10-20-00

Dumb Crooks^TM

Some years back I responded to a 911 call for help. The call originated from a 7-Eleven store that was closed at the time. When we entered, we discovered a subject lying on the floor with a broken leg. He told us that he had been locked in by mistake, and was trying to get out by leaving through the ceiling. He said he had fallen through the drop ceiling and broke his leg. He then called 911 for help.

There was only one problem. When we checked the roof of the business, we found that he had broken in through the air conditioning. As he was moving around in the ceiling area, he fell through and was injured. He was forced to call 911.

Police say a young man left a Stafford County grocery store Tuesday afternoon with cigarettes he didn’t pay for.

But something the man left behind—his identification—ended any mystery police may have had about who he was.

Justin Michael Smarr, 19, of Stafford was charged with shoplifting after police stopped a vehicle he was riding in shortly after the alleged incident.

Sheriff Charles Jett said deputies had no problem recognizing Smarr because he’d left identification with a clerk at the Food Lion store on Garrisonville Road in North Stafford.

According to Jett, Smarr entered the Food Lion at 905 Garrisonville Road at 1 p.m. and went straight to the cigarette section. An employee saw him place three packs in his pocket and carry one to the checkout counter, Jett said.

As the clerk asked for identification to see if Smarr was old enough to purchase cigarettes, the employee who’d witnessed the alleged theft approached. Jett said Smarr became flustered, then said he had to go home because he’d forgotten his money.

Smarr walked briskly to the exit and began running toward a waiting car once he got outside, Jett said.

A lookout for the vehicle was given and Deputy C.W. Reed, who was off duty, spotted it on Walt Whitman Boulevard, about four miles from the Food Lion.

Reed stopped the vehicle and detained Smarr and the other car occupant until Sgt. Michael Jenkins arrived.

Jenkins interviewed Smarr and learned that he’d tossed the allegedly stolen cigarettes out of the window when Reed turned around to pursue him. He also told Jenkins that he didn’t realize his identification was missing until he got to the car. By then, he apparently decided it wasn’t worth going back to get it. The missing cigarettes were recovered, Jett said.

Copyright ©2000 Dumb Crooks
Www.DumbCrooks.com
Used with permission

Optical Illusions

Legal Issues - Stopping and Chasing

The U. S. Supreme Court recently decided two cases that are important for police administrators because they further clarify the murky line between seizures and voluntary encounters. The justification for a Four Amendment “seizure” effects more than the admissibility of evidence in criminal prosecutions, it is also the starting point for encounters that evolve into confrontations that may result in a lawsuit for false arrest or excessive force.

1. Florida v. J.L.

a) The Facts

In Florida v. J.L., officers received an anonymous tip that a black male with a plaid shirt was carrying a concealed weapon at a particular bus stop. When officers arrived, they observed three black males, one wearing a plaid shirt. He was immediately frisked and a concealed weapon was discovered.

b) The Law

The two cases that form the foundation of this opinion are Alabama v. White and Adams v. Williams. In White, an anonymous tip justified stopping a vehicle with reasonable suspicion. However, unlike the information in Florida v. J.L., the tip in White was predictive in nature. The tip told officers what White was going to do, not what she was currently doing. After officers observed White do what the anonymous caller predicted she would do, officers stopped her and obtained consent to search her vehicle. Independent corroboration of predictive facts by officers can still justify reasonable suspicion to stop. The significance of (1) independent corroboration by the officers and (2) the predictive nature of the information cannot be understated.

In Adams, the tip came from a known informant. The information was almost the same as in Florida v. J.L. (the defendant had a weapon and was sitting in a car), but the informant was identifiable, thus giving an added dimension of credibility.

Distinguishing these two cases from Florida v. J.L., the anonymous informant provided no predictive information and only gave a clothing description and location of the suspect. Since this type of tip frequently occurs in police work, it is important to train officers what they can do instead of simply telling them they cannot stop the suspect.

(c) What can officers do with an anonymous tip?

