03-08-02

Dumb Crooks

A Tallahassee man trying to hotfoot it away from the cops had to do the stop, drop and roll when his trousers caught fire Sunday.

Police said 30-year-old Carl Franklin would have kept right on running - trailing smoke and ashes - if his pants hadn't dropped to his ankles and tripped him up.

Tallahassee Police Officer Seth Stoughton spotted Franklin about 11 p.m. standing by a fence on Kissimmee Street. Franklin's pants were down, and he had both hands in front of him. Stoughton suspected he was about to urinate.

When the officer shouted, Franklin yanked up his pants and turned to run.

"We prepare for a lot of stuff, but I'd never expected to see the man's pants on fire," Stoughton said. "His pocket was outlined in red, and it was clearly smoldering."

Apparently, Franklin had been smoking a Newport when he stopped to heed nature's call. Lacking anywhere to put his smoke, he'd just slipped it into his pocket.

Stoughton then chased after the man in the burning pants, yelling for him to hit the ground. Franklin kept going - until his trousers slipped from his grasp and pooled at his feet.

He took a tumble, and Stoughton dived on top of him, slapping at the fire. Franklin was still trying to get away, punching and kicking, until another officer arrived and quickly cut away the burning pants.

Stoughton arrested Franklin on a charge of resisting arrest, handcuffed him and took him to jail.

"About halfway to the jail, he was still shouting that his pants were on fire," Stoughton said.

The officer reported Franklin "smelled strongly of an alcoholic beverage and appeared intoxicated."

New Study on Kids and Guns

BOSTON, Feb. 19, 2002 -- A new study from the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) finds that in states and regions with higher levels of household firearm ownership, many more children are dying from homicide, suicide and gun accidents.

"In states with more guns, more children are dying. They are dying in suicides, in homicides, and in gun accidents. This finding is completely contrary to the notion that guns are protecting our children," Matthew Miller, M.D., ScD, associate director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center at HSPH and lead author of the study, said.

“The differences in violent death rates to children are large, and are closely tied to levels of gun ownership,” he said. “The differences cannot be explained by poverty, education or urbanization.”

The study focused on children aged 5 to 14, and compared data across all 50 states over a 10-year period (1988-1997). In one table, the authors compare the five states with the highest gun ownership levels with the five states with the lowest levels. While these states have equal numbers of children, they have very different rates of violent death.

In the 10-year period, 253 children died from firearm accidents in the high gun states, compared to 15 in the low gun states. While the numbers of non-gun suicides were similar, 153 children killed themselves with guns in the five high gun states, compared to 22 who committed suicide in the five low gun states.

Children in the high gun states were also at much higher risk of being murdered with a firearm. During this 10-year period, 298 children aged 5 to 14 were murdered with guns in the high gun states, compared to 86 in the low gun states. The non-gun homicide rates were fairly similar (a little over 100 non-gun homicides in both sets of states).

Miller emphasized that, while no study that is a snapshot of the U.S. over a short period of time can prove causation, the strong and robust association between gun ownership and children’s violent death is compelling.

These results are also consistent with international comparisons. The U.S. level of private firearm ownership is much higher than in other developed nations and U.S. children aged 5 to 14 are far more likely to be murdered, commit suicide, and die from gun accidents than children in other developed countries. Indeed, for children aged 5 to 14 in the United States, death from firearms is the third leading cause of mortality, following only motor vehicle crashes and cancer.

From www.consumeraffairs.com

A narcotics task force officer saw the defendant’s car at around midnight on an interstate highway being driven slowly in the passing lane, then twice crossing the center stripe. Because he thought the driver might be falling asleep or intoxicated, the officer stopped the defendant’s car.

After contacting the defendant, the officer quickly concluded that the man was not intoxicated. He did seem nervous, though; his hands were shaking; he did not make eye contact; and his breathing was shallow.

The car the defendant was driving was a rental, and the contract was not in the name of either the defendant or his passenger. The passenger’s account of their travels conflicted with the defendant’s, but the officer could not detect any odor of marijuana in the car while talking with the passenger.

Due to lack of evidence, the officer said he would write the defendant a warning ticket and let him go. While checking the defendant’s license before releasing him, the officer discovered that the license had been revoked.

