07-25-03

Food for Thought

If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.

Good judgment comes from bad experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.

Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.

MELBOURNE, Australia -- In a rushed grab-and-run robbery, two men with a sawed-off shotgun stole two bags of garbage from a gasoline station attendant in Melbourne, police said Friday.

The male attendant was carrying the garbage through a shopping center parking lot in the city's western suburb of Deer Park just before midnight Thursday when a green van reversed toward him, police said.

A man, who had covered his face with a piece of yellow cloth, slid the van's side door open, produced a sawed-off shotgun and demanded the attendant hand over the bags.

"He told them it was only rubbish but they took it anyway," police spokeswoman Bronwen Kelly said.

The van then sped off.

Police say they have no idea why the men grabbed the trash, but assumed they thought the bags contained money. Police believe the van was stolen and are treating the case as a normal armed robbery.

Nova Scotia - If you're going for a boat ride, it really helps to know the local geography.

Three Bridgewater teens had to be rescued from the Nova Scotia's south shore Wednesday night.

Police said the teens took a boat, beached it, and then burned it -- not realizing they were on an island.

An RCMP helicopter and the rescue officials were called in.

All three teens face charges of theft and damage to property.

© 2003 Dumb Crooks
Www.dumbcrooks.com
Used with permission

WASHINGTON—An Iraqi-born German shepherd, who put his life on the line to guard U.S. Special Forces, escaped euthanasia and will soon travel to the United States to retire.

Sgt. 1st Class Russell Joyce, the Special Forces soldier from Fort Bragg, N.C., nursed the malnourished and abused dog from northern Iraq back to health and trained him. The dog guarded Special Forces soldiers who accomplished missions like taking control of Maqlub mountain, and removing the last of Mosul's defenses.

Upon arriving back to Fort Bragg, Joyce frantically sent out two e-mails to friends and family asking for help to get the faithful guard dog, Fluffy, shipped to the United States.

Those e-mails somehow traveled through cyberspace and reached numerous war dog associations and members of congress, who are lobbying to get Fluffy a ticket to the States.

An Air force Squadron at Kirkuk Air Base, Iraq, is currently taking care of Fluffy. However, as soon as the Department of Agriculture and the Office of the Secretary of Defense approves Fluffy's flight, he will begin his journey to the states, officials said. Approval is practically guaranteed as agencies from the Department of Defense, Army, Air Force and the consultant to the Army surgeon general for Veterinary Clinical Medicine scurry to expedite Fluffy's retirement.

Fluffy's fate was first in question May 11. He wasn't allowed to board the homeward-bound plane with the Special Forces soldiers.

"We purchased him from the Kurds to perform military operations, but the officer in charge of loading said that since he didn't originate in the States, and wasn't on order, he was not authorized to travel to the U.S.," Joyce said.

"Myself, and other people on my team, tried to explain that an Army veterinarian said Fluffy was fit for travel, and that I had the proper paperwork to prove it."

Joyce left Fluffy with an Air Force K-9 unit, but he was told that the unit could only hold onto the Shepherd for 72 hours.

"As his handler, I grew attached to him, but the reason I really wanted to see him in the States was because he supported us the whole time we were in Iraq," Joyce said.

"He walked guard with every American soldier in our compound, all night long. He chased stray dogs away. He never ran at the sound of bullets, and we were safe because he was there," Joyce said. "He was a deterrer, and that's an immeasurable success."

Fluffy joined Joyce's team with visible scars on his head and legs, weighing about 31 pounds and missing his front two bottom teeth. The full-breed shepherd spent his first night with the Special Forces so scared that he didn't move, Joyce said. The soldiers only had two weeks to prepare Fluffy for duty, but he impressed the team by catching onto the commands very quickly and warming up to his new owners. He was trained to guard and be a pursuit dog. Upon release from his handler, he could chase and bring down a perpetrator.

"There's no dog food in Iraq," Joyce said. "So we all shared our food with him, and fed him out of the palm of our hands. He was never aggressive toward us, and his first name, Tariq Aziz, was not befitting of his character."

"I wanted a name for him that wasn't too macho, and didn't have so many syllables," Joyce said. "The first thing that came to mind was Fluffy, and eventually everyone started calling him by that name."

Legal Issues - Arrest

“HOT PURSUIT” JUSTIFIES DWI STOP AND ARREST OUTSIDE OFFICERS’ JURISDICTION.

Two municipal police officers saw the defendant nearly drive his car into a ditch while leaving the parking lot of a bar in their city. They decided to follow the defendant’s car and “evaluate his driving” rather than stopping it immediately, as they believed they could have done.

As the officers followed the defendant’s car, it left their city limits and entered an adjoining city. When the defendant almost hit another vehicle, the officers stopped him because they believed he was dangerous.

The defendant appeared to be intoxicated and he failed field sobriety tests. He was arrested for DWI and taken to the police station of the city where the arrest was made because it had an intoxilyzer and videotaping equipment. The defendant then was returned to the officers’ home city for processing.

The defendant moved to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of “the illegal conduct of the arresting officers.” It later became clear that the defendant was not contending that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop or probable cause for his arrest, but instead was complaining only that the officers lacked authority to detain him outside the boundaries of their employing municipality.

The trial court denied the defense motion, and the defendant was convicted. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that, as officers of a “Type B” municipality, the officers’arrest jurisdiction ended at the city limits in the absence of any statutory or common law authority expanding that power.

If the officers were authorized to arrest outside their city limits for an offense committed in their presence, the Court held, they were not entitled to “conduct an investigative detention” of the defendant based on reasonable suspicion, as they did here.

The Court went on to decide that any investigative detention was not justified by “hot pursuit” because the officers followed the defendant “out of their jurisdiction for the purpose of observing him, not for the purpose of detaining him.” The State appealed.

Holding: When the officers initially decided to follow the defendant, they initiated a “pursuit,” even if it did not involve a “chase.” “Under the ‘hot pursuit’ doctrine, the relevant consideration in this case is whether the initial ‘pursuit’ was lawfully initiated on the ground of suspicion.”

This “pursuit” began within the officers’ municipality and was based at least on reasonable suspicion that the defendant was DWI. The timing of the investigative detention outside the officers’ jurisdiction is “irrelevant under the ‘hot pursuit’ doctrine.”

The significant fact is that the officers’ conduct, which eventually resulted in the stop of the defendant, was initially supported by sufficient suspicion. There also was “immediate and continuous” pursuit of the defendant from the time the officers first developed this suspicion and began to follow him.

Because the officers who stopped the defendant outside their jurisdiction had reason to believe he was DWI within their municipality, they were entitled to follow him and stop him outside their city limits under the common law “hot pursuit” doctrine. The stop was not unlawful, and the trial judge properly denied the defendant’s suppression motion.

COMMENT: This peculiar case presents a kind of “warm pursuit” exception to the rule that municipal officers ordinarily may not arrest or detain outside their employing jurisdiction. Prior cases have held that an officer may arrest a DWI suspect without a warrant under authority of Article 14.01(a), the citizen’s arrest provision, because DWI is a “breach of the public peace.” And Article 14.03(g) authorizes many peace officers to arrest for offenses other than traffic offenses outside their jurisdiction, as long as the crime occurs in the officer’s presence or view. Perhaps these issues were not raised in this case because the stop was considered to be merely an investigative detention and not an arrest. In any event, the Court’s approval of this slowly moving “pursuit” as a way to conduct a detention outside the officer’s jurisdiction is a significant interpretation of the doctrine. Yeager v. State, No. 1555-00, Ct. of Crim. App. (4-2-03).

Identity Thief Goes “Phishing” for Consumers’ Credit Info

An identity thief who allegedly used hijacked corporate logos and deceptive spam to con consumers out of credit card numbers and other financial data has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that his scam violated federal laws. If approved by the court, the defendant, a minor, will be barred for life from sending spam and will give up his ill-gotten gains.

The FTC alleged that the scam, called “phishing,” worked like this: posing as America Online, the con artist sent consumers e-mail messages claiming that there had been a problem with the billing of their AOL account. The e-mail warned consumers that if they didn’t update their billing information, they risked losing their AOL accounts and Internet access. The message directed consumers to click on a hyperlink in the body of the e-mail to connect to the “AOL Billing Center.” When consumers clicked on the link they landed on a site that contained AOL’s logo, AOL’s type style, AOL’s colors, and links to real AOL Web pages. It appeared to be AOL’s Billing Center. But it wasn’t. The defendant had hijacked AOL’s identity and was going to use it to steal consumers’ identities, as well, the FTC alleged.

The defendant’s AOL look-alike Web page directed consumers to enter the numbers from the credit card they had used to charge their AOL account. It then asked consumers to enter numbers from a new card to correct the problem. It also asked for consumers’ names, mothers’ maiden names, billing addresses, social security numbers, bank routing numbers, credit limits, personal identification numbers, and AOL screen names and passwords - the kind of data that would help the defendant plunder consumers’ credit and debit card accounts and assume their identity online.

According to the FTC, the defendant used the information to charge online purchases and open accounts with PayPal. In addition, he used consumers’ names and passwords to log on to AOL in their names and send more spam. Finally, he recruited others to participate in the scheme by convincing them to receive fraudulently obtained merchandise he had ordered for himself.

The agency charged the defendant’s practices were deceptive and unfair, in violation of the FTC Act. In addition, the FTC alleged that the defendant’s practices violated provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act designed to protect the privacy of consumers’ sensitive financial information.

“Phishing is a two time scam,” said Timothy J. Muris, Chairman of the FTC. “Phishers first steal a company’s identity and then use it to victimize consumers by stealing their credit identities. This is the FTC’s first law enforcement action targeting phishing. It won’t be the last.”

From the Chaplain

On a bright sunny day, when you first walk into a dark movie theater, you probably have to stand in the back for a few minutes until the darkness seems to clear and you begin to see again. Before long, you can see without difficulty. In fact, you seem to be able to see normally.

“Normally,” that is, until you walk out into the sunlight and the bright glare forces you to cover your eyes.

We are often in the same predicament. We live in a dimly lighted world, where wrong is often the rule and not the exception. Yet, we really should be “children of light.” We should always be on our guard that we do not become so accustomed to the darkness of our world that we think it is normal and conform to its guidelines.

It is not normal. The dim moral insight of much of the world is not the standard we should live by.

Support Our Troops