DOCSLIB.ORG

Download August05leb.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Download August05leb.Pdf August 2005 Volume 74 Number 8 United States Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation Washington, DC 20535-0001 Robert S. Mueller III Director Contributors’ opinions and statements Features should not be considered an endorsement by the FBI for any policy, program, or service. The attorney general has determined Resurrecting Cold Case The NCAVC offers assistance to law that the publication of this periodical is Serial Homicide Investigations 1 enforcement agencies investigating necessary in the transaction of the several types of cases, including cold public business required by law. Use By Leonard G. Johns, of funds for printing this periodical has case homicides. been approved by the director of the Gerard F. Downes, Office of Management and Budget. and Camille D. Bibles The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin (ISSN-0014-5688) is published monthly by the Federal Bureau of Reducing a Guilty Suspect’s Investigators who understand and apply Investigation, 935 Pennsylvania Resistance to Confessing 13 criminological theories may develop more Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. convincing themes during interrogations, 20535-0001. Periodicals postage paid By Brian Parsi Boetig at Washington, D.C., and additional resulting in more confessions. mailing offices. Postmaster: Send address changes to Editor, FBI Law The Motor Vehicle Exception This is one of the exceptions to the Enforcement Bulletin, FBI Academy, search warrant requirement that allows Madison Building, Room 201, By Edward Hendrie 22 Quantico, VA 22135. an officer to search all or part of a motor vehicle to the same degree as if he had Editor a search warrant. John E. Ott Associate Editors Cynthia L. Lewis David W. MacWha Departments Bunny S. Morris Art Director Denise Bennett Smith 7 Unusual Weapon 21 ViCAP Alert Assistant Art Director Ring Knife Truck Driver Serial Killings Stephanie L. Lowe This publication is produced by 8 Perspective members of the Law Enforcement Excessive Force 101 Communication Unit, Training and Development Division. Internet Address [email protected] Cover Photo © PhotoGear Send article submissions to Editor, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, FBI Academy, Madison Building, Room 201, Quantico, VA 22135. ISSN 0014-5688 USPS 383-310 Resurrecting Cold Case Serial Homicide Investigations By LEONARD G. JOHNS, M. S., GERARD F. DOWNES, and CAMILLE D. BIBLES “It requires a singular focus in committing the actual crime, quite cold-bloodedly.”1 — Robert Spangler pproximately one- third of all homicides Ain the United States are not cleared within the year committed.2 In cold case homicides, investigators often are forced to work with stale information and a lack of evidence.3 However, the View of Miner Spring Trail leading to the crime FBI’s National Center for the scene at Horseshoe Mesa, Grand Canyon, Arizona, hiked by Robert Spangler and his Analysis of Violent Crime third wife prior to her death in April 1993. (NCAVC) offers consulta- tions on the investigation of August 2005 / 1 cold case serial homicides, as suggestions; profiles of un- 15-year-old daughter. All three well as several other types of known offenders; interview, had suffered gunshot wounds cases. The NCAVC combines prosecutive, and trial strategies; from a .38-caliber handgun. investigative and operational major case management; search The daughter, found partially support functions, research, and warrant assistance; and expert clothed in her bed, had a bullet training to provide assistance testimony. With the NCAVC’s wound in her back. The son, without charge to federal, state, assistance, a 20-year-old cold also in bed, had been shot once local, and foreign law enforce- case homicide investigation in in his upper chest. The mother’s ment agencies investigating the Southwest was solved in body lay slumped over a type- unusual or repetitive violent 2000. writer in the basement with a crimes.4 bullet wound high on her fore- Furthermore, the NCAVC’s Suspicious Deaths head. A typewritten suicide note Behavioral Analysis Units On the morning of Decem- on the typewriter was signed provide behavioral-based ber 30, 1978, deputies from the with her initial. investigative support by apply- Arapahoe County, Colorado, As often is the case in intra- ing case experience, research, Sheriff’s Office responded to familial homicide investiga- and training to complex and the scene of a possible double tions, detectives interviewed the time-sensitive crimes typically homicide/suicide in a private surviving spouse as a suspect.5 involving acts or threats of residence in Littleton, Colorado. The husband, Robert Spangler, violence. This support includes A neighbor had discovered the age 45, told investigators that he crime, threat, and critical bodies of a 45-year-old woman, was not home during the crime. incident analysis; investigative her 17-year-old son, and her Spangler admitted marital problems with his wife and that he planned to leave her. He described leaving his house early