On April 30, 2017 at approximately 1721 hours I responded to the intersection of Montgomery Road and West SR 434, Longwood, Seminole County in reference to a hit and run. Upon arrival I made contact with Myron and Patricia Zajkowski, who had pulled into the parking lot of a nearby CVS store. The Zajkowski stated they were traveling west on West SR 434, when a silver SUV ran into the back of their vehicle. The Zajkowski’s stated the vehicle then sped around them turning into a nearby shopping center. On scene Myron complained of back pain and was transported to the hospital for medical evaluation. The Zajkowski’s 2004 Cadillac SUV had minor damage to the rear bumper and hatch, but was able to be driven. I made contact with the driver of …show more content…
Portello stated she had just left a children party and was on her way home. Portello further stated she had not been drinking today, but did consume multiple bottles of beer last night. While speaking with Portello I continued to smell the odor of alcoholic impurities coming from her breath. I also noticed she spoke with a thick tongue, her speech was slurred and her were red and glossy. Portello exhibited orbital sway as she was being interviewed. I then requested Portello submit to the Standardized Field Sobriety Exercises which she agreed. Portello stated she did wear contacts, but did not have any medical issues or injuries to her eyes, legs or back that would adversely affect her in completing the SFEs. Portello performed the horizontal and vertical gaze nystagmus during which she displayed distinct nystagmus in both eyes prior to the onset of a forty five degree angle and at maximum deviation. Portello performed the walk and turn and did not count her steps aloud and took eleven steps forward not placing her feet in the prescribed heel to toe manner before turning improperly and taken nine steps back but again not counting. Portello performed the one leg stand which she clearly stated she was unable to maintain her balance without using holding her arms out to her side. Portello was able to hold her leg
On 01-01-17 at 0023 hours I was monitoring the radio and heard that Officer Harrell #3441 and Officer Thebeau #8402 were involved in a vehicle pursuit in the area of Fair Oaks Avenue and Corson Street. I responded to the above location to assist. They advised responding units that the suspect was involved in a traffic collision on the eastbound 210 Freeway Fair Oaks Avenue off-ramp.
“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have a right to an attorney. If you can not afford an attorney one will be appointed to you” This may be differ from state to state as long as the concept is conveyed they was read their rights. Miranda Rights is mandatory across the United States due to the Miranda v. Arizona. In the following will explain what the 3 branches Judicial, Executive, and the Legislative have done to enforce this law or to change it, as well as the effect on the people.
The Web. 10 Feb. 2014. Pinellas County Sheriff's Office. Pinellas County Sheriffs Office.
The case of Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436 [1966]) is one of the most important cases in history. It brought about prominent rights that are still existent today in 2015 regarding interrogations and custody. The results of this case are still seen in the current criminal justice system. However, even though the rights that were given to the system by the court, there are still instances today in which these Miranda rights are violated. The concept of Miranda has evolved a lot from a court case to a code used by law enforcement during custodies and investigations.
The Motion for a New Trial requests that the Court determine whether the Government violated the Nanda Defendants’ Fifth Amendment Right to Due Process by introducing false evidence or withholding material evidence at trial to warrant the Court to grant the motion for a new trial.
That night, many witnesses reported having seen a man changing the tire of his van and waving any possible help away angrily while others reported seeing a woman wandering around the side of the dangerous highway. More witnesses reported that Kenneth and his wife were having many violent disputes at their home that usually resulted in Kenneth pursuing an angry Yvonne around the block. The most compelling evidence against Mathison, however, is purely scientific. Detective Paul Ferreira first noticed that the extensive blood stains inside the Mathison van. After hearing Mathison’s original account, he summoned the assistance of famed forensic expert Dr. Henry Lee to analyze what he thought was inconsistent evidence. Blood stains on the paneling and the spare tire in the cargo area reveal low-velocity blood stains meaning that the blood probably dripped from Yvonne’s head onto the floor. The stains found on the roof and steering wheel were contact transfer patterns probably caused by Mathison’s bloody hands. Blood stains on the driver’s side of the van were contact-dripping patterns which indicate that Mathison touched the inside of the van multiple times before and after moving his wife’s body. The final groups of blood stains on the instrument panel of the van were medium-velocity stains which show investigators that Mathison probably struck his wife at least once in the front seat causing the blood to fly from her open head wound. The enormous amounts of blood inside the van lead prosecutor Kurt Spohn to investigate the Mathison case as a murder instead of a misdemeanor traffic violation.
