In Memoriam Police Officer Kevin A. Tonn, seconds by by

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "In Memoriam Police Officer Kevin A. Tonn, seconds by email by email"

Transcription

1 This Bulletin is copyrighted by Stanley Cohen and Police Law Services. Forwarding copies of this Bulletin to persons who are not subscribers and who are unauthorized to receive it is prohibited without the express written consent from Police Law Services. Volume 41 January 2013 The Pennsylvania Police Criminal Law Bulletin In Memoriam Police Officer Kevin A. Tonn, 35, Galt Police Department, CA, 1/15/13, was investigating a burglary at 11:20 am., when a witness pointed to a man nearby. As Officer Tonn approached the man, the man produced a gun and fired a single shot hitting Officer Tonn in the head. The Officer died at a hospital a short time later. The man fired at another officer then committed suicide. The officer was not wearing a ballistic face shield which would probably have deflected the bullet and saved the officer s life. A burglary in progress is a high risk situation justifying wearing a ballistic face shield. This is a new offer by The Pennsylvania Police Criminal Law Bulletin. The searchable disc containing all issues of the Bulletin from the first one through and including the December 2012 Bulletin, is available to new purchasers for $ The following is the new offer: once the disc is bought, and this applies to those who have already previously purchased the disc, you will be able to thereafter receive an updated disc once every six months for a one time yearly price of $ In this way, you will have all published Bulletins from January 1972 through and including the last monthly published Bulletin, twice a year, or every six months, with the most recent important court decisions essential to the needs of the police professional. So, for $3.75 per month ($45.00 divided by 12) you will receive an updated and revised disc containing court decisions from January 1972 through the most recently published Bulletin twice a year and you will be notified by of any changes in law affecting your practices. The changes, of course, will be made to the disc constantly during the year, so you will get the changes when you receive your updated disc in the mail twice a year. The disc is a great supplement to receiving each monthly Bulletin by which costs an additional $ per year to individual police officers paying with their own funds. This offer is not available to a municipal police department. The price for an subscription to the Bulletin each month by a municipal police department with five or less officers who will receive the Bulletin is $ The price is $9.00 per officer if six or more officers will receive the Bulletin. The price is determined by number of officers in the department who will be receiving the Bulletin. A feature of receiving the Bulletin by each month, in addition to the monthly updated disc, that is not available with the updated disc is this: The moment a new court decision is briefed within a day or two after the decision is rendered by the court, it is ed to you immediately and you have it months before the updated disc is mailed to you and before the monthly Bulletin is ed. Most of these briefed cases will eventually be published later in the monthly ed Bulletin and in the updated disc you will receive. Also, Memorandums of Law are ed to you immediately after they are completed and you thus receive them months before you receive them in the updated disc and the monthly ed Bulletin. Some Memorandums you will receive do not appear in the Bulletin due to space limitations in the Bulletin. For a nominal fee, I will research legal questions from police officers subscribing to the ed Bulletin and send a Memorandum of Law to the officer answering the question based on Pennsylvania and federal appellate court decisions. The entire disc containing 3754 pages and court decisions from the year January 1972 through December 2012 can be scanned in seconds using Adobe Reader, identifying one or more court decisions dealing with the word or phrases you entered in the search space. If you have a lap top computer containing the disc on it (you can download the disc onto your computer s hard drive) and you are in court, and the defense counsel makes a motion to the court to dismiss the charge and/or suppress the evidence, you would be entitled to respectfully request the court to grant you a brief recess to research the law on your laptop to find case law to submit to the court that will counter and defeat the argument made by defense counsel. Also, you may choose to call me, Stanley Cohen, at at any time and he will research the issue for you and immediately send you any case law he finds to use against defense counsel. He carries a laptop computer containing the disc wherever he may be. Ideally, defense counsel s arguments should and can be foreseen prior to

2 Page 2 January 2013 The Pennsylvania Police Criminal Law Bulletin (ISSN ) Is published monthly, plus a yearly index in January by Stanley Cohen at 3027 N.W. 66th St., Seattle, WA 98117, at $48.00 per year. Telephone: or ; Periodicals postage paid at Seattle, WA, and at additional mailing offices. Postmaster send address change to The Pennsylvania Police Criminal Law Bulletin at 3027 N.W. 66th St., Seattle, WA trial, and the officer can research the law on the disc to prepare for trial like the District Attorney does, and also ask Stanley Cohen to research the law on the disc for you. In addition to the disc, I have access to Fastcase, a powerful digital law research data base I subscribe to from Jenkins Law Library, which enables me to find in seconds numerous court decisions of Pennsylvania and federal appellate and trial courts and any state appellate court decision in the nation dealing with your question or problem. Cases found which are helpful to answering your question or solving your problem are sent to you immediately. In addition to containing all published Bulletins, the disc, which consists of 3754 pages, contains: Memorandums of Law containing legal issues submitted by Pennsylvania police officers and Stanley Cohen s answers to each issue based on his research of Pennsylvania and federal law and Rules of Criminal Procedure, 2. Stanley Cohen s book, POLICE LAW PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS, 249 pages, containing questions Pennsylvania police officers asked Stan, an active Attorney at Law, over a span of 30 years, and his answers to each question based on his research of Pennsylvania and Federal court decisions, statutes and Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure. 3. A COMPETE SET OF ALL YEARLY INDEXES at the front of the disc covering all the yearly Bulletins from January 1972 through December The index for the year 2012 will be published in early New yearly indexes are continuously added to the disc. If you would like to purchase the disc for the first time, please complete the form below and to and the disc will be mailed to you and you will be invoiced. If you have previously purchased the disc, please complete the form below and the updated disc will be mailed to you and you will be invoiced $ (You will receive two updated discs per year. At the end of the year, you will be asked to renew for the then yearly cost to receive an updated disc every six months. Name Department name Street address City Zip address Telephone number Place your name on this line if you are a first time buyer and you will be invoiced $ Place your name on this line if you are a previous buyer and the date when you bought the disc and you will be invoiced $45.00 to receive two updated discs per year, once every six months. Place your name on this line if wish to receive the Bulletin by and you are an individual officer paying with your own funds, and you will be invoice $ Place your name on this line if you wish to receive the Bulletin by and you are subscribing for the entire police department and there are five or fewer officers in the department who will be receiving the ed Bulletin and you will be invoiced $ Place your name on this line if you wish to receive the Bulletin by and you are subscribing for the entire police department and there are six or more officers in the department who will be receiving the ed bulletin and you will be invoiced at the rate of $9.00 times the number of officers receiving the Bulletin. Please place the number of officers in the department who will receive the Bulletin on this line.

