DOCSLIB.ORG

Testing the Limits: When Aggressive Newsgathering Becomes Illegal Conduct

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Testing the Limits: When Aggressive Newsgathering Becomes Illegal Conduct TESTING THE LIMITS: WHEN AGGRESSIVE NEWSGATHERING BECOMES ILLEGAL CONDUCT First Amendment jurisprudence ensures broad protections in speech, but provides fewer guidelines on gathering the news. One instance involvingtrespass may be a poor test case to push the envelope of the law regarding newsgathering. BY TOMMY licly apologizing on the air: "Caught in the rush of reporter Tom Lyden pursued the the story, I went too far. Once I viewed the tape, SANGCHOMPUPHEN story of a professional boxer and saw more than two hours of dog-fighting footage, accused of staging illegal dog AND I felt I had two obligations. First, turn the tape over fights. When that story eventual- to the police because it showed a crime. Second, AKLILU DUNLAP ly aired, little did Lyden realize inform the public about a viciously inhumane thatApril the story27, would2000, beKMSP-TV easily sport.' Onupstaged by the manner in which he pursued it. As Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the part of his investigation of the story, Lyden took a Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press in videotape depicting dogfights from a car parked on Arlington, Va., said that reporters being charged in private property where 13 pit bulls had been seized. this country is rare.' While it is not unusual for After making a copy of the tape, Lyden turned over reporters to be arrested, Dalglish, a former media law the original copy to Sherburne County authorities attorney with Dorsey & Whitney and a former on May 2, and KMSP-Tv aired the dogfighting tape Pioneer Press reporter, said those cases often involve the next day. trespassing at crime scenes by reporters crossing After accusations first flew that he committed police lines. crines while gathering information for that story, Despite the warnings of First Amendment advo- Lvden simply defended his actions as "aggressive cates to reserve judgment on Lyden's conduct until reporting." Days later, criticisms from his profession- the criminal charges against him have been resolved, al colleagues surfaced. Eventually, Sherburne many of Lyden's colleagues dismissed his "aggressive with three reporting" excuse and denounced his conduct as County prosecutors formally charged him 4 misdemeanor counts theft, temporary theft, and unethical. In fact, the Minnesota Chapter of the motor-vehicle tampering. Lyden responded by pub- Society of Professional Journalists issued a harsh 23 AUGUST 2000 / BENCH & BAR "'he Cohen decision and state and federal courts' reliance on the language in Cohen have evolved legal doctrines to the point where they are ... legally unsupportable . ..." statement shortly after the allegations against Lyden however, the Supreme Court has only occasionally surfaced, stating that not only did Lyden act unethi- considered newsgathering, and even when the Court cally when he took the videotape, but he acted in a has done so, its rules have not always been clear. For fashion not condoned by professional journalists in instance, the Supreme Court has held that the First pursuit of a story. In the meantime, KMSP-TV has Amendment affords some degree of protection for stated that it was conducting an internal investiga- newsgathering, s but the scope of that protection is tion and reserved the right to take disciplinary action not clearly understood. The Supreme Court has also against Lyden once legal issues were resolved. explained that First Amendment protection extends Journalism ethics aside, the pressing issue now is to "routine newspaper reporting techniques," but whether Lyden's prosecution will be determined in what exactly is "routine" is also not clearly under- light of First Amendment interests. Moreover, if stood." Courts have stated that journalists, as com- indeed the Sherburne County court finds that Lyden pared to the general public, have no superior right of engaged in illegal newsgathering practice, will that access to people and information; however, some decision have a "chilling effect" on the entire media courts have sometimes given preferential treatment industry and prevent important information from to journalists." Finally, the U.S. Supreme Court has being uncovered? An analysis of the relevant law repeatedly asserted that the First Amendment does and Lyden's own admission of his wrongful acts indi- not protect journalists from torts and crimes com- cate that this case will likely have no effect on First mitted while gathering information; however, other Amendment protections. However, assuming the courts have sometimes gone out of their ways to pro- case is not resolved by plea bargain and it goes up the tect them." (In fact, one has to wonder whether the appellate ladder - an unlikely scenario indeed - Sherburne County prosecutors are not already afford- Lyden's prosecution may serve to clarify the law ing Lyden some protection by stating that they are regarding newsgathering torts and crimes, something not seeking jail time for him should he be convicted recent cases have not been able to do. of any of the misdemeanors. Each charge carries a One of the reasons why the law has been slow in maximum fine of $700 and 90 days in jail.) clearly defining what are permissible newsgathering Because so few cases involve a journalist whose practices stems from Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 acts are blatantly unlawful (arguably in contrast to U.S. 663 (1991), wherein the U.S. Supreme Court Lyden's own admission of wrongdoing), and even based its decision on a misstatement of the law. fewer of these cases actually go to