DATE & TIME: Tuesday, February 2, 2016. Private property accident occurred at approximately 10:47 AM. VENUE: 841 S. State/ Near Rite Aid store/ City of Davison / County of Genesee / State of Michigan. INFORMATION: On the above date and time, I, Officer Stone, while on patrol with the City of Davison Police Department received a dispatch from the my office about a Salvation Army truck that hit the Rite Aid building at 841 S. State . CONTACT WITH THE Rite Aid Manager: I talked to the manager of the Rite Aid, Ms. Rutheburg she stated that a Salvation Army truck was driving through the south end of the lot and hit the pharmacy drive thru over hang. She stated that the truck knocked off some plaster from the overhang. While talking …show more content…
Mr. Howdyshell was able to produce the information that was asked for. I asked the passenger Reginald Crowder, black male, DOB of 12/29/1963 for his identification. He didn’t have his identification card the first time I asked but he later gave me A Michigan ID card with the name he verbally gave me. LEIN / NCIC / SOS: A LEIN / NCIC / SOS check of Mr. Howdyshell showed to have a valid Michigan Operators License with no wants or warrants. A LEIN / NCIC / SOS check of Mr. Crowder showed that he did not have a Michigan driver’s license and had several out county misdemeanor warrants and one 67th District court warrant for DWLS. ARRESTED: I advised Mr. Crowder that he was under arrest for his DWLS warrant. I placed Mr. Crowder in double locked handcuffs behind his back. Mr. Crowder was a large frame man and it took two sets of handcuffs hooked to gather to get his hands behind his back. The handcuffs were checked for tension and I was able to get my middle finger around and between his wrist and handcuffs. Mr. Crowder stated that the handcuffs were tight on his wrist. I removed each cuff and adjusted and checked the handcuffs for tension again. I asked Mr. Crowder if the handcuff were better, he replied” yes.” Mr. Crowder was then placed in the back of my patrol
The police responded to a tip that a home was being used to sell drugs. When they arrived at the home, Gant answered the door and stated that he expected the owner to return home later. The officers left and did a record check of Gant and found that his driver’s license had been suspended and there was a warrant for his arrest. The officers returned to the house later that evening and Gant wasn’t there. Gant returned shortly and was recognized by officers. He parked at the end of the driveway and exited his vehicle and was placed under arrest 10 feet from his car and was placed in the back of the squad car immediately. After Gant was secured, two officers searched his car and found a gun and a bag of cocaine.
First, when removing a case to federal court, it must be considered if the federal court had original jurisdiction in the case which is exactly what Quincy alludes to when stating the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
Rite Aid Corp. has its corporate headquarters located at 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17001, and their telephone number is (717) 761-2633. Rite Aid’s common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange and the Pacific Stock Exchange under the trading symbol “RAD” The board of directors consists of 11 members. Robert G. Miller is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and Chairman of the Board. The board is mainly male in gender with only 2 female directors. One of these females is Mary F. Sammons, president of the Rite Aid Corp. She is not only the President of the company, but also fulfils the role as Chief Operating Officer. The majority of the members are over the age of 55 years, with the youngest member being 43 years old and the oldest being 72 years old.
I arrested Owens for PC 594(b)(1)-Vandalism. Sergeant Villalovos approved the arrest. Officer Cass and I transported Owens to the Pasadena City Jail for booking. Upon our arrival, I read Owens her rights per Miranda from a department issued card. Owens understood her rights by stating, “Yes.” Owens invoked her right and stated she wanted a lawyer present before answering any
Proximate Cause: The shoulder and rotator cuff injuries were within the scope of the risks that made us determine that the dropping of Vicky’s body was a breach. Because Dwayne dropped Vicky, Dwayne’s dropping of Vicky’s body proximately caused the injuries sustained. Felix’s carrying of the body was a cause in fact but not the proximate cause of the injuries Vicky
Case Facts: The sheriff’s department in Humboldt County, Nevada, responded to a 911 call that reported an assault. The 911 caller reported witnessing a man assaulting a woman while driving a GMC truck on a local road. The sheriff’s department responded by sending Deputy Sheriff Lee Dove to investigate. The deputy arrived to the reported area and found the truck parked on the side of the road with a man standing next to it. The deputy approached the truck and explained to the man that he was investigating a 911 call. The deputy then asked the man for any identification and the man refused to provide the deputy any form of identification. The deputy asked the man a total of 11 times to provide his identification and refused each time. The deputy then warned the man that he was going to arrest him if he did not comply. The deputy proceeded to arrest the man and later found out the man was named Larry D. Hiibel. He was charged with "willfully resist[ing], delay[ing], or obstruct[ing] a public officer in discharging or attempting to discharge any legal duty of his office" which is a Nevada statute that is referred to as a "stop and identify" statute. Hiibel was convicted of the crime in the Justice Court of Union Township and fined $250. Hiibel then appealed his conviction to the Sixth Judicial District Court, the Supreme Court of Nevada, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
On March 20th, 2018, I conducted an interview with J2018-0568B at the Butler County Juvenile Office. Prior to any questioning, J2018-0568B was read and explained the juvenile Miranda Warning by Juvenile Officer Salyer. J2018-0568B was accompanied by his grandmother (legal guardian) and his brother's girlfriend (power of attorney) during the interview.