3 Page 3 January 2013 MEMORANDUM OF LAW BY STANLEY COHEN, ATTORNEY AT LAW FEBRUARY 6, 2013 ISSUE SUBMITTED BY PENNSYLVANIA POLICE OFFICER Stan, checking on any case law that shows that police officers (in addition to reading Miranda and acknowledging it is understood) must have the suspect sign a waiver or ask them if they waive their rights. Had a suppression hearing today and that is one of the defense positions. The second question relates to the suspect in an interrogation room who is advised that he is being audio and video recorded making a statement I am not talking to you but within 4 seconds begins a conversation with an investigator simultaneously walking into the room. No Miranda warnings were given to him prior to him saying he did not want to talk to us. Is that an exercise of his right to remain silent. At no time during the entire time did he say he wanted to be silent or that he wanted to speak to an attorney. The suspect begins the conversation by saying he is high and I begin (without Miranda) talking to him in general and about the events earlier to establish whether or not the suspect is under the influence, knowing fully that those statements cannot be used against him. After about 12 mins and 45 seconds I determine he is sober and verbally advise him of his Miranda warnings which he acknowledged 2 times, once with a mumble and nod, then with a yes after pushed by me. He then went back and discussed his involvement with shooting the officer and the robbery prior to the shooting. Interestingly, at his request after I asked if there was anyone I could call for him. He asked to speak to his father. I grant that request and put the father on speakerphone (he was advised) and the suspect stated to his father he shot the officer. That was based on his conversation with his father. CONCLUSION AND LAW Concerning the issue of whether the statement I do not want to talk is an assertion of the right to silence, this was not an assertion of the right to silence which prevented police from asking him questions. There are two reasons for this: First, in Ohio v. Dixon, cited below, the Supreme Court stated that we have never ruled that a person can invoke his Miranda rights anticipatorily when there is no custodial interrogation situation. When the suspect in this case said, upon first entering the room and being told there is audio and video recording here, I do not want to talk, this was not a custodial interrogation situation. Although he was in custody, interrogation had not begun and as not going to be engaged in by the Chief. Interrogation is questions the officer knows is likely to cause the person to make an incriminating statement. The Chief was initially going to ask questions regarding his name, age, address, and other questions not likely to cause an incriminating statement. Thus, since custodial interrogation situation was not present, the suspect could not, as the Supreme Court held, assert a right to silence prior to interrogation. So, it was permissible for the Chief to ask the general questions as well as to determine his mental and physical condition to see if he was capable of understanding his rights and giving a voluntary waiver. Second, in Berghius v. Thompkins, cited below, the Court ruled that the invocation of the right to remain silent must not be ambiguous or equivocal. The Court continued by saying that if an ambiguous statement could require a police officer to end the interrogation, this would add little to the goal of getting rid of compulsion inherent in custodial interrogation. But, as Miranda holds, full comprehension of the rights to remain silent and request an attorney are sufficient to dispel whatever coercion or compulsion is inherent in the interrogation process. Then the Court added that the defendant did not say he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk with police. Had he made either of these clear statements, he would, the Court stated, have invoked his right to cut off questioning. But he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent. Applying these rules and statements by the Supreme Court to the facts in the issue submitted by the Chief, when the defendant was told the room was with audio and video, he said, I do not want to talk to you. This was ambiguous. He had not been previously given the Miranda warnings, which would have told him he has a right to silence and not to not talk with police. His statement is not clear as to who or why he did not want to talk. His subsequent statement telling police it was ok to talk with him clarified that he did not want his statement to amount to an invocation of his right to silence. Had he wanted that statement to be an assertion of his right to silence, he could have simply refused to answer the Chief s questions. After defendant said, he did not want to talk, The Chief sat down in front of him and asked defendant

4 Page 4 January 2013 if it was ok to talk to him and he said yes it is ok. Like the Supreme Court said, if his statement, I do not want to talk, was an invocation of his right to silence under Miranda, which had not yet been read to him, he would not have said ok to the Chief that it was ok to talk to him. He would have cut off the questioning. But, since he did not cut off questioning, and instead said it was ok to question him, his earlier ambiguous statement I do not want to talk was not an invocation of his right to silence. He clearly did not want to be silent. At some point, assuming the questions were such that the Chief knew they would cause an incriminating statement from the suspect, then the warnings were required because interrogation was going to occur, but the Chief failed to give the warnings and got some incriminating statements. The Chief s intent was not to get incriminating statements, but rather to determine if the suspect was capable of understanding the warnings and giving a valid waiver. Once the Chief determined that he was so capable, he gave the Miranda warnings for the first time and got a waiver and then the suspect gave more incriminating statements. The Supreme Court held that this procedure followed by the officer, question first then give the warnings, was lawful in the cases cited below. As discussed above, The Supreme Court in Dixon, ruled that when a police officer fails to give the warnings prior to the first incriminating statements, but this failure was not intended or deliberate by the officer, although these statements must be suppressed, any statement the suspect makes after the officer gives the warnings and gets a waiver, are admissible. This same rule was adopted by DeJesus and Charleston cited below. One issue that is involved that is not in the officer s statement of issues that is involved in this case, as just discussed, is this: Where an officer interrogates a person in custody before giving the Miranda questions and gets incriminating statements, then gives the Miranda warnings and gets a waiver, will incriminating statements given after the warnings be admissible? This issue arises from the fact that when the Chief of Police entered the room, he began asking the suspect questions of a general nature to determine his state of mind and whether he was capable of understanding his rights and giving a voluntary waiver. These questions were not interrogation because they were not likely to cause an incriminating statement. Some of the later questions dealt with and involved the crime and constituted interrogation because they were likely to cause incriminating statements. And, the warnings had not been given first. These statements, the Court ruled, would not be admissible. Then, the Chief paused and gave the suspect the Miranda warnings for the first time and got a waiver. The Court ruled that these statements obtained after the warnings would be admissible. The following case law supports the admissibility of the statements, as discussed above, after the Miranda warnings were given and a waiver was obtained. In Ohio v. Dixon, 132 S.Ct. 26, (2002), and Commonwealth v DeJesus, 787 A.2d 394 (2002), and Commonwealth v Charleston, 2011 Pa. Super 32 (2011) and in the April 2011 Pennsylvania Police Criminal Law Bulletin, the U.S Supreme Court and the Pennsylvania appellate courts ruled that statements given after the warnings are admissible. Concerning the issue of whether, after a police officer gives a suspect in custody the warnings, must the officer have the suspect sign a waiver or ask them if they waive their rights in order to get a valid waiver, this issue was answered no by the Supreme Court in Berghius v. Thompkins, 130 S.Ct (2010), where the court ruled that a waiver must be voluntary and must be the product of a free and deliberate choice by the suspect. Waivers, the Court added, may be obtained by police even without a formal or express statement of waiver. A waiver, the Court ruled, may be implied from all the circumstances, such as where the suspect understood his rights, and then he gave an unforced statement. The waiver need not be in writing and he need not expressly say he does not want to assert his rights. In the Chief s case, defendant waived his right to silence because, as the Court ruled, he chose not to invoke those rights when he did speak and answered the Chief s questions. He knew what he gave up when he spoke. The defendant had experience with the criminal justice system and understood his right from past experience. If defendant had wanted to remain silent, like the Court said, he could have refused to answer the Chief s questions, or asserted his rights and ended the interrogation. The fact that he made statements to the Chief is a course of conduct by the defendant indicating a waiver. After giving the warnings, the Court concluded, police may interrogate the suspect who has neither invoked nor waived his rights before starting the interrogation. A suspect waived his