trial, the question Unfortunately, the Cohen decision and state and fed- of whether a particular newsgathering activity is eral courts' reliance on the language in Cohen have accorded First Amendment protection may not be evolved legal doctrines to the point where they are definitively answered soon. This uncertainty in the not only legally unsupportable but also deny journal- law is not surprising considering First Amendment ists the First Amendment protections they should jurisprudence has largely evolved as specific issues deserve under the U.S. Constitution. Lyden's arise. However, perhaps one of the most detrimen- allegedly illegal newsgathering acts serve as a conve- tal events in this natural evolution of First nient vehicle to take a close look at the Cohen case Amendment jurisprudence is the U.S. Supreme and its impact on subsequent newsgathering cases. Court's opinion in Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., a case involving the Pioneer Press and Star Tribune newspa- FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION pers, which has served as the legal backbone for FOR NEWSGATHERING many newsgathering opinions coming out of state "Newsgathering" is a term used to describe the and federal courts today. broad range of activities journalists undertake to col- lect the information they intend to publish or broad- COHEN V. COWLES MEDIA CO. cast. Without First Amendment protections, jour- Cohen has hardened into doctrines that preclude nalists would not be able to perform what some First Amendment protection for newsgathering 6 torts observers call their "watchdog" duties. It was, after and crimes. Once it was all said and done, the all, the protections of the First Amendment that per- Supreme Court, with Justice White writing the five- mitted Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of The to-four majority opinion, concluded that the First Washington Post to pursue leads that eventually Amendment offers no protection from the enforce- fueled President Nixon's decision to leave the White ment of "generally applicable laws" against news- House. gatherers and applies only to "lawfully acquired Since the First Amendment applies to both information." A few years later, the significant legal speech and some forms of conduct,' there is no rea- impact of the Cohen case on newsgathering was made son to think that newsgathering practices should not apparent when a jury awarded $5.5 million in puni- be afforded any protections. Notwithstanding the tive damages against ABC News in a lawsuit against constitutional applicability of the First Amendment, Food Lion, Inc. While philosophically the verdict 24 AUGUST 2000 / BENCH & BAR "the Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment affords some degree of protection for newsgathering, but the scope of that protection is not clearly understood" could have represented a possible "chilling effect" on that Justice White, in reaching these conclusions aggressive reporters who might find it necessary to about "generally applicable laws" and "unlawfully (or even find it impossible not to) commit torts or acquired information," misinterpreted and misstated crimes while covering important news stories that prior case holdings and included confusing dicta in could not be covered any other way, its practical the majority opinion. State and federal courts have effect is yet unclear. since relied on Justice White's opinion in Cohen as A close look at Cohen shows just how First the law of the land. As a result, First Amendment Amendment jurisprudence was diverted from its nat- defenders say, many post-Cohen cases have perpetu- ural evolutionary track. Dan Cohen was a public ated this flawed legal analysis and given legal signif- relations executive who worked for Republican icance to the dicta contained in Cohen in order to Wheelock Whitney during his 1982 bid for governor. punish newsgathering practices. Less than a week before Minnesota's general elec- tion, Cohen contacted a number of journalists and GENERALLY APPLICABLE LAWS offered them information concerning a rival DFL Justice White's doctrine of "generally applicable candidate in exchange for a promise of confidential- laws" is a commonsensical interpretation of the law: ity. Several reporters, including those working for if a law of general applicability was not designed to the Pioneer Press and Star Tribune, accepted his offer infringe on a fundamental right, then any burden and the condition attached to it. Cohen provided that a law might impose on that fundamental right is the reporters with public court documents showing only incidental and, therefore, of no constitutional that the DFL candidate had previously been arrested significance.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Crimes Act 2016
    REPUBLIC OF NAURU Crimes Act 2016 ______________________________ Act No. 18 of 2016 ______________________________ TABLE OF PROVISIONS PART 1 – PRELIMINARY ....................................................................................................... 1 1 Short title .................................................................................................... 1 2 Commencement ......................................................................................... 1 3 Application ................................................................................................. 1 4 Codification ................................................................................................ 1 5 Standard geographical jurisdiction ............................................................. 2 6 Extraterritorial jurisdiction—ship or aircraft outside Nauru ......................... 2 7 Extraterritorial jurisdiction—transnational crime ......................................... 4 PART 2 – INTERPRETATION ................................................................................................ 6 8 Definitions .................................................................................................. 6 9 Definition of consent ................................................................................ 13 PART 3 – PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY ................................................. 14 DIVISION 3.1 – PURPOSE AND APPLICATION ................................................................. 14 10 Purpose