“Yes, sir. I live here and make this turn every day. I’m not sure what I did wrong this time,” I responded in my most innocent voice. All three times I had been pulled over prior to that day, I managed to get out of getting a ticket. This police officer, however, was not
One exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment is a search incident to a lawful arrest. A search incident to lawful arrest requires a valid arrest as a foundation for conducting a search following an arrest (Ingram, 2009). In this particular type of arrest, a police officer will first begin the process by obtaining full control over an individual. Once the officer obtains full control over the individual he or she will then determine where, when, and how the person will either move from or stay in a particular area (Ingram, 2009). The next move is for the officer, after detaining the individual in question, is to then search the individual to find incriminating evidence. It is important to note that this type of search is actually permitted under the law.
This paper assumes that a police officer may or may not have “probable cause to arrest a defendant for armed assault” (AIU, 2016, para 1). I will address if the police officer had probable cause to believe that there is a person hiding in the third person’s garage, attached to the house (AIU, 2016, para 1). Accordingly, the police officer may need or not a warrant “to enter the garage to arrest the defendant” (AIU, 2016, para 2). An examination to “if the officer is in hot pursuit with the defendant” (AIU, 2016, para 2), and if the defendant is known to be injured and armed” (AIU, 2015, para 2). In addition, explain if the police officer probable cause to arrest and search the A and B residences.
Carcasses attract scavengers. The Guilty Party by O. Henry showcases the untimely death of a girl of twelve, Liz. Above Chrystie Street on the east side, a strange bird stalks the children of the playground. Although people say it’s a stork, locals call it a vulture. In this case, Liz is the carcass that the vulture sets its eyes on.
Reaching epidemic proportions and spreading like a disease, prosecutorial misconduct has cut across geographic and socio-economic areas with the effect of infecting the criminal justice system (Lawless, 2008). Prosecutorial misconduct takes place when a prosecutor breaks the law or code of professional ethics during the prosecution stage. Legal and ethical violations can weaken the conformity to the law and rules that are to be followed within the criminal justice system (Cromwell, P. F., Dunham, R. G., & Palacios, W. R., 1997). In this paper, existing research focused on factors related to prosecutorial misconduct will be presented. This paper will also examine potential remedies that exist to confront prosecutorial misconduct.
Search warrant is a request, in the name of the individuals, marked by a justice or other legal power, allowing an officer to search for specified particular property and carry it before the judge (Nova Scotia v. MacIntyre, 1982). The search warrant is a standout amongst the most capable and important devices in the law requirement. While the procedure of seeking and getting a search warrant ought to be ordinary to most officers, there are numerous specialized and lawful pitfalls that can discredit a search warrant, lead to the concealment of confirmation or rejection of cases and have obligation suggestions for incorporated officers (Holcomb, 2003). Therefore, it is the approach of this office that all officers have a sound learning of the legitimate necessities connected with acquiring a search warrant keeping in mind the end goal to anticipate concealment of evidence. Supporting the Constitutional privileges of subjects and to administer open trust in this organization's order to do the police work in a moral and lawful way.
2. Detection of Incidents: It cannot succeed in responding to incidents if an organization cannot detect incidents effectively. Therefore, one of the most important aspects of incident response is the detection of incidents phase. It is also one of the most fragmented phases, in which incident response expertise has the least control. Suspected incidents may be detected in innumerable ways.