that morning and finding sheriff’s deputies there when he returned. Spangler’s original story changed significantly in a subsequent interview. Two separate, private polygraph examiners found his answers inconclusive to questions about his role in the deaths. The .38- caliber weapon used in all three shootings belonged to Spangler, and evidence of gunshot residue Special Agent Johns is assigned Special Agent Downes serves was found on his right palm. On to the Crisis Management Unit in the NCAVC’s Behavioral in the FBI’s Criticial Incident Analysis Unit in the FBI’s Criticial January 3, 1979, the Arapahoe Response Group. Incident Response Group. County coroner closed the case as a double homicide/suicide. Ms. Bibles is the assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Arizona. The sheriff’s office was unable 2 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin to overcome the coroner’s findings, and they had ex- hausted all investigative leads; therefore, they were forced to close the case. Most of the evidence either was returned to Spangler or destroyed. Seven months later, Spangler married again. He and his second wife shared a com- mon interest—hiking in Grand Canyon, Arizona. She eventu- ally wrote a book of her experi- ences hiking the Canyon.6 Subsequently, the couple began to have marital problems, and they divorced in 1988. In April 1993, Spangler and his third wife, age 58, backpacked in Grand Canyon, Arizona. This wife was an active aerobics instructor with five grown children and numer- ous grandchildren from a previous marriage. One morn- ing in April 1993, Spangler appeared at a ranger station in the Grand Canyon and calmly told the ranger that his wife had fallen to her death. He explained that they had stopped to take a picture on the trail and, Sketch depicts path that Spangler’s third wife fell after he pushed her. when he looked back, his wife was gone. never was directly implicated in the Canyon with a variety of Rangers located the third this wife’s death because it was partners several times a year. wife’s body approximately 160 ruled an accident. He drew After the death of his third feet below the trail. The autopsy national attention with inter- wife, Spangler reestablished report concluded that she views on several television contact with his second wife, sustained massive injuries, shows.7 As a grieving husband, who moved back into his including abrasions, contusions, Spangler discussed his wife’s Colorado home and died of a lacerations, and multiple frac- accidental death and the dangers drug overdose in 1994. This tures of the neck, chest, and of hiking in the Grand Canyon. death was not investigated lower extremities. Spangler Spangler continued to backpack by law enforcement. August 2005 / 3 The Investigation knowledge of the Grand Can- NCAVC Behavioral Assess- In January 1999, perceptive yon, joined the team. The ment Questionnaire when investigators from the U.S. AUSA united the cases under interviewing some of Spangler’s Department of Interior, National the umbrella of federal juris- associates. Early investigation Park Service, and counties of diction as an insurance fraud/ revealed that Spangler was an Coconino, Arizona, and Arapa- murder, and an FBI agent educated, intelligent, and hoe, Colorado, linked the cold in Flagstaff contacted the successful man. A charismatic case homicides in their respec- NCAVC. individual, he worked in careers tive jurisdictions. They met with First, NCAVC officials of human relations and public agents from the FBI’s Flagstaff, suggested that investigators speaking. In addition, Spangler Arizona, resident agency and complete a subject history on spent a significant amount of requested assistance. An assis- Spangler, stressing that inves- time living in different parts of tant U.S. attorney (AUSA) from tigators should familiarize Colorado and hiking the Grand the District of Arizona with themselves with all available Canyon. One lead set by the experience in capital murder information.8 Further, they FBI agent resulted in an inter- cases, who had a personal recommended using an view of a woman living in a small Colorado community who, subsequently, contacted authorities a few weeks after her interview. At that time, she gave them a copy of a letter she received from Spangler in which he advised her that he had terminal cancer. The investigative team, with concurrence from the NCAVC, immediately approached Spangler. A complete confes- sion was critical for prosecution because of the lack of existing evidence. The investigative team traveled to Colorado to interview Spangler, and the AUSA met them there to pro- vide on-site legal consultation. Confession In Colorado, local law During the course of investigation, Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Inves- enforcement and the local FBI tigator Paul Goodman (co-case agent) directed the construction of an office supported investigators. anotomically correct trajectory model depicting the bullet path and Because any prosecution de- muzzle distance from Spangler’s first wife’s fatal gunshot wound.
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]