DOCSLIB.ORG

Constitutional LAW Twelfth Edition

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Constitutional LAW Twelfth Edition Constitutional LAW twelfth edition Jacqueline R. Kanovitz John C. Klotter Justice Administration Legal Series Constitutional Law, Twelfth Edition Copyright © 1968, 1971, 1977, 1981, 1985, 1991, 1995, 1999, 2002, 2005, 2008, 2010 Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a member of the LexisNexis Group New Providence, NJ ISBN-13: 978-1-4224-6326-0 Phone 877-374-2919 Web Site www.lexisnexis.com/Anderson/criminaljustice All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced I any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the publisher. LexisNexis and the Knowledge Burst logo are trademarks of Reed Elsevier Properties, Inc. Anderson Publishing is a registered trademark of Anderson Publishing, a member of the LexisNexis Group Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Kanovitz, Jacqueline R. Constitutional law / Jacqueline R. Kanovitz. – 12th ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-4224-6326-0 (softbound : alk. paper) 1. Criminal investigation–United States. 2. Constitutional law--United States. I. Title. KF9625.K36 2010 342.73–dc22 2009052345 Cover design by Tin Box Studio, Inc. EDITOR Elisabeth Roszmann Ebben ACQUISITIONS EDITOR Michael C. Braswell Preface Four decades have passed since the fi rst edition of this textbook. During the 1960s and 1970s, the Supreme Court waged a campaign to reform the criminal justice system through the selective incorporation of Bill of Rights safeguards into the Fourteenth Amendment. Having constitutionalized crim- inal procedure, the Supreme Court then elaborated a set of constitutionally mandated restraints on police behavior. The “goodness” or “badness” of a legal precept, nevertheless, depends on how well it works in practice. This can only be known through empirical validation. So it is with constitutional inter- pretations. Just as the 1960s and 1970s were periods of reform and tremendous constitutional expansion, the current period is marked by solidifi cation and correction. Criminal justice became ensconced as a learned profession in the 1960s when Congress recognized that compliance with the Supreme Court’s con- stitutional mandates required better-educated police offi cers and appropriated funds to establish programs for their higher education. Discerning the need for high-quality learning materials, John Klotter embarked on a career of police scholarship that has spanned more than four decades. I was fortunate enough to be John’s co-author since the fi rst edition of this book. After seven editions, John decided to make a transition from working on this textbook to concentrat- ing on keeping his other titles up-to-date. Michael Kanovitz came on board as co-author at that time. During the years since the Eleventh Edition, the Supreme Court has announced a host of new decisions involving traffi c stops, pat-down searches, searches incident to arrest, the exclusionary rule, interrogations, and affi rma- tive action, among other topics. The Twelfth Edition contains six new cases. Many are high-profi le; you will recognize them from having read about them in the news. We wish to thank the professors, instructors, and police departments who have used our book over the years, especially for their suggestions, comments, and support, and most of all for the opportunity they have given us to engage in the intensive study of the Constitution as it applies to criminal justice personnel. We hope you will be pleased with the Twelfth Edition and we welcome your comments and questions. We can be reached at [email protected]. iii This page intentionally left blank John C. Klotter Justice Administration Legal Series John C. Klotter, J.D. was a Professor Emeritus and Former Dean of the School of Justice Administration, University of Louisville. Professor Klotter began his association with Anderson Publishing in 1967, serving as Editorial Director of its newly formed Police Publications Advisory Board. In 1968, he co-authored, with Jacqueline Kanovitz, the fi rst edition of Constitutional Law for Police, whose title was later changed to Constitutional Law. This book was made part of a Justice Administration Legal Series for which Klotter also authored Criminal Evidence in 1971 (now in its tenth edition) and later added Criminal Law (now in its ninth edition). Legal Guide for Police: Constitutional Issues, now in its eighth edition, was fi rst published in 1977. In honor of Professor Klotter’s contribution to the fi eld of criminal justice and his role with Anderson Publishing in serving this discipline, LexisNexis is proud to rename the series the John C. Klotter Justice Administration Legal Series. About the Author Jacqueline Kanovitz is an Emeritus Professor of the Brandeis School of Law where she taught for thirty years and served as Associate Dean for Student Affairs. She also taught at other law schools. She holds a J.D. (summa cum laude) from the University of Louisville School of Law. She is the recipient of numerous awards for teaching and writing excellence and has been a co-author of this textbook since the fi rst edition in 1968. v This page intentionally left blank Table of Contents PART I: Chapter 1 History, Structure, and Content of the United States Constitution 1 Section 1.1 History of the United States Constitution 3 1.2 —Early Steps Toward National Unity 3 1.3 —Articles of Confederation 4 1.4 —Drafting the United States Constitution 4 1.5 —Ratifi cation by the States 5 1.6 Structure and Content of the Constitution 6 1.7 —Separation of the Powers of the National Government 7 1.8 —Division of Power between the National Government and the States 9 1.9 —Powers Granted to the Federal Government 10 1.10 —Powers the States Are Forbidden to Exercise 16 1.11 —Sovereign Powers Retained by the States 17 1.12 The Bill of Rights 19 1.13 —Applying the Bill of Rights to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment 23 1.14 The Fourteenth Amendment as a Limitation on State Power 24 1.15 —Due Process of Law 25 1.16 —Equal Protection of the Laws 30 1.17 Adjudication of Constitutional Questions 35 1.18 Federal Remedies for Constitutional Abuses 37 1.19 Summary 38 Chapter 2 Freedom of Speech 41 Section 2.1 Historical Background 43 2.2 Overview of Constitutional Protection for Speech and Expressive Conduct 44 2.3 Is Speech Involved? 47 2.4 First Amendment Distinction between a Speaker’s Message and the Conduct Associated with Communicating It 48 2.5 Punishing Speech Because of the Message 50 2.6 —Obscenity and Child Pornography 52 vii viii CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2.7 —Fighting Words 56 2.8 —Threats 58 2.9 —Incitement to Immediate Illegal Action 59 2.10 —Hate Speech 64 2.11 —Crude and Vulgar Speech 66 2.12 —Commercial Speech 67 2.13 Restraints on Speech Based on Considerations Other Than the Message 68 2.14 Free Speech Access to Government Property: Public Forums and Nonpublic Forums 70 2.15 —Protecting the Community from Nuisances Linked to Speech 74 2.16 —Free Speech Access to Private Property 82 2.17 —Need for Precision in Regulating Speech 82 2.18 Summary 86 Chapter 3 Authority to Detain and Arrest; Use of Force 89 Section 3.1 Introduction 91 3.2 Overview of the Fourth Amendment 92 3.3 Crossing the Boundary of the Fourth Amendment 95 3.4 —“Free Zone” for Investigative Work 97 3.5 —“Seizure” Defi ned 97 3.6 —Fourth Amendment Grounds for a Lawful Seizure 102 3.7 Investigatory Stops 106 3.8 —Reasonable Suspicion 110 3.9 —Scope and Duration of Investigatory Stops 119 3.10 Traffi c and Vehicle Stops 127 3.11 —Pretextual Traffi c Stops 129 3.12 Requirements for a Constitutional Arrest 139 3.13 —Probable Cause 144 3.14 —Requirements for a Valid Arrest Warrant 146 3.15 —Arrests Inside a Private Residence 152 3.16 Use of Force in Making an Arrest or Other Seizure 157 3.17 State Arrest Laws 161 3.18 —Territorial Limits on a Police Offi cer’s Arrest Authority 164 3.19 Summary and Practical Suggestions 166 Chapter 4 Search and Seizure 169 Section 4.1 Overview of the Law of Search and Seizure 171 4.2 —Defi nition of a Search 176 4.3 —Sources of Search Authority 184 4.4 Seizures Under the Fourth Amendment 193 4.5 —The Fourth Amendment Search Warrant 205 TABLE OF CONTENTS ix 4.6 Searches Involving People and Personal Items 210 4.7 —The Terry Search Revisited 212 4.8 —Search Following a Custodial Arrest 215 4.9 Vehicle Searches 221 4.10 —Search of Vehicles Pursuant to a Detention or Arrest 224 4.11 —Search of Vehicles Based on Probable Cause (“Automobile Exception”) 230 4.12 —Inventory Searches of Impounded Vehicles 234 4.13 Search of Protected Premises 236 4.14 —Premises Protected by the Fourth Amendment 238 4.15 —Entry and Search of Premises Under a Warrant 242 4.16 —Entry and Search of Premises without a Warrant 248 4.17 The Exclusionary Rule 254 4.18 Summary and Practical Suggestions 261 Chapter 5 Laws Governing Police Surveillance 263 Section 5.1 Introduction to the Laws Governing Police Surveillance 265 5.2 Fourth Amendment Foundation of Police Surveillance Law: The Katz Standard 266 5.3 Application of the Katz Standard to Conventional Surveillance 269 5.4 Application of the Katz Standard to Technologically Assisted Surveillance: An Overview 273 5.5 —Electronic Tracking 278 5.6 —Video Surveillance 284 5.7 —Detection Devices 288 5.8 The Wiretap Act 293 5.9 —Scope of the Wiretap Act 295 5.10 —Procedural Requirements for Intercepting Protected Communications 298 5.11 Communication Surveillance Not Regulated by the Wiretap Act 304 5.12 —Listening with the Unaided Ear 305 5.13 —Interception of an Oral Communication
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]