Cuff 'N Stuff
The Internal Newsletter of the Wise County Sheriff's
Department
08-09-02
|
Cuff 'N Stuff 08-09-02 |
|
Dumb Crooks CALLING ALL CARS FAIR WARNING THE NOSE KNOWS SHOW & TELL JACKIN' THE BOX STENCH FRIES
Fraud on the Line: Avoiding "Do Not Call" Scams Many consumers who want to get fewer telemarketing calls have signed up with a state "Do Not Call" registry, the Direct Marketing Association's Telemarketing Preference Service or individual company "Do Not Call" lists. Consumer protection officials say that rip-off artists have begun to take advantage of the popularity of these services to trick consumers into giving up personal information, such as their Social Security number, bank account number, credit card number or telephone calling card number. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has proposed creating a national "Do Not Call" list, but it has not yet been implemented. Here's how the scam works: someone calls you claiming to represent a "Do Not Call" registry or the FTC. The phony registry "official" asks for your personal information, supposedly to verify that you want to be on the "Do Not Call" list. The caller is a con artist who could use your personal information to run up debts in your name or otherwise steal your identity. The FTC says that once a consumer signs up with a "Do Not Call" registry, there is no need to confirm personal information. And you will never receive an unsolicited call to be put on a "Do Not Call" registry. The FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection says consumers can avoid these scams. Their suggestions:
For more information on how to reduce unwanted telemarketing calls, visit www.ftc.gov/donotcall. If you believe that your personal information may have been compromised, visit www.consumer.gov/idtheft. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive and unfair business practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop and avoid them. To file a complaint or to get free information on consumer issues, visit www.ftc.gov or call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357); TTY: 1-866-653-4261. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad.
Legal Issues NO PROTECTIVE SWEEP JUSTIFIED IN ABSENCE OF REASON TO BELIEVE PERSONS ARE PRESENT WHO POSE A DANGER. Acting on a tip from an informant, two uniformed officers went to the defendant’s trailer to determine if he possessed drugs. They did not have probable cause to obtain a warrant, but were admitted to the trailer by the defendant. Inside, the officers found two women sitting on a couch in the living room. When one of the officers asked the defendant to speak with him in the kitchen, which was partitioned from the living area by a blanket, the defendant led the officer to the bedroom instead. The officer explained that he believed the defendant possessed drugs and asked for a consent to search. The defendant refused and asked the officers to leave. The other officer, who had remained in the living room with the women, noticed the remains of a marijuana cigarette in an ash tray. The defendant became irate when this was pointed out, and exited the trailer, inviting the officers to take him to jail. After the defendant was arrested, one of the officers noticed melting ice cream in a container in the living room and offered to put it in the freezer. The women agreed, and the officer pulled back the blanket separating the living room from the kitchen. Inside the kitchen, the officer found a methamphetamine lab. A team of officers was summoned to collect the lab items, but no warrant ever was obtained. The defendant moved to suppress the items found in the kitchen, but the trial court denied the motion, finding that any search in the trailer was either a search incident to arrest or a protective sweep. Holding: No warrant was obtained for the search of the trailer, and the defendant did not consent. Neither of the women had authority to consent to a search, as there was no evidence that either had authority over the premises. For either a protective sweep or a search incident to arrest, there must have been a valid arrest. An illegal drug can be possessed jointly by several persons, in which case evidence must “affirmatively link” the defendant with the contraband. The defendant was affirmatively linked with the marijuana found in the ash tray. He was present, and the marijuana was in plain view, accessible, and close to the defendant. It was the defendant’s trailer, and he made an incriminating statement when the marijuana was found. In view of these facts and others, there was sufficient cause to arrest the defendant for possession of the marijuana. A protective sweep of premises may be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, but police must have a “reasonable, articulable suspicion that the house is harboring a person posing a danger to those on the arrest scene.” In this case, there was insufficient evidence that the officer reasonably could have believed that there was someone other than the two women on the premises who might have harmed the officers. The defendant’s criminal history was not enough to produce a suspicion that they were in danger from a third person. At one point before his arrest, the defendant quickly entered and exited the kitchen, which also does not support a belief that anyone else was present. One of the armed officers was watching the two women, and the other officer testified that, after the defendant had been arrested, there was no indication from the officer still in the trailer that someone might be present who would pose a danger. The officer also testified that he entered the kitchen to put the ice cream in the freezer, and not because he thought another person might be there. The entry into the kitchen did not qualify as a “protective sweep.” A search incident to arrest may be conducted within the area of the arrested person’s immediate control. Because the defendant was arrested outside the trailer, he could not be taken back inside the trailer while handcuffed in order to justify a search of the interior. Moreover, because the officer testified that he did not go into the kitchen to search for weapons or evidence that might be destroyed by the defendant, but only to put away the ice cream, his entry into the kitchen cannot be justified as a search incident to arrest. Since no warrant was obtained for the search of the kitchen, and no exception to the warrant requirement existed under the facts of this case, the trial court should have granted the suppression motion. Davis v. State, 2002 WL 433583 (Tex. App. – Waco, 3-20-02).
Upcoming Classes WEATHERFORD JUNIOR COLLEGE AUGUST 16 THIS IS A REQUIRED COURSE FOR TCLEOSE PEACE OFFICERS - IF YOU HAVEN’T ATTENDED THIS CLASS YET, YOU MUST ATTEND ON THIS DATE. PROFESSIONALISM CLASS Carmilla Jones from the Texas Association of Counties will present this class THURSDAY, AUGUST 22, 9A - 4P in our Training Room.
From the Chaplain - Marilyn Featherstone PERSERVERANCE Two frogs fell into a can of cream,
Explorer Post Places Second in SWAT Competition Our Explorer Post, Post 500, participated in the Fort Worth SWAT Camp weekend August 4 and 5. Posts from all over the north Texas area participated in the camp. Our post placed second in the Obstacle Course competition and second in the Search and Rescue competition. Congratulations, guys!
|
|
Crime Does Not Have To Be A Fact Of Life |