5 Page 5 January 2013 rights, the Court added, where he understands his rights, and has not asked to be silent or has not asked for an attorney, by making an unforced statement to police. In this case, the defendant did not ask for an attorney or to be silent while making the unforced statement to the Chief. He did not ask that the interrogation stop. Thus, as the Court ruled, the Chief was not required to obtain a waiver of his rights before interrogating him. This rule by the U.S. Supreme Court is followed by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in Commonwealth v. Baez, 21 A.3d 1280 (2011) and has not been reversed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and this is valid and binding law on Pennsylvania lower courts. In Baez, police gave a defendant the Miranda warnings and asked him if he understood them, and he said yes. Baez then proceeded to answer the officer s questions, and made incriminating statements. The police did not ask him if he was willing to give up his rights or whether he was willing to waive those rights prior to questioning him. Prior to trial Baez moved to suppress his statements and the trial court suppressed the statements, and the Commonwealth appealed. One issue on appeal was whether it was error for the trial court to suppress the statements, and whether it was error for the trial court to rule that Baez did not waive his rights. The trial court suppressed the statements because Baez did not explicitly say he did not want an attorney or to remain silent. The appeal court reversed the trial court by reasoning as follows. Baez stated that he understood his rights and then he answered police questions. This showed his intent to waive his rights. We do not require that a defendant expressly say he wants to give up his right to silence or to an attorney, and no written waiver of rights is required. Defendant indicated that he understood his rights, and then he proceeded to answer the officer s questions. This is sufficient to show he waived his rights. Applying these rules to the facts in this case, the Chief asked defendant if he understood his rights and defendant said yes. He then proceeded to answer the Chief s questions. This is sufficient, line in the Baez case, to show that defendant waived his rights, even though he did not expressly say he did not want an attorney or to be silent, and even though he did not sign a written waiver of rights. For the foregoing reasons and under the decisions cited above, defendant s statement are admissible. Taser, police use on resisting citizen being arrested with an invalid arrest warrant are entitled to qualified immunity, even though they violated the Constitution, when Bello v. Lebanon City Police United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (1/3/13) Civil No. 1:11-CV-0639 Facts Bello was arrested for public drunkenness and Driving while under the influence. A bench warrant was issued for his arrest when he failed to appear for his preliminary hearing. He failed to show for another hearing. A police officer checked with an office to see if a bench warrant was issued for Bello. The officer found an outstanding warrant and gave it to the officer. The officer went with another officer to a store Bello owned. The officer believed Bello was armed because his store had been robbed in the past. The officer approached Bello and old him they had a warrant for his arrest due to his failure to appear at his preliminary hearing, and that he was under arrest. The officer showed Bello the warrant. Bello became agitated, arguing that the warrant was not valid. He raised his voice to the officers. One officer told him to place his hands behind his back. He refused arguing the warrant was not valid. The officers upholstered their tasers. Bello continued to be non compliant with the officer s command to put his hands behind his back. Bello put his hands up and told the officers he was in possession of a gun. At a later time, he claimed he had a license for the gun and he used it for protection. It is not clear that he told this to the officers. The officers claimed that he was holding the gun before he was tasered. They used their taser as soon as they saw the gun. Bello fell to the ground but was not incapacitated. They tasered him again in the chest when the gun was still within his reach. He was still resisting the handcuffs. One officer gave him a knee strike. The officer finally took him to the station. At the station, they were advised by the Sheriff s Department that the warrant had been served previously and was no longer active. Bello sued the officers and the officers

6 Page 6 January 2013 moved for summary judgment in their favor and for qualified immunity. Bello also sued the City for violating his rights. Issues 1. Whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity for the use of the teaser? 2. Whether the City of Lebanon is liable for any violation of plaintiff s rights? Decision Yes to issue one and no to two. Qualified immunity is granted. Reasoning A court may grant qualified immunity to a police officer if it is apparent that the officer did not violate rights that were clearly established at the time the officer acted. To establish an excessive force claim against a police officer, the citizen must show both that a seizure occurred and that it was unreasonable. Reasonableness is determined by a court as follows: Whether the force used by the officer was excessive and unreasonable depends on what the officer was confronting at the time he acted, and not on facts that are learned at a later time. Factors that a court must consider are as follows: (1) The severity of the crime involved; (2) whether the citizen poses an immediate threat to the safety of the police or others; (3) Whether the citizen is actively resisting arrest or trying to run away; (4) the duration of the action; (5) The possibility that the citizen might be armed; (6) the number of persons with whom the police must contend at one time. The court must be sensitive to the fact that police officers are often forced to make splitsecond judgments, in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving, about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation. Considering the facts alleged by the officer-defendants on the one hand, and the facts alleged by Bello on the other, the court finds that they cannot be evaluated without credibility determinations and a resolution of these facts at a trial. So, on this basis the motion for summary judgment by the officers must be denied. But, the Court will grant the motion for summary judgment in favor of the officers because, assuming that the actions by the officers were unreasonable and amounted to excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, Bello, the plaintiff, has failed to show that the officers violated a clearly established right A right is clearly established if a reasonable police officer would understand that what he is doing violates that right. It must be shown that every reasonable police officer in the defendantofficer s shoes would have understood beyond debate that tasering Bello would have constituted excessive force. Qualified immunity provides police officers with ample room for mistaken judgments by protecting all police officers except those who are plainly incompetent or who knowingly violate the law. The following undisputed facts show the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. (1) The officers were given bench warrants for Bello by an office, which they had no reason to believe, was invalid. (2) Bello disputed the validity of the warrant and raised his voice to the officers, (3) Bellow refused to comply with police orders, (4) Bellow was in possession of a gun at the time of the arrest, (5) during the arrest, Bello grabbed his gun, held it in his hand, and then put it on or below the counter. These require that we grant qualified immunity to the officers, because not every reasonable officer in the shoes of the defendant officers in this case, would find beyond debate that tasering Bellow constituted excessive force. At the time the defendant officers used the teaser, numerous courts had approved the use of teasers to subdue persons who resist or refuse to comply with police orders. Thus, if courts have approved this level of force under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the officer-defendants were plainly incompetent or knowingly violated the law. Even if police action violates the Constitution, where a significant number of court decisions support whet the officer defendant did, we have upheld qualified immunity for the officers. The fact that the warrant was inactive does not go against the officer-defendants because what matters is what the officers knew at the time they made the arrest, not what they learned after that time. The officer defendants are hereby granted qualified immunity, which means they will not be required to stand trial. Concerning the liability of the City of Lebanon, the plaintiff must allege that the city itself caused a constitutional violation. Plaintiff must allege that a municipality custom or policy was the cause of the constitutional injury that was suffered by the citizen. The custom or practice must be so permanent and well settled that it constitutes the law. A policy is established if a plaintiff can show that a decision maker having final authority to establish municipal policy with respect to the action issues and official proclamation, policy or edict.