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 10 General Offenses
    CHAPTER 10 General Offenses Article I Offenses and Miscellaneous Provisions Sec. 10-1 Definitions generally Sec. 10-2 Legislative intent Sec. 10-3 Affirmative defenses Sec. 10-4 Penalty Sec. 10-5 Parental responsibility for acts of minor children Sec. 10-6 Attempts; aiding, abetting or advising Sec. 10-7 Accessory to crime Article II Property Sec. 10-21 Trespass Sec. 10-22 Interference with use of public property Sec. 10-23 Parking on private premises Sec. 10-24 Littering Article III Damage or Destruction Sec. 10-41 Public property generally Sec. 10-42 Criminal mischief Sec. 10-43 Posters Article IV Theft and Related Offenses Sec. 10-61 Theft generally Sec. 10-62 Bad checks Sec. 10-63 Theft of rental property Sec. 10-64 Joyriding Sec. 10-65 Shoplifting Sec. 10-66 Price switching Sec. 10-67 Theft by receiving Sec. 10-68 Questioning of person suspected of theft without liability Article V Public Health and Safety Sec. 10-81 Abandoned containers Sec. 10-82 Storage of flammable liquids in vehicles Sec. 10-83 Storage of construction materials Sec. 10-84 Contamination of water Sec. 10-85 Poisonous substances Sec. 10-86 Cruelty to animals Sec. 10-87 Hunting and feeding of wildlife prohibited Sec. 10-88 Fire bans Article VI Morals Sec. 10-101 Lewd conduct Sec. 10-102 Obscene conduct Sec. 10-103 Indecent books or demonstrations Article VII Public Peace Sec. 10-121 Disorderly conduct Sec. 10-122 Disrupting lawful assembly Sec. 10-123 Loitering Sec. 10-124 Unlawful assembly Sec. 10-125 Unlawful interference; educational institutions 10-1 Sec.
    [Show full text]
  • Suppression of Popular Gatherings in England, 1800-1830 Frank W
    digitalcommons.nyls.edu Faculty Scholarship Articles & Chapters 1981 Suppression of Popular Gatherings in England, 1800-1830 Frank W. Munger New York Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/fac_articles_chapters Part of the Judges Commons, and the Law and Society Commons Recommended Citation 25 Am. J. Legal Hist. 111 (1981) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles & Chapters by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@NYLS. Suppression of Popular Gatherings in England, 1800-1830 by FRANK MUNGER* Recent works on crime and society in eighteenth century England have reported challenging questions about the exercise of legal authority and the maintenance of control over the working classes.1 It has been suggested, for example, that the manipulation of sentencing for capital offenses at eighteenth century assizes re- flected a deep concern for maintaining the legitimacy of class rule through the legal system apart from any immediate concern with crime. 2 It has also been argued that while the creation of capital offenses under the Black Act of 1722 reflected class struggle over the uses of property, the commitment of the English legal system to even-handed justice tempered the effect of the Act in certain in- stances. 3 Thus, by two different routes, recent historians have ar- gued that the English criminal justice system produced more temp- erate and "just" results than the context of class rule might suggest. Such studies suggest that a legal system, and specifically the legal system of Industrial Revolution England, was a complex sys- tem.
    [Show full text]
  • 5 Freedom of Association and Assembly
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Brunel University Research Archive 5 Freedom of Association and Assembly RODA MUSHKAT S.K. LAU, perhaps the most perceptive academic observer of the Hong Kong social scene, has contended in his influential book1 that the dominant cultural code in the territory is 'utilitarianistic familism'. This manifests itself in a normative and behavioural tendency of local Chinese to place their familial interests above the interests of other individuals, groups, and society as a whole, and to structure their relationships with other parties in a manner consistent with the ultimate objective of maximizing familial wel­ fare. The utilitarianistic dimension of familism is rooted, accord­ ing to Lau, in the strong inclination exhibited by family members to accord far greater importance to material interests than to non-material ones. Utilitarianistic familism is said to generate attitudes such as 'aloofness towards society' ('[t]he Hong Kong Chinese in general neither identify with Hong Kong nor are committed to it but rather tend to treat it as an instrument. Consequently, society is conceived as a setting wherein one exploits ... the opportunities available ... to advance the interests of oneself and one's fami­ lial group');2 'avoidance of involvement with outsiders' ('[s]uspi- cious attitudes towards outsiders and distrust of them have long been a recognized cultural feature of Chinese people, which have their roots in a peasant society where relatively self-contained life confined to small geographical areas was the rule. Given the Chinese abhorrence of conflict and aggression, we find the coexistence of intense emotional attachment among people in small groups, and cold impersonal postures towards those who are outsiders ..
