AWOL 20 Investigative Stops 11 Areas controlled by the federal government 20 Introduction 13 Offenses that occur in other states (extradition) 22 Jurisdiction 14 Foreign diplomats 23 Federal officers and North Carolina’s Limits on Law Enforcement Officers’ Jurisdiction 14 criminal laws 23 viii | Contents Expanded Jurisdiction through Custody without Probable Cause 51 Cooperating Law Enforcement Agencies 23 The Arrest Warrant and Expanded Jurisdiction through Emergency Other Criminal Process 51 Management Assistance Compact 24 Criminal Process 51 Private Person’s Authority to Detain 24 Arrest Warrant 51 Legal Standards 25 Paperwork 52 Introduction 25 Issuance and content 53 Objective Standard 26 Validity of warrant 54 Investigative Stop or Arrest 26 Criminal Summons 55 Determination Made at the Time of Citation 55 the Arrest or Investigative Stop 27 Order for Arrest 57 The Authority to Make an Investigative Restriction on Obscenity Offenses 57 Stop: Reasonable Suspicion 27 Arrest without a Warrant Definition 28 or Order for Arrest 57 Determination of Reasonable Suspicion 28 Warrant or Order for Arrest Has Been Issued 58 Hearsay evidence 29 Felony 58 Collective knowledge of officers 29 Misdemeanor 58 Appellate Court Cases on Reasonable Suspicion 29 General Rules 58 The Authority to Arrest: Probable Cause 36 “In [the officer’s] presence” 59 Definition 37 “Will not be apprehended unless Determination of Probable Cause 37 immediately arrested” 59 With or without an arrest warrant 37 “May cause physical injury to himself Hearsay evidence 37 [or herself] or others” 60 Collective knowledge of officers 38 “May damage property” 60 Appellate Court Cases on Probable Cause 38 Arrest of a Resident of a Reciprocal State 60 Pretextual Arrest, Investigative Stop, or Search 41 Delay in Making a Warrantless Misdemeanor Arrest 60 Mandatory Duty to Arrest for Violation of Pretrial Release Order 60 Domestic Violence Offense 42 Escape from Arrest 60 Special Aspects of Stopping Authority 43 Probation, Parole, or Post-Release Investigative Stop Based on Reasonable Suspicion 43 Supervision Violation 61 Length of Time Allowed for an Investigative Stop 43 Taking Custody of Juveniles for Officer’s interaction with suspect after Delinquent Acts and Other Matters 61 investigative stop is completed 44 The Arrest Procedure 62 Officer’s questions affecting length of Use of Force 62 time of investigative stop 45 Generally 62 Scope of Investigative Stop: Investigative Resistance or Flight from Arrest 63 Techniques 45 Escape of Convicted Felon from Custody 64 Ordering driver and passengers out of vehicle 45 Assistance from Private People 64 Using force 45 Notice of Authority 65 Questioning 46 Before Stopping a Vehicle 65 Moving or handcuffing a suspect for safety or security reasons 46 When an Arrest Is Made 65 Using identification procedures 46 Before Entering a Dwelling 65 Using drug dog 47 Entering Premises to Arrest 66 Checking Division of Criminal Information Entering Defendant’s Home or Other Place of or other information source 47 Residence without Consent or Exigent Checking driver’s license and other information Circumstances 66 during a vehicle traffic stop 47 Entering a Third Party’s Home without Frisk after an Investigative
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fourth Amendment Litigation
    Still the American Frontier: Fourth Amendment Litigation Deja Vishny September 2012 United States Constitution: The Fourth Amendment 1 Wisconsin State Constitution Article 1 Sec. 11 The Exclusionary Rule The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine Attenuation Inevitable Discovery Independent Source Other exceptions to the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine Applicability of the Fourth Amendment: The Expectation of Privacy Cars Sample list of areas the court has found to private and non-private. Deemed Non-Private: Standing & Overnight Guests Searches by Private Parties Requirement of Search Warrant Determination of probable cause Definition of the Home: Curtilage Permissible scope of search warrants Plain View Good Faith Knock and Announce Challenging Search Warrants Permissible warrantless entries and searches in homes and businesses Exception: Search Incident to Arrest Exception: Protective Sweep Exception: Plain View Exception: Exigent Circumstances : The Emergency Doctrine Exception: Exigent Circumstances: Hot Pursuit Exception: Imminent Destruction of Evidence Warrantless searches without entry Consent Searches Who may consent to entry and searches of the home Scope of consent Seizures of Persons: The Terry Doctrine Defining a Seizure Permissible Length of Temporary Seizures Permissible reasons for a Seizure: 2 Seizures bases on anonymous tips Seizures on Public Transportation Requests for Identification Roadblocks: Reasonable Suspicion: Frisk of Suspects Scope of Terry Frisk Seizures of Property Arrest Probable Cause for Arrest Warrantless