7 Page 7 January 2013 In an excessive force liability claim, the court looks for evidence of a custom or policy involving a failure to properly train, equip or supervise officers on the proper use of force, and the use of tasers. The officer defendants testified that they were properly trained in the procedures regarding the appropriate use of force to make arrests, including the proper use of a taser. Plaintiff offers no evidence or argument to the contrary. Plaintiff s claim of municipal liability fails because he failed to produce any evidence of a policy or custom that violates Section Defendants motion will therefore be granted as to this claim. Interrogation, after defendant, who is in custody, and after receiving the Miranda rights, he tell police he wants an attorney and police stop the interrogation, but, then, after being told he was being arrested for the homicide of his daughter, he restarts a discussion with the police by telling them that he wants to talk with them about his daughter, and the signs a form waiving his Miranda rights, and gives a incriminating statement, this constitutes a valid waiver of Miranda rights Commonwealth v Page Superior Court of Pennsylvania (1/7/13) No WDA 2010 Facts A little girl was missing from her home. Investigation led police to the defendant. They removed him to the police station. He was given the warnings before interrogation and he waived his rights. He was next interrogated by the FBI but not rewarmed because he had been previously armed. Police found the body of the girl and told defendant. He was questioned by another officer and was given the warnings first. Defendant said he wanted to talk to his lawyer and interrogation stopped. The next day he was arrested and charged with homicide. Defendant then told police he wanted to talk to them and he was given the warnings and he executed a Miranda rights warning form. He then gave an incriminating statement. Defendant was charged with criminal homicide and other charges. Defendant s motion to suppress his statement was denied. Defendant appealed. Issue Where defendant, who was in custody, and after receiving the Miranda warnings, told police he did not want to talk without an attorney present, then after being arrested for the homicide of his daughter, he told police he wanted to talk to them about his daughter, he was given the warning again and signed a waiver form, and gave police an incriminating statement, did his talking to the police constitute a waiver of his rights? Decision Yes. Affirmed Reasoning There were four separate interrogations. During his fourth and final interrogation, he made an incriminating statement. Defendant claims that once he asserted his right to an attorney, any further interrogation without an attorney present was unlawful unless he initiated further discussion with police and waived his rights. He claims he did not restart discussion with police and did not waive his right to counsel. The trial court stated that after defendant was arrested for the girl s death, he told police he wanted to tell them what happened to his daughter. The trial court stated that thus, he initiated conversation with police and this amounted to a waiver of his rights. We agree with the trial court. Defendant did invoke his right to counsel and police stopped the interrogation. But, then police told him he was being arrested for the homicide of his daughter. At that point, defendant expressed an interest in speaking with the detectives about the incident. When he expressed an interest in talking about his daughter, this was a restarting the discussion by the defendant. At that point he was given the Miranda warnings again and he signed a form waiving his rights. Defendant then gave incriminating statements. Defendant waived his rights when he restarted the discussion and told police that he wanted to tell them what happened to his daughter, and when he talked to the police. Thus, by initiating a conversation with police, defendant knowingly waived his rights that had previously been explained to him, and gave an incriminating statement. His rights were therefore not violated and it was proper to deny his motion to suppress. (Note by Stan: Even though this decision was by an appellate state court decision is not binding on Pennsylvania Courts, it may operate

8 Page 8 January 2013 as persuasive authority with Pennsylvania courts and be adopted as law in a particular case and help support a Pennsylvania police officer s case in court) Taser, even if use of the taser is unlawful, the evidence obtained need not be suppressed if the unlawful use of the taser dis not produce or cause the discovery of the evidence State v Herr Court of Appeals District II (2/6/13) No. 2012AP935-CR Facts A police officer saw defendant speeding and driving on wrong side of the road t 80 mph. Defendant increased his speed to avoid being stopped by the officer. His car was finally stopped and boxed in by several police cars. He remained in his car and refused to exit. He lit a cigarette. And did not put his hands out the window as ordered. One officer opened defendant s car door and fired his taser for a fivesecond burst because he feared that the pursuit might continue as he had the opportunity to put his car in gear and hit a police car or an officer. Defendant was arrested and convicted of DWI and other offenses. Defendant appealed on the ground that the evidence should be suppressed because the officer s unlawful excessive force caused the discovery of the evidence. Issue Where a police officer used excessive force on a defendant, must the evidence obtained be suppressed? Decision No. Affirmed. Reasoning Evidence will be suppressed if it is the product of illegal police conduct. But, if the interests that were violated by the unlawful police conduct have nothing to do with the seizure of the evidence, the exclusionary rule does not require suppression of the evidence. Even if police use excessive force, the defendant s remedy is to sue for damages in a civil suit, rather than suppression of evidence. Where there is no causal connect ion between the manner in which police used force or approached a car and the search that disclosed the evidence, the evidence need not be suppressed. Even if the excessive force had not been used, the evidence would still have been discovered. The police had probable cause to arrest defendant for DUI based on what they saw, even without excessive force used in making the arrest. There is no causal relation between the evidence and the amount of force used to arrest defendant. (Editor s Note: In a footnote, the Court stated that the officer s use of the taser in this case was most likely reasonable. Defendant s actions showed that he did not want to be taken into custody, and was willing to engage in dangerous and reckless behavior to elude arrest. These factors determine if a use of force was unreasonable: the crime is a serious one, the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and the person is actively resisting arrest or trying to evade arrest by running away. These factors must be looked at in the same way the officer did, which often are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolvingabout the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation. Applying these factors to the officer s use of the taser, his use of the taser was reasonable.) The Pennsylvania Police Criminal Law Bulletin 3027 N.W. 66th St. Seattle, WA Periodicals Postage Paid USPS

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37. Appellant No. 307 WDA 2014

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37. Appellant No. 307 WDA 2014 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. AARON BRANDON LINGARD Appellant No. 307 WDA 2014 Appeal from the

More information

IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff, : Case No. 14CR438. v. : Judge Berens

IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff, : Case No. 14CR438. v. : Judge Berens IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO THE STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff, : Case No. 14CR438 v. : Judge Berens CODY TICHENOR, : : ENTRY Overruling Defendant s Motion to Suppress/Motion in Limine

More information

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Elder, Frank and Millette Argued at Alexandria, Virginia CHRISTOPHER J. MARTIN MEMORANDUM OPINION BY v. Record No. 0035-07-4 JUDGE LeROY F. MILLETTE, JR. APRIL

More information

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE 16 TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR MONROE COUNTY MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE 16 TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR MONROE COUNTY MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE 16 TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR MONROE COUNTY STATE OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff, CASE NO: v., Defendant. / MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS COMES NOW, the

More information

HOW DOES A CRIMINAL CASE GET DISMISSED WITHOUT A TRIAL? Many criminal cases are resolved without a trial. Some with straight forward dismissals.