    [Show full text]
  • Law of Crimes (Indian Penal Code)
    Class –LL.B (HONS.) II SEM. Subject – IPC LAW OF CRIMES (INDIAN PENAL CODE) LLLL UNIT-III Group liability 1. Common Intention 2. Abetment UNIT-I General 3. Instigation, aiding and conspiracy 1. Concept of crime UNIT-II Element of Criminal 4. Mere act of abetment punishable 2. Distinction between crime Liability 5. Unlawful assembly and other wrongs 1. Person definition - natural 6. Basis of liability 3. McCauley’s draft based and legal person 7. Criminal conspiracy essentially on British notions 2. Mens rea- evil intention 8. Rioting as a specific offence 4. Salient features of the 3. Recent trends to fix liability General Exceptions : I.P.C. without mens rea in certain 9. Mental incapacity 5. IPC: a reflection of socio- economic offences 10. Minority different 4. Act in furtherance of guilty 11. Insanity social and moral values intent- common object 12. Medical and legal insanity 6. Applicability of I.P.C.- 5. Factors negativing guilty 13. Intoxication intention territorial and personal 14. Private defence-justification and limits 6. Definition of specific terms 15. When private defence extends to causing of death to protect body and property 16. Necessity 17. Mistake of fact 18. Offence relating to state 19. Against Tranquility 20. Contempt of Lawful Authority UNIT-IV Offences against human body 1. Culpable homicide 2. Murder 3. Culpable homicide amounting to murder 4. Grave and sudden provocation Unit-V Types of Punishment 5. Exceeding right to private defence 1. Death PAPER-III LAW OF CRIMES6. Hurt - grievous-I (PENAL and simple CODE) 2. Social relevance of capital punishment UNIT-I General 7.
    [Show full text]
  • Cap. 16 Tanzania Penal Code Chapter 16 of the Laws
    CAP. 16 TANZANIA PENAL CODE CHAPTER 16 OF THE LAWS (REVISED) (PRINCIPAL LEGISLATION) [Issued Under Cap. 1, s. 18] 1981 PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY THE GOVERNMENT PRINTER, DARES SALAAM Penal Code [CAP. 16 CHAPTER 16 PENAL CODE Arrangement of Sections PARTI General Provisions CHAPTER I Preliminary 1. Short title. 2. Its operation in lieu of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Saving of certain laws. CHAPTER II Interpretation 4. General rule of construction. 5. Interpretation. CHAPTER III Territorial Application of Code 6. Extent of jurisdiction of local courts. 7. Offences committed partly within and partly beyond the jurisdiction, CHAPTER IV General Rules as to Criminal Responsibility 8. Ignorance of law. 9. Bona fide claim of right. 10. Intention and motive. 11. Mistake of fact. 12. Presumption of sanity^ 13. Insanity. 14. Intoxication. 15. Immature age. 16. Judicial officers. 17. Compulsion. 18. Defence of person or property. 18A. The right of defence. 18B. Use of force in defence. 18C. When the right of defence extends to causing abath. 19. Use of force in effecting arrest. 20. Compulsion by husband. 21. Persons not to be punished twice for the same offence. 4 CAP. 16] Penal Code CHAPTER V Parties to Offences 22. Principal offenders. 23. Joint offences. 24. Councelling to commit an offence. CHAPTER VI Punishments 25. Different kinds of punishment. 26. Sentence of death. 27: Imprisonment. 28. Corpora] punishment. 29. Fines. 30. Forfeiture. 31. Compensation. 32. Costs. 33. Security for keeping the peace. 34. [Repealed]. 35. General punishment for misdemeanours. 36. Sentences cumulative, unless otherwise ordered. 37. Escaped convicts to serve unexpired sentences when recap- 38.
