Cuff 'N Stuff
The Internal Newsletter of the Wise County Sheriff's
Department
04-05-02
|
Cuff 'N Stuff 04-05-02 |
|
Crack Smokers Steal Donut Truck Two people left a 15-mile-long- trail of doughnuts after they took a Krispy Kreme truck from a parking lot and fled, according to Slidell, Louisiana police. The truck was parked at a convenience store with its rear doors open and engine running while a deliveryman carried doughnuts inside, said Slidell police spokesman Rob Callahan. Two suspects hopped in the truck and sped off to the nearby town of Lacombe, with doughnuts spilling out along the way, he said. They abandoned the truck when they were spotted by police responding to reports of a dangerous driver who was losing his doughnuts. Passenger Rose Houk, 31, was captured, but the driver, whose name was not released, ran away. Houk told police they had been smoking crack cocaine for several hours before the incident, which occurred Wednesday, said Callahan. Their motive for taking the Krispy Kreme truck was unclear. "I don't know if it was a need for transportation or if they just had the munchies," he said. Robber Gets Beat Over the Head With His Own Stick An Ashtabula, Ohio man found himself in a sticky situation after trying to use a stick to rob a mini-mart. According to Ashtabula Police Captain Phil Varckette, a black male walked into BB's Mini Mart at about 1:45pm brandishing a medium-sized wooden stick. The suspect walked to the cash register. Store co-owner Kathy Sarah grabbed the man's stick, which Varckette said was about two inches in diameter and a foot and a half in length, and began beating him over the head with it. The burglar ran out of the store with Sarah close behind. Both of them eventually slipped and fell in the snow (a late March snow storm was in progress at the time). Kathy's husband Mike, who had been sleeping when the burglar came in, woke up and joined in the chase. He followed the burglar to the go-cart track on Station Avenue. Varckette said Mike Sarah grabbed the robber's coat but the burglar slipped out of the coat and continued running. Patrolmen Dave Clemens, Tom Clemens, Jr. and Rob Stell of the Ashtabula Police Department came to the scene and were able to follow the suspect's footprints in the snow to a Cleveland Avenue apartment building. The suspect was arrested and taken into custody. Story courtesy of Megan Poinski of The Ashtabula Star Beacon
Standard time in time zones was instituted in the U.S. and Canada by the railroads on November 18, 1883. Before then, time of day was a local matter, and most cities and towns used some form of local solar time, maintained by some well-known clock (for example, on a church steeple or in a jeweler's window). The new standard time system was not immediately embraced by all, however. Use of standard time gradually increased because of its obvious practical advantages for communication and travel. Standard time in time zones was not established in U.S. law until the Act of March 19, 1918, sometimes called the Standard Time Act. The act also established daylight saving time, itself a contentious idea. Daylight saving time was repealed in 1919, but standard time in time zones remained in law, with the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) having the authority over time zone boundaries. Daylight time became a local matter. It was re-established nationally early in World War II, and was continuously observed until the end of the war. After the war its use varied among states and localities. The Uniform Time Act of 1966 provided standardization in the dates of beginning and end of daylight time in the U.S. but allowed for local exemptions from its observance. The act also continued the authority of the ICC over time zone boundaries. In subsequent years, Congress transferred the authority over time zones to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), modified (several times) the beginning date of daylight time, and renamed the three westernmost time zones. Time zone boundaries have changed greatly since their original introduction and changes still occasionally occur. DOT issues press releases when these changes are made. Generally, time zone boundaries have tended to shift westward. Under the law, the principal standard for deciding on a time zone change is the "convenience of commerce." Proposed time zone changes have been both approved and rejected based on this criterion, although most such proposals have been accepted.
Legal Issues - Search and Seizure INACCURATE DESCRIPTION OF LOCATION IN AFFIDAVIT DOES NOT RENDER WARRANT INVALID. An agent with a regional drug task force received a tip from a citizen that strong chemical odors were coming from the defendant’s house; and that people at the house were using batteries in parked cars as a power source. The officer drove by the house to investigate. When he did so, people at the house put down the hoods of their cars and went inside the house as the officer drove by. He also smelled ammonia and denatured alcohol, chemicals used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. Based on this information, the agent prepared an affidavit and secured a search warrant for the premises. Evidence was seized during the execution of the warrant, and the defendant was charged with manufacturing methamphetamine. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, claiming that the affidavit did not correctly describe the place to be searched, as required by Texas law. The description in the affidavit was for “a white wood single family dwelling, located 1.2 miles north from State Highway 82 on County Road 1235, north of Savoy, Texas.” The officer admitted in his testimony that the defendant’s house was on County Road 1325, about three miles north of Savoy off “the new highway.” He testified that County Road 1235 was located in Fannin County, “way down in Leonard (Texas).” The house in which the defendant lived was one of only two “at the end of that road,” and the other house was brick. Another house in the vicinity also was brick and was located “at the corner.” Three vehicles that were parked at the defendant’s home also were described in the affidavit. Based on the testimony of the officer, and the error in the affidavit, the trial court granted the defense motion and ordered the evidence suppressed. The State appealed. Holding: To be sufficient, a search warrant must “identify, as near as may be, that which is to be seized and names or describes, as near as may be, the person, place, or thing to be searched.” When an affidavit is attached to the warrant, “these documents should be considered together as defining the place to be searched, but the description in the affidavit controls over the language in the warrant itself.” Taken together, the warrant and affidavit must enable the officer who is executing the warrant to find and identify the place to be searched so that the property of innocent third persons will not be searched mistakenly. Maps of the county show only a County Road 1235 extending north from Highway 82, and do not show a County Road 1325 at all. The description of the road contained in the affidavit was correct, and any reasonable officer could have executed the warrant properly. Further, the affidavit described the suspect’s house as being 1.2 miles north from State Highway 82, north of Savoy. An officer who followed those instructions would encounter the proper county road and correctly determine the house to be searched. The house itself was distinguishable from those around it. Only the defendant’s house was wooden; the others within sight of the location were brick. Moreover, the affidavit described the vehicles that would be found parked at the house, along with their license plate numbers. By following the directions contained in the affidavit, there was no chance that officers would have found another white wooden house with the described vehicles parked outside, even if they had taken the wrong road. Given the descriptions of the house and cars, any reasonable officer could have executed the warrant. Despite the error in naming the county road, the description of the place to be searched was adequate and the suppression motion should have been denied. State v. Manry, 56 S.W.3d 806 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2001).
WHO NEEDS A HEARING AID? There is a story about an elderly grandfather who was very wealthy. Because he was going deaf, he decided to buy a hearing aid. Two weeks later he stopped at the store where he had bought it and told the manager he could now pick up conversation quite easily, even in the next room. “Your relatives must be happy to know that you can hear so much better,” beamed the delighted owner. “Oh, I haven’t told them yet,” the man laughed. “I’ve just been sitting around listening—and you know what? I’ve changed my will twice!” God is not like the grandfather who hears only when we speak clearly and directly at him. He always hears us. And his attitude toward us is not changed by what he hears, because we stand before him by grace. But if God WERE like that grandfather—and if his attitude toward us were changeable—how would YOUR conversation of the past week have affected his attitude toward you?
Weatherford College Training Schedule April-May 2002
|
|
Crime Does Not Have To Be A Fact Of Life |