“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney...this is what you hear on all your favorite cop shows. But, where did this saying come from? In 1963 Ernesto Miranda a ninth grade dropout (PBS) was arrested and charged with kidnaping, rape, and armed robbery. The police interrogated him for two hours. During the question Miranda supposedly admitted to all the crimes. The police then used Miranda’s confession to convict him in court. While in prison Miranda appealed his case and eventually brought it to the Supreme Court. The court ruled five to four in favor of Miranda. The Supreme Court was correct in their ruling of Miranda v. Arizona, because the majority opinion correctly argued the fifth and sixth amendments. The dissenting opinion arguments regarding the fifth and sixth amendments were incorrect and in other cases involving due process this amendment was abused. In similar cases the court ruled in favor of the defendant because he was harmed during the interrogation process.
One of the Judicial Branch’s many powers is the power of judicial review. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to decide whether or not the other branches of governments’ actions are constitutional or not. This power is very important because it is usually the last hope of justice for many cases. This also allows the court to overturn lower courts’ rulings. Cases like Miranda v. Arizona gave Miranda justice for having his rules as a citizen violated. The court evalutes whether any law was broken then makes their ruling. Also, the Weeks v. United States case had to be reviewed by the court because unlawful searches and siezures were conducted by officers. One of the most famous cases involving judicial review was the Plessey v. Ferguson
Ernesto Miranda Ernesto Arturo Miranda was born in Mesa, Arizona on March 9, 1941. During his grade school years, Miranda began getting into trouble. His first criminal conviction was during his eighth grade year. The following year, now a 9th grade dropout, he was convicted of burglary. His sentence was a year in the reform school, Arizona State Industrial School for Boys (ASISB).
In this paper I am going to be discussing the Miranda rights. What they mean to you, what they entitle you to, and how they came to be used in law enforcement today. I am discussing this topic because, one it is useful to me as a police officer, two they can be very difficult to understand, and three if they are not read properly to you when you are placed under an arrest it could actually get you off. I will start off by discussing the history and some details of the Miranda case.
“In the front seat was Gregg, driving, Sarah, in the middle, and Robyn, on the passenger side. In the rear seat was Jeff, behind the driver, Haley, in the middle, and Rachel, on the passenger side. EVERYONE was wearing their SEAT BELTS, as is our family habit. EVERYONE walked away from this accident with only bruises. The only blood was Robyn had small nicks from glass in a couple of places on her right arm and right leg.
It was thought that the attacker traveled in a white truck or van but later it was found out that he traveled in a blue 1990 Chevrolet Caprice sedan
The Miranda rights all started in 1963. Ernest Miranda was taken into custody by Phoenix police as a suspect for the kidnapping and rape of a girl. The Phoenix police department questioned Ernest for two vigorous hours. Miranda finally confessed orally to the crime, and then wrote out a statement admitting to the crime and describing what he had done. Miranda's trial came to date; the crime was admitted despite his lawyer's advice and he was convicted and sentenced.
For the past decade, many Right Wing organizations have sort to change many of the laws, governing our rights and freedom. These laws were passed by congress and upheld by the Supreme Court. The Miranda Warning is one of these laws. The Miranda Warning is intended to protect the guilty as well as the innocent and should be protected at all costs. Without the law, many suspects may be treated unfairly. It is a necessary safeguard.
The ability of police to exercise discretion was originally designed to allow officers to maintain the peace by allowing certain types of crime to remain unpunished in certain circumstances. This essay will aim to explore the issue of police discretion that suggests that the application of discretion works against the interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. In drawing this conclusion, this essay will examine the relationship between policing ideals and the use of discretionary powers and the relationship between policing attitudes and the use of discretionary powers. A discussion regarding the use of police discretion towards Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples can scarcely be mentioned without making reference to arguably the greatest failing by a police officer since indigenous Australians were formally recognised as citizens. Further to this, the case of Mulrunji Doomadgee (Cameron) will be examined from the point of view of officer discretionary powers. The penultimate point to be made will involve the Anglo Australian response to this case as well as the ongoing relationship between indigenous Australians and the institutions that govern them. As mentioned, the first point will involve policing ideals and their relationship to discretionary powers.