    [Show full text]
  • HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES STAFF ANALYSIS BILL #: HB 1 Combating Public Disorder SPONSOR(S)
    HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STAFF ANALYSIS BILL #: HB 1 Combating Public Disorder SPONSOR(S): Fernandez-Barquin and others TIED BILLS: IDEN./SIM. BILLS: SB 484 REFERENCE ACTION ANALYST STAFF DIRECTOR or BUDGET/POLICY CHIEF 1) Criminal Justice & Public Safety Subcommittee 11 Y, 6 N Hall Hall 2) Justice Appropriations Subcommittee 10 Y, 5 N Jones Keith 3) Judiciary Committee SUMMARY ANALYSIS Over the past year, protests relating to race, police tactics, and politics have swept across the country. While many protests in Florida remained peaceful, some cities were forced to issue emergency curfews as police officers were injured and local businesses were damaged and burglarized. Most recently, the Governor activated the National Guard to assist in securing the Capitol after authorities warned of threats of violent protests. While some violent and disorderly behavior associated with rioting may be prosecuted under current law, prosecuting and preventing other violent and destructive conduct may be difficult. HB 1 gives law enforcement and prosecutors additional tools to prevent violence and property destruction and to hold any person who uses a protest as an opportunity to commit crime accountable for their actions. The bill: Defines previously undefined crimes of affray, rioting, and inciting a riot and creates new crimes and enhanced penalties for aggravated rioting and aggravated inciting a riot. Increases penalties for assault or battery when committed in furtherance of a riot and requires a court to sentence a person convicted of battery of a law enforcement officer committed in furtherance of a riot to a six month minimum mandatory sentence. Creates the crime of mob intimidation, prohibiting a mob from forcefully compelling or attempting to compel another person to do any act or to assume or abandon a particular viewpoint.
    [Show full text]
  • PENAL CODE (Act No.45 of 1907)
    この刑法の翻訳は、平成十八年法律第三六号までの改正（平成１８年５月２８日施行） について、」 「法令用語日英標準対訳辞書 （平成１８年３月版）に準拠して作成したもので す。 なお、この法令の翻訳は公定訳ではありません。法的効力を有するのは日本語の法令自 体であり、翻訳はあくまでその理解を助けるための参考資料です。この翻訳の利用に伴っ て発生した問題について、一切の責任を負いかねますので、法律上の問題に関しては、官 報に掲載された日本語の法令を参照してください。 This English translation of the Penal Code has been prepared (up to the revisions of Act No. 36 of 2006(Effective May 28, 2006)) in compliance with the Standard Bilingual Dictionary (March 2006 edition). This is an unofficial translation. Only the original Japanese texts of laws and regulations have legal effect, and the translations are to be used solely as reference material to aid in the understanding of Japanese laws and regulations. The Government of Japan shall not be responsible for the accuracy, reliability or currency of the legislative material provided in this Website, or for any consequence resulting from use of the information in this Website. For all purposes of interpreting and applying law to any legal issue or dispute, users should consult the original Japanese texts published in the Official Gazette. PENAL CODE (Act No.45 of 1907) PART I. GENERAL PROVISIONS Chapter I. Scope of Application Article 1. (Crimes Committed within Japan) (1) This Code shall apply to anyone who commits a crime within the territory of Japan. (2) The same shall apply to anyone who commits a crime on board a Japanese vessel or aircraft outside the territory of Japan. Article 2. (Crimes Committed outside Japan) This Code shall apply to anyone who commits one of the following crimes outside the territory of Japan: (i)
    [Show full text]
  • Public Order Act 1986
    PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1986 1986 CHAPTER 64 An Act to abolish the common law offences of riot, rout, unlawful assembly and affray and certain statutory offences relating to public order; to create new offences relating to public order; to control public processions and assemblies; to control the stirring up of racial hatred; to provide for the exclusion of certain offenders from sporting events; to create a new offence relating to the contamination of or interference with goods; to confer power to direct certain trespassers to leave land; to amend section 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875, section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, Part V of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 and the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985; to repeal certain obsolete or unnecessary enactments; and for connected purposes. [7th November 1986] Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:— PART I NEW OFFENCES 1 Riot. (1 )Where 12 or more persons who are present together use or threaten unlawful violence for a common purpose and the conduct of them (taken together) is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety, each of the persons using unlawful violence for the common purpose is guilty of riot. (2) It is immaterial whether or not the 12 or more use or threaten unlawful violence simultaneously.
