• Home
  • About Me
  • Disclaimer

The Researching Paralegal

~ Articles and Research for Legal Professionals

The Researching Paralegal

Category Archives: Law Enforcement

Chicago’s Police Data Project In Response to FOIA Requests.

26 Thursday Nov 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Law Enforcement, References, Research

≈ Comments Off on Chicago’s Police Data Project In Response to FOIA Requests.

Tags

beSpacific Blog., Chicago Police Department, FOIA Requests, Police Data Project, Sabrina I. Pacifici

Chicago Citizens Police Data Project, by Sabrina I. Pacifici, BeSpacific Blog

http://www.bespacific.com/category/e-government/

‘The information contained on this website comes primarily from three datasets provided by the Chicago Police Department (CPD), spanning approximately 2002 to 2008 and 2011 to 2015. The CPD has released these lists in response to litigation and to FOIA Requests. . . .’

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

The Marshall Project Asks How Hard Is It To Count Deaths By The Police?

07 Saturday Mar 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Criminal Law, Law Enforcement, Police Brutality

≈ Comments Off on The Marshall Project Asks How Hard Is It To Count Deaths By The Police?

Tags

Bureau of Justice Statistics, Death In Custody Reporting Act, Department of Jusice, Eli Hager, Ferguson Report, Law Enforcement, The Marshall Project

Missed by a Mile – How Hard Is It To Count Deaths By Police?, by Eli Hager, The Marshall Project

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/03/05/missed-by-a-mile?ref=hp-4-112

A day before administering a searing condemnation of the police department of Ferguson, Mo., where an unarmed black teenager was shot and killed by a white police officer, the Department of Justice quietly published a separate report on the number of Americans killed at the hands of law enforcement.

The verdict? In a startling admission, the Bureau of Justice Statistics confirmed that the government’s own data on so-called police-involved deaths have been off for more than a decade — by more than 100 percent.

The report estimates that there were ‘an average of 928 law-enforcement homicides per year’ from 2003-2009 and 2011 — which means that previous yearly tallies by the BJS and the FBI included fewer than half of all such deaths. The FBI, for example, reported an average of only 383 ‘justifiable homicides by law enforcement’ per year over the same period. The BJS was slightly closer to reality, averaging 454.

These numbers, by the way, do not include the deaths of bystanders, deaths during vehicular pursuit, or deaths at the hands of federal agents.

The new report was released at a pivotal moment in the national conversation about policing and the use of force. Not only was the ‘Ferguson Report’ released on Wednesday, but national outrage about violence by the police has spawned recent calls from President Obama and top officials for reforms, beginning with more accurate data on just how many people are killed by the police.

‘There was a great emphasis on the need to collect more data,’ the president said after a meeting of his task force on policing. ‘Right now, we do not have a good sense…of how frequently there may be interactions with police and community members that result in death.’

In February, in a moment of candor during a speech at Georgetown University, FBI Director James Comey admitted that, ‘It’s ridiculous that I can’t tell you how many people were shot by the police in this country — last week, last year, the last decade. It’s ridiculous.’

The dearth of reliable statistics, widely suspected but never before acknowledged in such detail by a government report, goes to show why Congress last year reauthorized the Death in Custody Reporting Act. The law, an earlier version of which expired in 2006, requires the BJS to compile data on killings by law enforcement and in prisons. That data is to be gathered from a wide range of sources, including coroner’s reports, direct reports from police, media reports, Google alerts, and analysis by program staff. The notion is that this mesh of information will offer a more complete picture than the FBI data, which rely mainly on self-reporting by the police.

However, even in the years before the old reporting law expired, when the BJS was supposedly harvesting information from a wide range of sources, the bureau fell far short of a complete tally. In its best year, it identified only 49 percent of police-involved deaths.

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Teensy Change To Rule 41 Would Change Scope of Technology Search Warrants.