    [Show full text]
  • The Case for Searches on Public Transportation
    3 THE CASE FOR SEARCHES ON PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION By Jocelyn Waite Attorney Reno, Nevada 2. Focus I. INTRODUCTION The balance of the Introduction presents the histori- cal background and context for the possible need for A. Statement of the Problem transit authorities to conduct searches and briefly ad- dresses the legal background and context: basic Fourth Due to increased concerns about security, transit Amendment3 requirements, particularly the warrant agencies—of their own volition or at the request of fed- and individualized suspicion requirements, and the eral, state, or local governments—may seek to institute exceptions to those requirements. However, the primary search procedures analogous to those done in airports to focus for legal analysis of security screening is on the ensure that explosives, biological weapons, etc., do not exceptions to the warrant and individualized suspicion enter the transit system. While security screenings are requirements. Therefore, the main body of the paper routine in airports, they have to date been rare in the discusses the categories of warrantless searches that 1 transit environment. Given their open nature, their provide likely legal models for analyzing transit high volume of traffic, and the type of trips taken on searches,4 most notably cases involving airport security them, transit systems present a very different security screening and other types of entry screening. After re- environment than airports. These differences give rise viewing the applicable legal authority, the paper pre-
    [Show full text]
  • Police-Media Relations
    0EASTHAMPTON POLICE Department Manual: DEPARTMENT Policy No. 1.08 Subject: Searches & Seizures MASSACHUSETTS POLICE ACCREDITATION GENERAL ORDER STANDARDS REFERENCED: 1.2.4, a, b, c, d, e, f, g; 74.3.1 M.G.L. Chapter 276 Section 2D (12/21/20) Issue Date: 01-17- Issuing Authority 2021 Robert J. Alberti Effective Date: 01- Robert J. Alberti 27-2021 Chief of Police I. General Considerations and Guidelines: The term “searches and seizures” includes the examination of persons or places for the discovery of contraband, property stolen or otherwise unlawfully obtained or held, or of evidence of the commission of crime, and the taking into legal custody of such property or evidence for presentation to the court. Failure to comply with the legal technicalities which govern these procedures results in more failures to obtain convictions than any other source. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to require that, whenever possible and practicable, with certain limited exceptions, a police officer should always obtain a valid search warrant in advance.1 The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides as follows: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Page 1 Article XIV of the Massachusetts Constitution provides as follows: Every subject has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches, and seizures, of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions.
    [Show full text]
  • Title 3 – Tribal Court Chapter 3 – Rules of Criminal Procedure
    Title 3 – Tribal Court Chapter 3 – Rules of Criminal Procedure Sec. 3-03.010 Title 3-03.020 Authority 3-03.030 Purpose and Scope 3-03.040 Definitions 3-03.050 Time Computation 3-03.060 Assistance from State and Federal Agencies Subchapter I - Complaints 3-03.070 Form of Complaint 3-03.080 Time of Complaint 3-03.090 Tolling of Time for Complaint 3-03.100 Amendments to Complaints Subchapter II - Arrests, Summons and Warrants 3-03.110 Cause for Arrests 3-03.120 Arrest Warrants or Summons Upon Complaint 3-03.130 Notification of Rights Subchapter III - Search Warrants 3-03.140 Who May Issue 3-03.150 Probable Cause 3-03.160 Content and Service 3-03.170 Effective Date of Search Warrant 3-03.180 Search and Seizure 3-03.190 Disposition of Seized Property Subchapter IV - Probable Cause Hearing & Arraignments 3-03.200 Bail or Bond - Release Before Trial 3-03.210 Procedure Following Warrantless Arrest 3-03.215 Right to Counsel 3-03.220 Commitment and Arraignment 3-03.230 Receipt of Plea 3-03.240 Copy of Complaint and/or Citation and Order on Release 3-03.250 Withdrawal of Guilty Plea Subchapter V - Disclosure of Information and Discovery 3-03.260 Prosecutor's Obligations 3-03.270 Defendant's Obligations 3-03.280 Additional Disclosures 3-03.290 Matters Not Subject to Disclosure 3-03.300 Regulation of Discovery 3-03.310 Depositions Title 3, Chapter 3 Page 1 Subchapter VI - Pretrial Proceedings 3-03.320 Confession Procedure 3-03.330 Pretrial Motion Procedure Subchapter VII - Speedy Trial 3-03.340 Speedy and Public Trial 3-03.350 Length of Time SubchapterVIII
    [Show full text]
  • Scope of Consent Searches: Are Police Officers and Judges Misguided by the Objective Reasonableness Test
    Missouri Law Review Volume 57 Issue 3 Summer 1992 Article 12 Summer 1992 Scope of Consent Searches: Are Police Officers and Judges Misguided by the Objective Reasonableness Test Marc L. Edmondson Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Marc L. Edmondson, Scope of Consent Searches: Are Police Officers and Judges Misguided by the Objective Reasonableness Test, 57 MO. L. REV. (1992) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol57/iss3/12 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Missouri Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Edmondson: Edmondson: Scope of Consent Searches Scope of Consent Searches: Are Police Officers and Judges Misguided by the Objective Reasonableness Test? Florida v. Jimeno' These [Fourth Amendment rights], I protest, are not mere second-class fights but belong in the catalog of indispensable freedoms. Among deprivations of rights, none is so effective in cowing a population, crushing the spirit of the individual and putting terror in every heart. Uncontrolled search and seizure is one of the first 2and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every arbitrary government. I. INTRODUCTION Law enforcement officials will arrest or temporarily detain over 14 million Americans this year for offenses ranging from murder to speeding. During these stops, the police officer will frequently ask for and receive the individual's consent to search his or her belongings.
    [Show full text]
  • Consent Searches and Fourth Amendment Reasonableness Alafair S
    Florida Law Review Volume 67 | Issue 2 Article 2 January 2016 Consent Searches and Fourth Amendment Reasonableness Alafair S. Burke Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Alafair S. Burke, Consent Searches and Fourth Amendment Reasonableness, 67 Fla. L. Rev. 509 (2016). Available at: http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr/vol67/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UF Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida Law Review by an authorized administrator of UF Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Burke: Consent Searches and Fourth Amendment Reasonableness CONSENT SEARCHES AND FOURTH AMENDMENT REASONABLENESS Alafair S. Burke* Abstract This Article builds on a growing body of scholarship discussing the role of reasonableness in consent-search doctrine. Although the language of “voluntary consent” implies a subjective inquiry into the state of mind of the person granting consent, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly injected an objective standard of reasonableness into its analysis of a citizen’s consent. Several scholars have characterized the Court’s consent jurisprudence as focusing not on true voluntariness but on the reasonableness of police conduct, which they argue is appropriate because the touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is “reasonableness.” While the renewed scholarly focus on the role of reasonableness in the Court’s consent jurisprudence is helpful in explaining the puzzling disconnect between language and doctrine, much of this current emphasis has been distorted by the dichotomy between coercion and voluntariness: Did police use (unreasonable) coercive tactics that would override a (reasonable) person’s free will? However, the Fourth Amendment’s default concept of reasonableness is based not on coercion or volition but on its requirement of a warrant based on probable cause.
    [Show full text]
  • Search Warrants -- Force, Detention, and Arrest
    Colorado Springs Police Department General Order 743 Section 7: Search Warrants -- Force, Detention, and Arrest Active Date: 6/26/2017 Supersedes Date: 1/9/2013 .1 Purpose To specify procedures for obtaining and executing search warrants. .2 Cross Reference GO 740, Determining Probable Cause GO 330, Damage to Non-Police Property GO 880, Deconfliction GO 1330, Ride-Along Program SOP P1-166, Search Warrant Checklist SOP M1-33, Raid Procedures SOP M1-02, Handling of Affidavits for 41.1 Orders: Search and Arrest Warrants SOP M1-16, Electronic Warrants SOP I2-02, Handling of Affidavits for 41.1 Orders Search and Arrest Warrants SOP I1-17, Fax Warrants .3 Discussion The nucleus of the Fourth Amendment is the warrant requirement and the essence of the warrant requirement is probable cause. A search warrant must be obtained to search areas where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy (e.g. a home) unless a recognized exception to the warrant requirement exists. Note: Colorado law pertaining to arrests, searches, and seizures is contained in Article 3, Title 16, of the Colorado Revised Statutes. The present General Order provides guidance for implementing its provisions concerning searches, but familiarity with the applicable statutes is essential. Every sworn member of the Department, regardless of present assignment, is expected to know the provisions of that Article thoroughly. .4 Policy The Colorado Springs Police Department will exercise utmost care to respect personal and property rights by following carefully-defined procedures in obtaining and executing all search warrants. Execution will be carried out thoroughly and vigorously, but with the minimum of force necessary to fulfill legitimate police purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • “Was That a Yes Or a No?” Reviewing Voluntariness in Consent Searches
    COPYRIGHT © 2018 VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW ASSOCIATION NOTE “WAS THAT A YES OR A NO?” REVIEWING VOLUNTARINESS IN CONSENT SEARCHES James C. McGlinchy* “Can we take a look inside your car?” More than half of all roadside searches begin this way. A consent search is a cop’s quickest and easiest way to look for evidence in a car, in a home, or on a suspect’s person. Perhaps because of that, it is not always clear in practice that answering no really means no. The Supreme Court has long held that consent searches must be completely voluntary or evidence stemming from that search may not be admitted against the suspect searched. This rule deters unconstitutional law enforcement tactics. But the Court has not provided the doctrinal tools to keep law enforcement in check. Appellate courts are currently free to review voluntariness only for “clear error” by the trial court, leading to a toothless review. This Note argues that voluntariness in consent searches must be reviewed de novo on appeal. This independent review doctrinally aligns with the Supreme Court’s criminal standard-of-review jurisprudence. In contrast, deferential review leaves criminal defendants with insufficient Due Process surrounding the waiver of constitutional rights. It allows individual trial courts, rather than appellate courts, to determine the substance of the law and allows similar facts to lead to different legal results. It thus leaves law enforcement officers with inadequate guidance on what the Fourth Amendment allows and demands. The inherent psychological pressure of being questioned by the police, cultural fear of law enforcement, and a pattern of discriminatory requests to search create situations likely to result in coercion.
    [Show full text]
  • MDTA Police Directives Will Be Amended Directives Recently Issued During Roll Call
    Mission: The Maryland Transportation Authority (MDTA) Police provides Safety, Security and Service in partnership with the community to all who use and work on MDTA facilities and other vital transportation assets located throughout Maryland. Vision: The MDTA Police will provide transparent, dedicated, professional law enforcement services, in partnership with the citizens that use Maryland’s premier transportation assets. The men and women of the MDTA Police will be held to the highest standards in the law enforcement profession and will uphold our core values of Dedication, Integrity, Mindfulness, Pride, and Service. We will ensure a safe and secure workplace for our co-workers and a safe and secure environment for the public. We will promote a culture of inclusivity through compassion, selfless service, and mindfulness. Core Values: Dedication Commitment to providing fair and equitable treatment to every individual we serve, to include our fellow co-workers Integrity Honest and ethical treatment of all people while holding ourselves and each other accountable in order to ensure the public's trust Mindfulness Attentive to experiences occurring in the present moment without judgement Pride Portraying the agency in a positive manner while conducting ourselves with honor and professionalism Service Unwavering, compassionate service to the public and the community through thoughtful and diligent execution of our duties Goals: Secure Transportation Infrastructures Promote Highway Safety and the Efficient Flow of Traffic Deter and Interdict Criminal Activity and Homeland Security Threats Assist and Educate Customers and Co-Workers with Compassion and Pride Employ, Train, Equip, and Develop a Model Workforce that is Diverse, Healthy, and Mindful Colonel Kevin M.
