Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Police misconducts and its impact
Police misconducts and its impact
Police misconducts and its impact
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Police misconducts and its impact
Police misconducts and its impact
Police misconducts and its impact
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
On 04-09-2016 at 0315 hours I noticed a pickup stopped on Main Street about Mulberry Street with the passenger door open. The vehicle then turned onto Mulberry Street and pulled to the side of the road. I made contact with the occupants of the vehicle and was advised by dispatch Jenae Sisson had an active warrant for her arrest. Sisson was placed under arrest and placed into hand restraints which were properly fitting and double locked.
Criminal charges were, later, dismissed. No other information is known about both incidents. It is unclear what role, if any, Defendant MOS Jeffrey Sisco played in both
Sgt. Gurniak ordered that P should be arrested for violating the order of protection causing P to threaten MOS and spit at them. P was placed in the back of a RMP and during the drive to the precinct P continued to threaten and yell at MOS. P also kicked the RMP’s rear passenger-side window causing the window’s glass to shatter and strike MOS De La Cruz in the face. Then, P also attempted to break the rear driver’s side window.
PRELIMINARY COMMENTS Subject: Defendants Stockton Police Department, Chief Eric Jones, Sgt. Mathew Garlick, and Officer Lucas Woodward Motion for Summary Judgment Defendants Stockton Police Department, Chief Eric Jones, Sgt. Mathew Garlick and Officer Lucas Woodward Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. FACTS A. Hiring of Officer Woodward by Chief Eric Jones On January 31, 2012, Sergeant Meyers told the San Diego Police Department that Officer Woodward conducted a probation search and misled him.
On Wednesday 10-14-15 at approximately 1700 hours I Officer Hildebrand and Sgt. Hard were advised by dispatch that Debra Vanblaricom was at the station asking to talk to an officer. Debra wished to report an assault on her granddaughter. We met with Debra in the Police Department to speak with her. Debra stated that she feared for her granddaughter 's safety.
United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) Capsule Summary: Seizing a person’s luggage for an extended period until a warrant is obtained violates the Fourth Amendment as beyond the limits of a Terry stop, but, a sniff by a narcotics dog does not constitute a search for Fourth Amendment purposes. Facts: The respondent Raymond Place was stopped by Federal Agents (DEA) upon his arrival into LaGuardia Airport on a Friday afternoon. The respondent refused to consent to the search of his luggage. His luggage was seized by the agents under suspicion they contained narcotics. The respondent was informed the agents would be obtaining a search warrant from a judge.
Stark noticed the Officer Safety issue with interviewing the Victim in front of the door, and asked him to move to the side away from the flow of pedestrian traffic. Stark spoke with the Officer that had responded prior to our arrival and got the information that the Officer had already obtained. Stark re-interviewed the Victim, and come to the conclusion that the crime elements of PC211 were not met. I asked Stark what he believed the crime was, he stated PC 484 - petty theft. Stark gave the Victim a business card with the report number.
P alleges excessive force and false arrest. P alleges that she was in her kitchen when MOS broke her front door and entered the apartment and pushed her against the wall. P alleges that MOS handcuffed her and Noel Tartlaon, Noel Tartlaon, Jr. and Farrow Wright (non-parties). Defendant MOS Jose Peinan states that MOS were executing a search warrant obtain after confidential informant bought drugs form Jumaane, (non-party). MOS Peinan states that Jumane was arrested in the lobby and narcotics were recovered from him.
Per NYPD records, P was arrested because he had 5 open complaint reports against him. P was given 5 different arrest numbers. First complaint report (DOI 5/26/2014 at 162 Troy Avenue) for criminal contempt: CV Yvone Jameson filed a complaint for criminal contempt against P. CV Jameson states that P punched her in the face and head while she was holding her 3 month old daughter. CV Jameson has a valid order of protection from criminal court against P which expires on 10/10/2018. Second complaint report (DOI 6/3/2014 at 162 Troy Avenue, Apt. 14J) for assault: CV Reginaldo Taylor states that P did punch him on the left side of the face causing pain.
Good Afternoon your honor, I am filing a motion for the admissibility of Cameron Awbrey’s statement because there is clear signs of attenuation between the statement given and the arrest. I will prove my case by providing examples of precedent cases similar to the laws involved in Cameron's case. In the precedent case Utah v. Strieff, the accused was survallinced over a short period of time, was subjected to an unlawful stop and arrest but later received a lawful arrest. The question was whether or not the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine applied, which excludes evidence that is gained from an unlawful search or seizure.
So, officer Sultemeier and I ended our search and made our way to the Recreation yard to find inmates CORPUS, CAITLYN DIANE #6904 MELUGIN, AMBER LYNN #7077 arguing. We then separated the two inmates and pulled out MELUGIN, AMBER LYNN and talked to her about why were they were fighting. MELUGIN, AMBER LYNN stated that “CORPUS, CAITLYN DIANE #6904 is picking on VANN, RACHAEL MICHELE #6737 and how if they were on the streets somebody would’ve checked that bitch”. I officer Zagada then felt the need to remove MELUGIN, AMBER LYNN
Filing a lawsuit against the New Jersey State Police in December 2003,
P alleges that MOS searched him on the street then he was taken to Mel’s apartment. Defendant MOS Peinan states that he was executing a search warrant at the location which obtain after confidential informant buys and P was the subject of the search warrant. MOS Peinan states that he observed people about to exit the apartment then MOS entered the apartment. Defendant MOS Peinan stated that P was part of the group arrested. Criminal charges were, later, dismissed Third incident (10/10/2008) – P alleges that he was outside when MOS approached with guns drawn and ordered into a van.
In summary, on 06/05/16 at 2254 hours Ofc. E. Vera #289 and I were patrolling the area of 5900 W Roosevelt Rd. , at which time I observed a vehicle (03 ' silver Volkswagen IL Y804576) disregard the stop light located at 59th Ave./Roosevelt Road. A traffic stop was conducted on the vehicle.
they retracted their statements within two weeks, claiming that police had coerced them to make false confessions. Police subculture suggests that because police officers spend so much time dealing with crime that they tend to view members of the public as untrustworthy and potentially hostile. This could be a possible explanation as to why these teens were targeted so maliciously. The detectives actually had used ruses to convince the suspects to confess, with Salaam confessing to having been present only after he was told that his fingerprints were found on the victim’s clothing. While the confessions were recorded, the interrogations were not.