A back-up officer arrived just before the officer issued the warning citations and returned the rental agreement to the defendant. He then asked the driver if anything of an “illegal nature” was in the car. When the defendant replied, “no,” the officer asked for consent to search, which the defendant refused.

The officer told the defendant to “stay right here,” and that he would be right back. He brought his drug dog from the patrol car and had the dog sniff the defendant’s vehicle.

A large plastic sack containing nine to ten pounds of marijuana was discovered in the trunk. It was wrapped in a jacket that had medical forms with the defendant’s name in a pocket.

The defendant was arrested for possession of the contraband, and he moved to suppress the evidence. He claimed that the initial stop of his car was not justified, and that his continued detention was not based on reasonable suspicion. The trial court denied the motion, and the defendant appealed.

Holding: “Law enforcement officers may stop and briefly detain persons suspected of criminal activity if the circumstances upon which the officers rely objectively support a reasonable suspicion that the person detained actually is, has been, or soon will be engaged in criminal activity.”

It was not necessary that the traffic stop be based on the actual violation of traffic laws. Such a stop could be justified by reasonable suspicion to believe the defendant violated traffic laws, or as an investigative detention based on the officer’s reasonable suspicion that the defendant was intoxicated.

During a traffic stop, an officer may “request information concerning the driver’s license, ownership of the vehicle, the driver’s insurance information, the driver’s destination, and the purpose of the trip.” Once that investigation is complete, “continued detention of a person is permitted only if there is reasonable suspicion to believe another offense has been or is being committed.”

A dog sniff generally is not considered to be a “search” for Fourth Amendment purposes. Using a dog to sniff a car is reasonable if reasonable suspicion exists to believe the vehicle contains narcotics.

It is not the dog sniff that the defendant complained about, though. His complaint was that he was detained after the purpose of the stop was achieved and the warning citations had been issued. He was not being arrested for driving with a revoked license, and was ordered to remain at the scene only after refusing to consent to a search.

The officer had determined that the defendant was not intoxicated, and had issued two warning citations for the traffic violations. This concluded the reason for the stop, and no further detention was justified unless the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe the defendant possessed drugs.

Having a rental agreement in someone else’s name might suggest that the car was stolen, but not that it contained narcotics. And the defendant’s nervousness was at best a weak factor. The officer admitted that people he stops at night on the interstate often are nervous.

Based on the facts known to the officer at the time of the traffic stop, and even considering his experience and reasonable inferences from the facts, there was no reasonable suspicion to believe drugs were in the car.

Having no reasonable suspicion of drug possession, once the officer issued the warning citations to the defendant, it was unreasonable for him to continue to detain the car in order to conduct a canine sniff.

The trial court should have ordered the marijuana suppressed because it was the product of an unlawful continued detention not based on reasonable suspicion. Failure to suppress that evidence was harmful to the defendant and requires reversal of his conviction. McQuarters v. State, 2001 WL1098006 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth, 9-20-01).

From the Chaplain

Cyber Space

Subject: IRS Audit Scam! Beware!

Special Alert to the Public

We recently received an alert from the Internal Revenue Service about a fraudulent scam being conducted via E mail that you should be on the look out for: Some taxpayers have received an e mail from a non-IRS source indicating that the taxpayer is under audit and needs to complete a questionnaire within 48 hours to avoid The assessment of penalties and interest. The e mail refers to an "e-audit" and references IRS form 1040. The taxpayer is asked for social security numbers, bank account numbers and other confidential information. THE IRS DOES NOT CONDUCT E-AUDITS, NOR DOES IT NOTIFY TAXPAYERS OF A PENDING AUDIT VIA E-MAIL. THIS E MAIL IS NOT FROM THE IRS. Do not provide the requested information - this may be an identity-theft attempt.

Comments: While the above alert contains some accurate information and sound advice — namely that the Internal Revenue Service does not conduct "e-audits" and consumers should beware of emails from strangers asking for personal information — the fact is, this alleged scam doesn't exist.

According to an IRS spokesman, erroneous warnings went out after the agency discovered a Website asking users to fill out a form with personal information, allegedly for purposes of an income tax audit. It was subsequently determined to be a "joke" with no criminal intent.