22 Sunday Feb 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Computer Forensics, Criminal Law, Cybersecurity, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Law Enforcement, Legal Technology, PC Computers, Rule 41, Search Warrants

≈ Comments Off on Teensy Change To Rule 41 Would Change Scope of Technology Search Warrants.

Tags

Advisory Committee on the Rules of Criminal Procedure, beSpacific Blog., Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Google, Law Enforcement, Legal Technology, Richard Salgado, Rule 41, Sabrina I. Pacifici, Search Warrant

Small Rule Change That Could Give the U.S. Government Sweeping New Warrant Power, posted by Richard Salgado, Legal Director, Law Enforcement and Information Security, by Sabrina I Pacifici, BeSpacific Blog

http://www.bespacific.com/small-rule-change-give-u-s-government-sweeping-new-warrant-power/

‘At the request of the Department of Justice, a little-known body — the Advisory Committee on the Rules of Criminal Procedure — is proposing a significant change to procedural rules that could have profound implications for the privacy rights and security interests of everyone who uses the Internet. Last week, Google filed comments opposing this change. It starts with the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41, an arcane but important procedural rule on the issuance of search warrants. Today, Rule 41 prohibits a federal judge from issuing a search warrant outside of the judge’s district, with some exceptions. The Advisory Committee’s proposed change would significantly expand those exceptions in cases involving computers and networks. The proposed change would allow the U.S. government to obtain a warrant to conduct ‘remote access’ searches of electronic storage media if the physical location of the media is ‘concealed through technological means,’ or to facilitate botnet investigations in certain circumstances. The implications of this expansion of warrant power are significant, and are better addressed by Congress. First, in setting aside the traditional limits under Rule 41, the proposed amendment would likely end up being used by U.S. authorities to directly search computers and devices around the world. Even if the intent of the proposed change is to permit U.S. authorities to obtain a warrant to directly access and retrieve data only from computers and devices within the U.S., there is nothing in the proposed change to Rule 41 that would prevent access to computers and devices worldwide. The U.S. has many diplomatic arrangements in place with other countries to cooperate in investigations that cross national borders, including Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs). Google supports ongoing efforts to improve cooperation among governments, and we are concerned that the proposed change to Rule 41 could undermine those efforts. The significant foreign relations issues associated with the proposed change to Rule 41 should be addressed by Congress and the President, not the Advisory Committee.’

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Justice Scalia’s Interpretation of Criminal Statutes And “Rule of Lenity.”

22 Saturday Nov 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Law, Civil Rights, Constitutions, Criminal Law, Federal Law, Federal Sentencing, Fourth Amendment - Search & Seizure, Law Enforcement, Research, Statutes, United States Supreme Court, White Collar Crime

≈ Comments Off on Justice Scalia’s Interpretation of Criminal Statutes And “Rule of Lenity.”

Tags

Above the Law (blog), Civil Rights, Criminal Law, Federal Criminal Statutes, Fourth Amendment, Justice Scalia, Matt Kaiser, Rule of Lenity, White Collar Crime

Scalia Weighs In On One of the Most Important Questions in the World of White-Collar Criminal Defense, by Matt Kaiser, Above The Law Blog

http://tinyurl.com/kahbnvm

Justice Scalia is not a man known for mild opinions. I hear the other Justices have voted him ‘least likely to say ‘this is a question on which reasonable minds could disagree.’

While a conservative, Scalia has done good work for those charged in criminal cases in recent years. He’s been good on Fourth Amendment issues, the Confrontation Clause, and federal sentencing.

And, at oral argument recently, on what is perhaps the most significant criminal justice issue of the day — how broadly we should interpret criminal statutes — Scalia has turned his considerable intellect again in a defense-friendly way.

How, you ask?

Whether to interpret a criminal statute broadly or narrowly is an intricate question. The ‘Rule of Lenity says that criminal statutes should be interpreted narrowly. Yet courts often read in a meta-‘Rule of Lenity’ that says that the Rule of Lenity itself should be interpreted narrowly.