HOW DOES A CRIMINAL CASE GET DISMISSED WITHOUT A TRIAL? Many criminal cases are resolved without a trial. Some with straight forward dismissals. HOW DOES A CRIMINAL CASE GET DISMISSED WITHOUT A TRIAL? Many criminal cases are resolved without a trial. Some with straight forward dismissals. In some cases the prosecution can be misinformed by the

More information

Criminal Law. Month Content Skills August. Define the term jurisprudence. Introduction to law. What is law? Explain several reasons for having laws.

Criminal Law. Month Content Skills August. Define the term jurisprudence. Introduction to law. What is law? Explain several reasons for having laws. Criminal Law Month Content Skills August Introduction to law Define the term jurisprudence. What is law? Explain several reasons for having laws. Discuss the relationship between laws and values. Give

More information

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Argued October 9, 2013 Decided March

More information

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS O P I N I O N

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS O P I N I O N COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS THE STATE OF TEXAS, v. JAVIER TERRAZAS, Appellant, Appellee. No. 08-12-00095-CR Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 7 of El Paso County, Texas

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA CASE 0:14-cr-00295-SRN-JSM Document 44 Filed 01/12/15 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA United States of America, Case No. 14-cr-295 (SRN/JSM) Plaintiff, v. Martel Javell Einfeldt,

More information

Case: 1:16-cv-00951 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/22/16 Page 1 of 18 PageID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

Case: 1:16-cv-00951 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/22/16 Page 1 of 18 PageID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION Case: 1:16-cv-00951 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/22/16 Page 1 of 18 PageID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION PAMELA ANDERSON, Individually and ) as Independent

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) Criminal No. 07-29-P-S ) HALVOR CARL, ) ) Defendant )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) Criminal No. 07-29-P-S ) HALVOR CARL, ) ) Defendant ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) Criminal No. 07-29-P-S ) HALVOR CARL, ) ) Defendant ) RECOMMENDED DECISION ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS Halvor Carl, charged with

More information

Case 2:13-cv-01431-RBS Document 1 Filed 03/19/13 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 2:13-cv-01431-RBS Document 1 Filed 03/19/13 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Case 2:13-cv-01431-RBS Document 1 Filed 03/19/13 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DAVID GARCIA : 7427 Belden Street : Basement Apt. : PHILADELPHIA,

More information

Chapter 13 Procedure (Last Updated: May 13, 2013) Chapter 13.A Speedy Trial Chapter 13.B Recorded Interrogations

Chapter 13 Procedure (Last Updated: May 13, 2013) Chapter 13.A Speedy Trial Chapter 13.B Recorded Interrogations Chapter 13 Procedure (Last Updated: May 13, 2013) Chapter 13.A Speedy Trial Chapter 13.B Recorded Interrogations Chapter 13.A Procedure Speedy Trial (Last Updated: May 13, 2013) 29-1207. Trial within six

More information

Case 5:14-cv-00590-OLG Document 9 Filed 07/31/14 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

Case 5:14-cv-00590-OLG Document 9 Filed 07/31/14 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION Case 5:14-cv-00590-OLG Document 9 Filed 07/31/14 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION DESTINY ANNMARIE RIOS Plaintiff VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-cv-00590

More information

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO Filed 2/2/16 P. v. Moore CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication

More information

MIRANDA AND THE FIFTH AND SIXTH AMENDMENTS

MIRANDA AND THE FIFTH AND SIXTH AMENDMENTS MIRANDA AND THE FIFTH AND SIXTH AMENDMENTS Imagine you sit down to a table to play cards but the only one who knows the rules is the dealer and they keep changing them without telling anyone. This is the

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE Filed 6/21/16 P. v. Archuleta CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified

More information

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012).

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012). This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A13-2263 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Greer

More information

INTRODUCTION DO YOU NEED A LAWYER?

INTRODUCTION DO YOU NEED A LAWYER? INTRODUCTION The purpose of this handbook is to provide answers to some very basic questions that inmates or inmates families might have regarding the processes of the criminal justice system. In no way

More information

Case 1:14-cv-14355 Document 1 Filed 12/08/14 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS COMPLAINT

Case 1:14-cv-14355 Document 1 Filed 12/08/14 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS COMPLAINT Case 1:14-cv-14355 Document 1 Filed 12/08/14 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS GEORGE THOMPSON, Plaintiff, v. C.A. No. 14-14355 THOMAS BARBOZA, Defendant. INTRODUCTION

More information

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No. 05-13-01004-CR. NICOLAS STEPHEN LLOYD, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No. 05-13-01004-CR. NICOLAS STEPHEN LLOYD, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee REVERSE and REMAND; and Opinion Filed December 22, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01004-CR NICOLAS STEPHEN LLOYD, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 J. S41027/16 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : HASAN COLLIER, JR. : Appellant : : No. 3230 EDA

More information

v. Record No. 011732 OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY March 1, 2002 TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY

v. Record No. 011732 OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY March 1, 2002 TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY Present: All the Justices LINDA ROWAN v. Record No. 011732 OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY March 1, 2002 TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY UPON A QUESTION OF LAW CERTIFIED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

More information

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012).

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012). This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A13-2000 Tylor John Neuman, petitioner, Respondent,

More information

2005-C -2496 CHARLES ALBERT AND DENISE ALBERT v. FARM BUREAU INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. (Parish of Lafayette)

2005-C -2496 CHARLES ALBERT AND DENISE ALBERT v. FARM BUREAU INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. (Parish of Lafayette) FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE # 0 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA The Opinions handed down on the 17th day of October, 200, are as follows: PER CURIAM: 2005-C -249 CHARLES ALBERT AND

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON No. 293 June 24, 2015 1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JEREMY MICHAEL HAYES, Defendant-Appellant. Jackson County Circuit Court 093367FE; A148649

More information

No. 1-12-0762 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

No. 1-12-0762 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2014 IL App (1st) 120762-U No. 1-12-0762 FIFTH DIVISION February 28, 2014 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances

More information

A MURDER SCENE EXCEPTION TO THE 4TH AMENDMENT WARRANT REQUIREMENT?