First, be patient enough to develop reasonable suspicion. There is no rule that requires officers to just drive up and start frisking everyone in sight. Officers can observe from a distance, conduct covert surveillance, and approach anyone to talk without conducting a seizure. During a voluntary encounter, officers can ask questions (no Miranda warnings are required because the person is not in custody) and observe clothing for bulges, check any names provided for warrant, and even follow the suspect in public. During this observation period, the suspect may provide evidence such as flight, admissions, or a consent search.

2. Illinois v. Wardlow

Reasonable Suspicion to Chase Is Not Automatic When People Run.

a) The Legacy of Hodari

Wardlow addresses the unresolved issue identified in the famous Footnote 1 from California v. Hodari D., where the state of California conceded without arguing that flight from an officer did not justify reasonable suspicion. Therefore, in Hodari, the Court was forced to address only the issue of whether the pursuing officer had reasonable suspicion to seize the suspect at the moment he was tackled. Since Hodari discarded his drugs during pursuit, the Court ruled the officer developed his reasonable suspicion during the pursuit upon seeing the drugs fly from the suspect’s hand. This case has led some to conclude with amusement that you could chase as long as you did not catch a suspect without reasonable doubt.

b) The danger of misinterpreting Wardlow

Wardlow confirms that unprovoked flight is a proper factor when determining if there is reasonable suspicion to stop, but flight alone, without more, still does not justify an investigative detention. In Wardlow the suspect (1) had an opaque bag in his hand, (2) was in a high drug area, and (3) started a “headlong” flight upon observing the officer. It may not seem like much, but notice how the officers identified three facts, instead of just one. In addition, the type of flight was characterized as “headlong,” suggesting an urgency not necessarily apparent from other types of evasive behavior.

Officers still need to weigh the legal risk of injuring a suspect during a foot pursuit when the only incriminating factor is flight. The safest guidance is to know what the reasonable suspicion is before starting a pursuit, and then itemizing those facts in any subsequent report, even listing them by number. Wardlow and Florida v. J.L. reinforce the concept that even street level police work is an intellectual occupation, requiring quick judgment and the ability to identify objective facts. Good legal training should provide officers with the facts necessary to justify a stop.

Prepared by members of International Association of Chiefs of Police Legal Officers.

100 People

Cyber Space

At a recent computer expo, Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated, "If GM had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving twenty-five-dollar cars that get 1000 miles to the gallon."

Recently General Motors addressed this comment by responding, "Yes, but would you want your car to crash twice a day?" And . . .

1. Every time they repainted the lines on the road you would have to buy a new car.

2. Occasionally, your car would die on the freeway for no reason, and you would just accept this, restart, and drive on.

3. Occasionally, executing a maneuver would cause your car to fail, and you would have to re-install the engine. For some strange reason, you would accept this too.

4. You could only have one person in the car at a time, unless you bought "Car95" or "CarNT." But then you would have to buy more seats.

5. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was reliable, five times as fast, twice as easy to drive, but would only run on five percent of the roads.

6. The Macintosh car owners would get expensive Microsoft upgrades to their cars, which would make their cars run much slower.

7. The oil, gas and alternator warning lights would be replaced by a single "general car default" warning light.

8. New seats would force everyone to have the same size butt.

9. The airbag system would say "are you sure?" before going off.

From the Chaplain - Marilyn Featherstone

Funny, how simple it is for people to trash God...and then wonder why the world’s going to hell.

Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says.

Funny how everyone wants to go to heaven, provided they do not have to believe, think, say or do anything the Bible says...or is it scary?

Funny how someone can say, “I believe in God” but still follow Satan (who, by the way, also “believes” in God”)

Funny how you can send a thousand “jokes” through the e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing.

Funny how the lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene pass freely through cyberspace, but the public discussion of Jesus is suppressed in the school and workplace.

Funny, isn’t it?

Funny how someone can be so fired up for Christ on Sunday, but be an invisible Christian the rest of the week.

Are you laughing?

Funny how I can be more worried about what other people think of me than what God thinks of me.

Are you thinking?