    [Show full text]
  • Consent Searches
    POINT OF VIEW Consent Searches “Sure you can look. I don’t have any drugs.” 1 any years ago, a wise Greek philosopher proclaimed, “There’s no harm in asking.” Or perhaps it was a Greek playboy. Well, whoever it was, he was wise. MAnd, while these words of wisdom are relevant in many endeavors, they are especially pertinent to police work where seeking consent to search for evidence is not only harmless, it’s often smart. After all, when officers lack probable cause for a warrant, a consent search may be their only option.2 Newer officers may discount the benefits of consent searches because they cannot imagine that suspects would actually consent to searches of places or things in which they had hidden their drugs, firearms, stolen property, or other things that could land them in jail. But, like those misguided moths who keep flying into hot lightbulbs, they do.3 Why? The California Supreme Court noted three reasons: THEY’LL NEVER FIND IT: Many criminals think they have hidden the evidence so cleverly that the officers won’t be able to find it. For example in People v. Wheeler4 a cocky murder suspect told an LAPD homicide detective, “Let’s go search my apartment. You can search the shit out of it. I’ll even help you.” The detective accepted the invitation and found the murder weapon hidden behind a stereo speaker. THEY’RE JUST TESTING ME: Other suspects think that if they consent the officers will figure they must be innocent and not bother searching, or at least they will conduct a superficial search.
    [Show full text]
  • Cyber-Investigative Issues I
    Cyber-Investigative Issues I In This Issue January 2014 Using the PIRL List to Get the Most out of Forensic Searches and to Volume 62 Draft Unassailable Search Warrants . 1 Number 1 By Michael L. Levy and Timothy M. O’Shea United States Consensual Searches of Computers and Assumption of Online Department of Justice Identities . 7 Executive Office for United States Attorneys By Edward J. McAndrew Washington, DC 20530 Seizing and Operating Criminal Computer Networks . .23 H Marshall Jarrett Director By Edward Chang Contributors' opinions and statements should not be considered an Say Hello to My Little Friend: The New and Improved Cyberstalking endorsement by EOUSA for any Statute . 30 policy, program, or service By Edward J. McAndrew The United States Attorneys' Bulletin is published pursuant to 28 CFR § 0 22(b) The United States Attorneys' Bulletin is published bimonthly by the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, Office of Legal Education, 1620 Pendleton Street, Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Managing Editor Jim Donovan Associate Editor Carmel Matin Law Clerk Jennifer Jokerst Internet Address www usdoj gov/usao/ reading_room/foiamanuals html Send article submissions and address changes to Managing Editor, United States Attorneys' Bulletin, National Advocacy Center, Office of Legal Education, 1620 Pendleton Street, Columbia, SC 29201 Using the PIRL List to Get the Most out of Forensic Searches and to Draft Unassailable Search Warrants Michael L. Levy Assistant United States Attorney Eastern District of Pennsylvania Timothy M. O’Shea Assistant United States Attorney Western District of Wisconsin I. Introduction The Prosecutor’s Initial Reference List for Windows-based Computers (PIRL-Windows) is a plain English guide for an initial forensic analysis of Windows-based computers.
    [Show full text]
  • Subway Searches: Which Exception to the Warrant and Probable Cause Requirements Applies to Suspicionless Searches of Mass Transit Passengers to Prevent Terrorism?
    Fordham Law Review Volume 74 Issue 6 Article 8 2006 Subway Searches: Which Exception to the Warrant and Probable Cause Requirements Applies to Suspicionless Searches of Mass Transit Passengers To Prevent Terrorism? Charles J. Keeley III Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Charles J. Keeley III, Subway Searches: Which Exception to the Warrant and Probable Cause Requirements Applies to Suspicionless Searches of Mass Transit Passengers To Prevent Terrorism?, 74 Fordham L. Rev. 3231 (2006). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol74/iss6/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Subway Searches: Which Exception to the Warrant and Probable Cause Requirements Applies to Suspicionless Searches of Mass Transit Passengers To Prevent Terrorism? Cover Page Footnote J.D. Candidate, 2007, Fordham University School of Law. I would like to thank Professor Daniel Richman for his guidance and invaluable insight. This article is available in Fordham Law Review: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol74/iss6/8 SUBWAY SEARCHES: WHICH EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT AND PROBABLE CAUSE REQUIREMENTS APPLIES TO SUSPICIONLESS SEARCHES OF MASS TRANSIT PASSENGERS TO PREVENT TERRORISM? CharlesJ. Keeley III* INTRODUCTION The Fourth Amendment has become increasingly important in recent years. Modem technology continues to expand the government's capacity to collect information about its citizens to a degree that must have been unfathomable to the Amendment's authors.
    [Show full text]