A MURDER SCENE EXCEPTION TO THE 4TH AMENDMENT WARRANT REQUIREMENT? A MURDER SCENE EXCEPTION TO THE 4TH AMENDMENT WARRANT REQUIREMENT? Bryan R. Lemons Senior Legal Instructor It is firmly ingrained in our system of law that searches conducted outside the judicial process,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ORLANDO INGRAM, No. 460, 2014 Defendant Below, Appellant, Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in v. and for Kent County STATE OF DELAWARE,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE EDWIN SCARBOROUGH, Defendant Below- Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below- Appellee. No. 38, 2014 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware,

More information

2014 PA Super 248. : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : : : :

2014 PA Super 248. : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : : : : 2014 PA Super 248 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. LARRY LEE STOPPARD, JR., Appellant No. 1835 MDA 2013 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 22,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: 2013-NMSC-014 Filing Date: April 15, 2013 Docket No. 33,395 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DONOVAN KING, Defendant-Appellee.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2003-KA-01700-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2003-KA-01700-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2003-KA-01700-COA TOMMY BANKS A/K/A TOMMY EARL BANKS (HARRY) APPELLANT v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE DATE OF TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT: 5/27/2003 TRIAL

More information

CITY OF MARYLAND HEIGHTS OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF POLICE

CITY OF MARYLAND HEIGHTS OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF POLICE CITY OF MARYLAND HEIGHTS OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF POLICE GENERAL ORDER 409.00 Cancels: 409.00 Index as: May 1, 2002 Constitutional Rights, Law Violators Detention, Miranda Field Interrogation, Miranda Form

More information

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-13-00125-CV CHRISTOPHER EDOMWANDE APPELLANT V. JULIO GAZA & SANDRA F. GAZA APPELLEES ---------- FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TARRANT COUNTY

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. MARK A. GNACINSKI, JR. Appellant No. 59 WDA 2015 Appeal from the

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT

More information

2016 PA Super 29 OPINION BY JENKINS, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 09, 2016. Michael David Zrncic ( Appellant ) appeals pro se from the judgment

2016 PA Super 29 OPINION BY JENKINS, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 09, 2016. Michael David Zrncic ( Appellant ) appeals pro se from the judgment 2016 PA Super 29 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. MICHAEL DAVID ZRNCIC Appellant No. 764 MDA 2015 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 30, 2015 in the

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JASON WILLIAM CICHETTI Appellant No. 1465 MDA 2012 Appeal from

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CIVIL ACTION : No. 97-2312 v. : : CRIMINAL ACTION SONNY SIGNO : No. 96-562-1 M E M O R A N D U M

More information

NOT ACTUAL PROTECTION: ACTUAL INNOCENCE STANDARD FOR CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS IN CALIFORNIA DOES NOT ELIMINATE ACTUAL LAWSUITS AND ACTUAL PAYMENTS

NOT ACTUAL PROTECTION: ACTUAL INNOCENCE STANDARD FOR CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS IN CALIFORNIA DOES NOT ELIMINATE ACTUAL LAWSUITS AND ACTUAL PAYMENTS NOT ACTUAL PROTECTION: ACTUAL INNOCENCE STANDARD FOR CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS IN CALIFORNIA DOES NOT ELIMINATE ACTUAL LAWSUITS AND ACTUAL PAYMENTS By Celeste King, JD and Barrett Breitung, JD* In 1998

More information

General District Courts

General District Courts General District Courts To Understand Your Visit to Court You Should Know: It is the courts wish that you know your rights and duties. We want every person who comes here to receive fair treatment in accordance

More information

THE MINNESOTA LAWYER

THE MINNESOTA LAWYER THE MINNESOTA LAWYER September 6, 2004 MN Court of Appeals Allows Testimony on Battered-Woman Syndrome By Michelle Lore A District Court judge properly allowed an expert on battered-woman syndrome to testify

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION Case 3:14-cv-03585-N Document 1 Filed 10/03/14 Page 1 of 16 PageID 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION DAVID HARRISON, Individually and as Personal Representative

More information

Subchapter 6.600 Criminal Procedure in District Court

Subchapter 6.600 Criminal Procedure in District Court Subchapter 6.600 Criminal Procedure in District Court Rule 6.610 Criminal Procedure Generally (A) Precedence. Criminal cases have precedence over civil actions. (B) Pretrial. The court, on its own initiative

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. TANISHA HINES, Appellant No. 3257 EDA 2013 Appeal from the Judgment

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. TIMOTHY INGRAM, Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL NO. C-100440 TRIAL NO. B-0906001 JUDGMENT

More information

CRIMINAL COURT IN MINNESOTA: Understanding the Process so You can Sleep at Night

CRIMINAL COURT IN MINNESOTA: Understanding the Process so You can Sleep at Night RYAN PACYGA CRIMINAL DEFENSE 333 South 7 th Street, Suite 2850 Minneapolis, MN 55402 612-339-5844 www.arrestedmn.com More information on the YouTube channel Ryan Pacyga CRIMINAL COURT IN MINNESOTA: Understanding

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 03-4225 ADAM ANKELE, Appellant MARCUS HAMBRICK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 03-4225 ADAM ANKELE, Appellant MARCUS HAMBRICK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT NOT PRECEDENTIAL No. 03-4225 ADAM ANKELE, Appellant v. MARCUS HAMBRICK On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF

More information

POLICY NO. 3-80 LEGAL DEFENSE BENEFIT

POLICY NO. 3-80 LEGAL DEFENSE BENEFIT FLORIDA POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, INC. POLICY NO. 3-80 LEGAL DEFENSE BENEFIT BACKGROUND: In order to provide legal defense benefits to the members of Florida P.B.A., the Board of Directors hereby

More information

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, VI ANN SPENCER, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 13-0804

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, VI ANN SPENCER, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 13-0804 IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. VI ANN SPENCER, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 13-0804 Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County No. V1300CR201280372 The Honorable

More information

Title 5: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AND SERVICES

Title 5: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AND SERVICES Title 5: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AND SERVICES Chapter 337-A: PROTECTION FROM HARASSMENT Table of Contents Part 12. HUMAN RIGHTS... Section 4651. DEFINITIONS... 3 Section 4652. FILING OF COMPLAINT; JURISDICTION...