    [Show full text]
  • Policy 804 FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTED ACTIVITY
    Policy 804 Subject FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTED ACTIVITY Date Published Page DRAFT 13 September 2018 1 of 9 By Order of the Police Commissioner PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to ensure that BPD members protect the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, including the rights to freedom of speech and expression, freedom of assembly, and freedom to observe and record the actions of law enforcement officers. The exercise of First Amendment rights promotes the free exchange of ideas, which is fundamental to democratic governance. The preservation and protection of First Amendment rights foster transparency and accountability in government functions, including police functions, which are vital to maintaining public trust in the rule of law. POLICY BPD members shall respect and protect the First Amendment rights of all persons. The First Amendment protects: 1. The right to free speech and expression, which includes the right to criticize law enforcement or otherwise engage in protected expression in the presence of law enforcement officers without being subject to retaliation. 2. The right to freely organize and participate in lawful assemblies and protests in parks, on sidewalks, in streets, and in other public forums, including public forums near the object of the assembly or protest so that those assembled may be seen and heard. 3. The right to observe and record the actions of law enforcement officers in the public discharge or their duties in all public spaces (including sidewalks, parks, and other locations for lawful public protest), as well as all other areas in which persons have a legal right to be present (including a person’s home or business and common areas of public and private facilities and buildings), without being subject to retaliation.
    [Show full text]
  • 144222NCJRS.Pdf
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. BASIC COURSE INSTRUCTOR UNIT GUIDE C_______ C_R_IM_E_S_A_G_A_I_N_S_T_T_H_E_J_US_T_IC_E __ S_yS_T_E_M _______ ) ( July 1993 ) 144222 u.s. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the • person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Institute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this copyrighted material has been gran(!~t~fornia Ccmnission on Peace ".. Officer Standards and Trainincr to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permission of the copyright owner. THIS COi\JU\MSSaON • ON f~~AC~ OfflC~ijt SYAN!l)A~DS AND TtlA!NliNG -------------- • • This unit of instruction is designed as a guideline for performance objective-based law enforcement basic, training. It is part of the POST Basic Course guidelines system developed by California law enforcement trainers and criminal justice educators for the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. This guide is designed to assist the instructor in developing an appropriate lesson plan to cover the performance objectives which are required as minimum content of the Basic Course . • • II UNIT GUIDE 39 II • TABLE OF CONTENTS LEARNING DOMAIN 39 Crimes Against the Justice System Page Knowledge Domain 39 - (POSTRAC-tested) 3.8.1 Bribery 3.8.2 Perjury 3 3.8.4 Impersonation of an Officer ....................... .'. -5 3.8.5 Obstruction of an Officer's Duties .
    [Show full text]
  • The Elements of Criminal Law and Procedure, with a Chapter On
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES SCHOOL OF LAW LIBRARY Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2007 with funding from IVIicrosoft Corporation http://www.archive.org/details/criminallawandprOOwilsiala THE ELEMENTS OF CEIMINAL LAW AND PEOCEDUEE WITH A CHAPTER ON SUMMAEY CONVICTIONS ADAPTED FOR THE USE OF STUDENTS BY A. M. WILSHERE, MA., LL.B. OP gray's inn and the western circuit, barrister-at-law ; FORKBRLY EXHIBITIONER IN ROMAN LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF LONDON, HOLDER OF FIRST CERTIFICATE OF HONOUR OP THE COUNCIL OP LEGAL EDUCATION ; SPECIAL LECTURER IN LAW TO THE UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL. SECOND EDITION. LONDON SWEET AND MAXWELL, LIMITED 3, CHANCERY LANE 1911 T A COMPANION BOOK BY THE SAME AUTHOR— LEADING CASES IN THE CRIMINAL LAW FOR THE USE OP STUDENTS -8 NI I PKEFACE This book, though nominally a Second Edition, has been entirely re-written, and considerably enlarged. It still, how- ever, remains only an analysis of the Elements of Criminal Law and Procedure, and must be supplemented by reference to " Archbold's Criminal Practice," and to the cases cited. It is still necessary to emphasize to students that these cases, which are but a small fraction of the very large number of reported cases, are cited that they may be read, and not merely for the purpose of enabling an examination paper to be ornamented with their names. In order to render the book of more utility for the examina- tions of the Law Society the chapter on Courts of Summary Jurisdiction has been amplified. As I pointed out in the First Edition, it is not easy to attain accuracy in an analysis of this description.
    [Show full text]