Moreover, judicial review of the scope of a criminal statute is tricky. There are thousands of federal criminal statutes on the books and Congress makes more every year. About 95% of the time, people charged with federal crimes plead guilty. Courts are highly resistant to litigate the meaning and breadth of a federal criminal statute before trial, which means that challenges to the interpretation of a statute are possible in a very small number of cases.

What that means is that prosecutors’ interpretations of federal statutes are highly unlikely to be meaningfully challenged. And, when they are, generally they are interpreted broadly. . . .

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Is Evidence of Defendant’s Disability Admissible in Police Brutality Trial?

27 Saturday Sep 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Admissibility, Americans With Disabilities, Criminal Law, Defense Counsel, Evidence, Excessive Force, Fourth Amendment - Search & Seizure, Governmental Tort Claim Act, Law Enforcement, Police Brutality, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Is Evidence of Defendant’s Disability Admissible in Police Brutality Trial?

Tags

Criminal Law, Disability, Evidence, Fourth Amendment, Police Brutality, Reasonable Person Analysis, Trial Tips & Techniques

Disabling Condition: Should Evidence of Defendant’s Disability be Admissible in Assault/Police Brutality Trial?, by Colin Miller, EvidenceProf Blog

http://tinyurl.com/plpuz7s

According to an article in the Lake Geneva News,

‘A man who is accused of attacking a police officer, but counters that he is the victim of police brutality, is set for his second jury trial next Monday.

Daniel White, 42, of rural Elkhorn, faces three felony counts and a misdemeanor related to an incident in which his two pit bulls bit two deputies and he allegedly struck a deputy with his fist and a wood board.

White, who walked in the courthouse with a cane and collects disability checks, contends that the officer knocked down his stockade fence, beat him up and lied to conceal their actions.’

Prior to trial, the prosecution asked the judge to (1) prohibit White’s cane from being in the jury; and (2) to exclude evidence of White’s disability. How should the judge rule?

Well, the judge has already ruled ‘refused to force White to hide his cane during the trial.’ I think this seems like the only correct outcome. First, there is simply the matter of logistics. For instance, a defendant has to stand when the judge enters the courtroom. Given that, it’s difficult to see how the cane could be completely hidden from view. Second, courts have found no problem with defendants being in shackles in the courtroom when such restraint is necessary. Reciprocity would thus seem to require allowing a defendant in need of a cane to be able to use it in plain view of jurors.

The more difficult question is whether the defense should be able to present evidence of White’s disability. Part of this depends on the defense’s theory of the case. Is the claim that White’s disability made him physically unable to commit the crimes alleged in the complaint? If so, you might recall the infamous O.J. Simpson trial in which Richard Walsh was allowed to give testimony that the former running back’s football injuries caused problems with his problems with knees, back, shoulder and hands.

Is the claim self-defense, with White’s claim being that his disability should be part of the reasonable person analysis? If that’s the case, check out this excerpt from Hendrix v. State, 369 S.W.3d 93 (Mo.App. 2012):

‘Although Ransom was decided in the context of a civil claim of self-defense, its analysis of the ‘reasonable person’ standard is relevant to determining whether Hendrix’s medical records were relevant to his claim of self-defense….Hendrix’s medical records, if entered into evidence at trial, would have merely established that he suffered from degenerative joint disease in his knees. As Ransom indicated, a defendant’s ‘proclivities or propensities are irrelevant’ to the issue of whether the defendant acted as a ‘reasonable person.’…Williams was not ineffective for failing to present irrelevant evidence because it would have been inadmissible at trial….

Even if evidence of Hendrix’s disabilities would have been relevant and, therefore, admissible, Hendrix offered no evidence at the motion hearing to demonstrate that, had Williams entered Hendrix’s medical records detailing his degenerative joint disease, the jury would have acquitted Hendrix. The jury heard Paynter’s testimony that Hendrix wore knee braces, and the defense’s closing argument utilized Hendrix’s knee injuries to argue the relative size difference between Hendrix and Paynter. Despite the jury hearing that evidence and argument, it rejected Hendrix’s self-defense theory. Hendrix has not demonstrated that, had the medical records been admitted, there is a reasonable probability that he would have been found not guilty.’