More information

GLOSSARY OF SELECTED LEGAL TERMS

GLOSSARY OF SELECTED LEGAL TERMS GLOSSARY OF SELECTED LEGAL TERMS Sources: US Courts : http://www.uscourts.gov/library/glossary.html New York State Unified Court System: http://www.nycourts.gov/lawlibraries/glossary.shtml Acquittal A

More information

DA 09-0067 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2009 MT 387

DA 09-0067 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2009 MT 387 November 12 2009 DA 09-0067 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2009 MT 387 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. LISA MARIE LEPROWSE, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL FROM: District Court

More information

BASIC CRIMINAL LAW. Joe Bodiford. Overview of a criminal case Presented by: Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer

BASIC CRIMINAL LAW. Joe Bodiford. Overview of a criminal case Presented by: Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer BASIC CRIMINAL LAW Overview of a criminal case Presented by: Joe Bodiford Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer www.floridacriminaldefense.com www.blawgger.com THE FLORIDA CRIMINAL PROCESS Source: http://www.fsu.edu/~crimdo/cj-flowchart.html

More information

Case 3:14-cv-00039-MMD-VPC Document 12-1 Filed 02/12/14 Page 1 of 14 EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:14-cv-00039-MMD-VPC Document 12-1 Filed 02/12/14 Page 1 of 14 EXHIBIT 1 Case :-cv-000-mmd-vpc Document - Filed 0// Page of EXHIBIT EXHIBIT Case :-cv-000-mmd-vpc Document - Filed 0// Page of JOHN OHLSON, ESQ. NV Bar No. Hill Street, Suite 0 Reno, Nevada 0 Telephone: () -00

More information

IAC 7/2/08 Parole Board[205] Ch 11, p.1. CHAPTER 11 PAROLE REVOCATION [Prior to 2/22/89, Parole, Board of[615] Ch 7]

IAC 7/2/08 Parole Board[205] Ch 11, p.1. CHAPTER 11 PAROLE REVOCATION [Prior to 2/22/89, Parole, Board of[615] Ch 7] IAC 7/2/08 Parole Board[205] Ch 11, p.1 CHAPTER 11 PAROLE REVOCATION [Prior to 2/22/89, Parole, Board of[615] Ch 7] 205 11.1(906) Voluntary termination of parole. Any voluntary termination of parole should

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MIAMI COUNTY, OHIO. v. : T.C. NO. 2007 TRC 2065

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MIAMI COUNTY, OHIO. v. : T.C. NO. 2007 TRC 2065 [Cite as State v. Swartz, 2009-Ohio-902.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MIAMI COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellant : C.A. CASE NO. 2008 CA 31 v. : T.C. NO. 2007 TRC 2065 ROBERT W. SWARTZ : (Criminal

More information

Case: 1:15-cv-09957 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/04/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1

Case: 1:15-cv-09957 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/04/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1 Case: 1:15-cv-09957 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/04/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1 JACLYN PAZERA Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION v. Case No.

More information

Maricopa County Attorney s Office Adult Criminal Case Process

Maricopa County Attorney s Office Adult Criminal Case Process The following is a brief description of the process to prosecute an adult accused of committing a felony offense. Most misdemeanor offenses are handled by municipal prosecutors; cases involving minors

More information

The Legal System in the United States

The Legal System in the United States The Legal System in the United States At the conclusion of this chapter, students will be able to: 1. Understand how the legal system works; 2. Explain why laws are necessary; 3. Discuss how cases proceed

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37. Appellee No. 2212 EDA 2013

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37. Appellee No. 2212 EDA 2013 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 TROY BAYLOR Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA AND DETECTIVE PATRICIA WONG Appellee No. 2212 EDA 2013 Appeal

More information

A Citizen s Guide to the Criminal Justice System: From Arraignment to Appeal

A Citizen s Guide to the Criminal Justice System: From Arraignment to Appeal A Citizen s Guide to the Criminal Justice System: From Arraignment to Appeal Presented by the Office of the Richmond County District Attorney Acting District Attorney Daniel L. Master, Jr. 130 Stuyvesant

More information

Decided: May 11, 2015. S15A0308. McLEAN v. THE STATE. Peter McLean was tried by a DeKalb County jury and convicted of the

Decided: May 11, 2015. S15A0308. McLEAN v. THE STATE. Peter McLean was tried by a DeKalb County jury and convicted of the In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: May 11, 2015 S15A0308. McLEAN v. THE STATE. BLACKWELL, Justice. Peter McLean was tried by a DeKalb County jury and convicted of the murder of LaTonya Jones, an

More information

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO Filed 8/27/14 Tesser Ruttenberg etc. v. Forever Entertainment CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying

More information

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY Third Judicial District Of Kansas Chadwick J. Taylor, District Attorney

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY Third Judicial District Of Kansas Chadwick J. Taylor, District Attorney OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY Third Judicial District Of Kansas Chadwick J. Taylor, District Attorney Shawnee County Courthouse Fax: (785) 251-4909 200 SE 7th Street, Suite 214 Family Law Fax: (785)

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 11-1350. MICHAEL SADEL, Appellant

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 11-1350. MICHAEL SADEL, Appellant UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 11-1350 MICHAEL SADEL, Appellant v. NOT PRECEDENTIAL BERKSHIRE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA; THE GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA

More information

trial court and Court of Appeals found that the Plaintiff's case was barred by the statute of limitations.

trial court and Court of Appeals found that the Plaintiff's case was barred by the statute of limitations. RESULTS Appellate Court upholds decision that malpractice action barred September 2, 2015 The South Carolina Court of Appeals recently upheld a summary judgment obtained by David Overstreet and Mike McCall

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Memorandum and Order

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Memorandum and Order IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CAROSELLA & FERRY, P.C., Plaintiff, v. TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-2344 Memorandum and Order YOHN,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case:-cv-0 Document Filed0// Page of Michael Millen Attorney at Law (#) Calle Marguerita Ste. 0 Telephone: Fax: (0) -0 mikemillen@aol.com Attorney for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT

More information

CAUSE NO. THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE 49th DISTRICT COURT ZAPATA COUNTY, TEXAS

CAUSE NO. THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE 49th DISTRICT COURT ZAPATA COUNTY, TEXAS CAUSE NO. STATE S EXHIBIT #1 THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE 49th DISTRICT COURT VS. OF ZAPATA COUNTY, TEXAS PLEA OF GUILTY, ADMONISHMENTS, VOLUNTARY STATEMENTS, WAIVERS, STIPULATION & JUDICIAL CONFESSION (Defendant

More information

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case :-cv-00-loa Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Bradley Jardis, vs. Keith M. Knowlton, L.L.C. SBN 0 S. Rural Road, Suite 0, PMB# Tempe, Arizona -00 (0 -; FAX (0 - Keith M. Knowlton - SBN 0 Attorney for Plaintiff

More information

Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights. Sections 112.532-534, F.S. 112.532 Law enforcement officers' and correctional officers' rights.

Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights. Sections 112.532-534, F.S. 112.532 Law enforcement officers' and correctional officers' rights. Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights Sections 112.532-534, F.S. 112.532 Law enforcement officers' and correctional officers' rights.-- All law enforcement officers and correctional officers employed

More information

2015 IL App (5th) 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT

2015 IL App (5th) 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT NOTICE Decision filed 10/15/15. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2015 IL App (5th 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227

More information

2015 IL App (1st) 132290-U. No. 1-13-2290 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

2015 IL App (1st) 132290-U. No. 1-13-2290 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2015 IL App (1st) 132290-U FOURTH DIVISION September 3, 2015 No. 1-13-2290 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited

More information

Witness Protection Act 1995 No 87

Witness Protection Act 1995 No 87 New South Wales Witness Protection Act 1995 No 87 Status information Currency of version Current version for 5 October 2012 to date (generated 10 October 2012 at 19:15). Legislation on the NSW legislation

More information

The Lawyer as Gatekeeper The Backdrop

The Lawyer as Gatekeeper The Backdrop Lawyers as Gatekeepers The SEC s New Focus on Inside and Outside Counsel Julie M. Allen Frank Zarb National Conference of the Society of Corporate Secretaries and Governance Professionals June 28, 2014

More information

*Rule 1.4(a) *Rule 1.16(a) *Rule 1.16(a)(2) *Rule 1.16(b) *Rule 3.3 *DR7-102(A)(4) *DR7-102(A)(6)

*Rule 1.4(a) *Rule 1.16(a) *Rule 1.16(a)(2) *Rule 1.16(b) *Rule 3.3 *DR7-102(A)(4) *DR7-102(A)(6) NEW HAMPSHIRE BAR ASSOCIATION Ethics Committee Formal Opinion 1993-94/7 Candor to Tribunal: Use of Questionable Evidence In Criminal Defense January 27, 1994 RULE REFERENCES: *Rule 1.2 *Rule 1.2(a) *Rule

More information

The Criminal Procedure Rules Part 17 as in force on 2 February 2015 PART 17 EXTRADITION

The Criminal Procedure Rules Part 17 as in force on 2 February 2015 PART 17 EXTRADITION Contents of this Part PART 17 EXTRADITION Section 1: general rules When this Part applies rule 17.1 Meaning of court, presenting officer and defendant rule 17.2 Section 2: extradition proceedings in a

More information

ISBA CLE PRESENTATION ON DUI POINTS OF INTEREST March 8, 2013 Judge Chet Vahle, Betsy Bier & Jennifer Cifaldi FACT SCENARIOS AND QUESTIONS

ISBA CLE PRESENTATION ON DUI POINTS OF INTEREST March 8, 2013 Judge Chet Vahle, Betsy Bier & Jennifer Cifaldi FACT SCENARIOS AND QUESTIONS ISBA CLE PRESENTATION ON DUI POINTS OF INTEREST March 8, 2013 Judge Chet Vahle, Betsy Bier & Jennifer Cifaldi I. DUI Cannabis or Drugs FACT SCENARIOS AND QUESTIONS A. Causal connection when unlawful substances

More information

HOW TO FILE AN ANSWER TO A CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE OR WRONGFUL DEATH ACTIONS

HOW TO FILE AN ANSWER TO A CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE OR WRONGFUL DEATH ACTIONS SUPERIOR COURT OF STANISLAUS COUNTY SELF HELP CENTER HOW TO FILE AN ANSWER TO A CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE OR WRONGFUL DEATH ACTIONS (THIS GUIDE ONLY APPLIES TO LAWSUITS INVOLVING

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37. Appellant No. 193 MDA 2014

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37. Appellant No. 193 MDA 2014 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA GARY L. GEROW JR. v. Appellant No. 193 MDA 2014 Appeal from the Judgment

More information

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals RENDERED: DECEMBER 31, 2008; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2007-CA-000917-MR AND NO. 2007-CA-002088-MR BRYAN P. VINCENT APPELLANT APPEAL FROM MUHLENBERG CIRCUIT

More information

CASE NO. 1D09-6554. David M. Robbins and Susan Z. Cohen, Jacksonville, for Petitioner.

CASE NO. 1D09-6554. David M. Robbins and Susan Z. Cohen, Jacksonville, for Petitioner. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA ERIC EDENFIELD, v. Petitioner, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D09-6554

More information

NC General Statutes - Chapter 15A Article 17 1

NC General Statutes - Chapter 15A Article 17 1 SUBCHAPTER III. CRIMINAL PROCESS. Article 17. Criminal Process. 15A-301. Criminal process generally. (a) Formal Requirements. (1) A record of each criminal process issued in the trial division of the General

More information

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 97-4113

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 97-4113 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 97-4113 RICHARD HUGH WHITTLE, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND JOAN FALLOWS KLUGE, Plaintiff, v. Civil No. L-10-00022 LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA Defendant. MEMORANDUM Plaintiff, Joan Fallows

More information

2015 IL App (1st) 141985-U. No. 1-14-1985 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

2015 IL App (1st) 141985-U. No. 1-14-1985 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2015 IL App (1st) 141985-U No. 1-14-1985 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

More information

As a current or former non-exempt PPG employee, you may be entitled to receive money from a class action settlement.

As a current or former non-exempt PPG employee, you may be entitled to receive money from a class action settlement. NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND HEARING DATE FOR COURT APPROVAL Penaloza, et al., v. PPG Industries, Inc., Case No. BC471369 As a current or former non-exempt PPG employee, you may be entitled

More information

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY EDWARD A. JEREJIAN BERGEN COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER JUDGE HACKENSACK, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 527-2610 Fax Number: (201) 371-1109 Joseph M. Mark Counsellor at Law 200 John Street

More information

Title 15 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE -Chapter 23 ALABAMA CRIME VICTIMS Article 3 Crime Victims' Rights

Title 15 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE -Chapter 23 ALABAMA CRIME VICTIMS Article 3 Crime Victims' Rights Section 15-23-60 Definitions. As used in this article, the following words shall have the following meanings: (1) ACCUSED. A person who has been arrested for committing a criminal offense and who is held

More information

MPRE Sample Test Questions

MPRE Sample Test Questions MPRE Sample Test Questions The following sample questions are examples of test questions similar to those on the MPRE. While these sample questions illustrate the kinds of questions that will appear on

More information

Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the

Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the ****************************************************** 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

More information

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS RIGHTS OF THE CRIMINALLY ACCUSED GENERAL LEGAL RIGHTS CHAPTER 10 INTRODUCTION Constitutional rights relating to American criminal law are the same for all adult persons, whether they have a disability

More information

CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. ANSWER ) Defendant. ) )

CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. ANSWER ) Defendant. ) ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ANS (NAME) (ADDRESS) (CITY, STATE, ZIP) (TELEPHONE) Defendant Pro Se DISTRICT COURT CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA ) ) Case No.: Plaintiff,

More information

The Criminal Justice System The Police. I. The Police. II. Organization a. Most agencies located in counties, cities and towns

The Criminal Justice System The Police. I. The Police. II. Organization a. Most agencies located in counties, cities and towns The Criminal Justice System The Police I. The Police a. More than 725,000 police across the country b. Local, state and national levels c. Protect, maintain peace & order, investigate, arrest, and book

More information

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 14-3137 United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Lacresia Joy White lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant Appeal

More information

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals RENDERED: MAY 2, 2014; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2012-CA-000371-MR GREGORY JERMAIN LANGLEY APPELLANT APPEAL FROM HENDERSON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE

More information