Hendrix seems to stand for the proposition that some evidence of a defendant’s disabilities is admissible but that medical records are not. But, of course, those records were offered for a particular purpose which might well be different from the purpose at White’s trial. -CM

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Cloud App Used By Police and Public To Catch The Bad Guys.

02 Friday May 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Android Phones, Apps, Cell Phones, Clouds, Criminal Law, iPhones, Law Enforcement

≈ Comments Off on Cloud App Used By Police and Public To Catch The Bad Guys.

Tags

App, Associated Press, Boston Marathon bombings, Clouds, Computers, Forensic Magazine, Large Emergency Event Digital Information Repository, Law Enforcement, LEEDIR, Police, Tami Abdollah

New Tool Helps Police Crowdsource Evidence, by Tami Abdollah, Associated Press, posted by Forensic Magazine

http://bit.ly/1lJps89

An annual spring party in a Southern California beach town devolved into a riot last month when revelers turned violent, rocking cars, smashing windows and throwing rocks. Dozens were injured and about 50 people ended up in the hospital, including several police officers.

Today, as authorities seek help with the investigation in Isla Vista, they’re employing a new online and mobile app that designers say was created specifically for this type of situation.

‘When the public really wants to catch these bad guys as badly as we do, this is the mechanism,’ said Los Angeles Sheriff’s Cmdr. Scott Edson, who helped conceptualize the system in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombings. ‘They can help us by sending us pictures and video.’

The innovation, known as LEEDIR, the Large Emergency Event Digital Information Repository, pairs an app with cloud storage to help police use smartphones as tools to gather evidence. . . .

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

U.S. Probation Office Now Has LENS (Law Enforcement Notification System).

16 Thursday Jan 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Criminal Law, Law Enforcement

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Crime, DUI, FBI, Law Enforcement, LENS, The Third Branch News, United States Courts, US Probation Office

With LENS, Offender Data Quickly Reaches Officers on Beat, posted by The Third Branch News, United States Courts

http://news.uscourts.gov/lens-offender-data-quickly-reaches-officers-beat

A police officer on a DUI stop, logs into the online Law Enforcement Notification System (LENS) and finds that not only is the driver under federal supervision for a prior drug offense, but the conditions of release stipulate no alcohol use.

By statute, following release of a prisoner convicted of a drug trafficking crime, crime of violence, or sex offense, the U.S. Probation Office must notify the chief law enforcement officer of the state and of the local jurisdiction when an offender moves into their jurisdiction. All 94 probation offices nationwide are now using LENS to make these notifications easier and more efficiently. And because LENS notifies local law enforcement at the beginning of supervision, it also promotes greater public safety.

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...
Follow The Researching Paralegal on WordPress.com

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Search

Sign In/Register

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Categories

Archives

  • March 2022
  • January 2022
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • October 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • May 2019
  • March 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013

Recent Comments

Eric Voigt on Top 20 Paralegal Blogs, Websit…
profvoigt on Research Guides in Focus – Mun…
Make Your PDF Docume… on Make Your PDF Document Edit-Pr…
madlaw291282999 on Using Hyperbole -Are You Riski…
How to Treat Bad Cli… on Why Do Bad Clients Deserve The…

Recent Comments

Eric Voigt on Top 20 Paralegal Blogs, Websit…
profvoigt on Research Guides in Focus – Mun…
Make Your PDF Docume… on Make Your PDF Document Edit-Pr…
madlaw291282999 on Using Hyperbole -Are You Riski…
How to Treat Bad Cli… on Why Do Bad Clients Deserve The…
  • RSS - Posts
  • RSS - Comments

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • The Researching Paralegal
    • Join 487 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • The Researching Paralegal
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.

    %d bloggers like this: