|
26 - 33 of 33
|
|
March 2007 - Departments: Point of Law
In many instances, the suspect in a cold case turns out to be someone who is serving time for another crime. What are the considerations for conducting custodial interrogation of such a prisoner, insofar as Miranda and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel are concerned?
Read full article >>
Devallis Rutledge
|
|
February 2007 - Departments: Point of Law
The requirement of the Fourth Amendment is that all searches be “reasonable.” The Supreme Court has ruled that warrantless searches are presumed to be unreasonable, “subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.” (Katz v. U.S.) That means that unless you are searching under authority of a judicial warrant, you are presumed to be violating the Fourth Amendment. To rebut this presumption and avoid both civil liability and suppression of evidence,
Read full article >>
Devallis Rutledge
|
|
January 2007 - Departments: Point of Law
It might be nice if law enforcement officers never had to lie to a criminal suspect in order to solve a crime. In fact, some police advisors do suggest to officers that they should never mislead a suspect. Unfortunately, the reality is otherwise.
Read full article >>
Devallis Rutledge
|
|
December 2006 - Departments: Point of Law
Most law enforcement officers are familiar with the term “Brady error.” But what exactly does the Brady rule cover, and what obligation does it impose on police? Under the Brady line of cases, when must officers preserve evidence, and what must be revealed to the prosecutor? These questions have been answered in a series of opinions from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Read full article >>
Devallis Rutledge
|
|
November 2006 - Departments: Point of Law
ID Procedures and the Right to CounselThere are several ways a crime victim or other eyewitness might have an opportunity to identify a stranger-perpetrator of a crime before being called as a witness in court. (If the perpetrator is an acquaintance, the ID will not generally be an issue.)
Read full article >>
Devallis Rutledge
|
|
October 2006 - Features
Every U.S. Supreme Court decision on the criminal justice provisions of the Constitution (especially the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments) is important to law enforcement, but some have a more significant day-to-day impact on police work than others.
Read full article >>
Devallis Rutledge
|
|
October 2006 - Departments: Point of Law
When custodial interrogation is imminent and it’s time to give the suspect a Miranda warning, what exactly do you have to say? The answer is, nothing exactly. The U.S. Supreme Court, which created the necessity of a warning of rights and a waiver as prerequisites to the prosecutorial use of a statement obtained through custodial interrogation, has never held that any precise wording is required.
Read full article >>
Devallis Rutledge
|
|
September 2006 - Departments: Point of Law
Most of the U.S. Supreme Court’s many rulings on Fourth Amendment issues dealing with the justification of warrantless searches and seizures have focused on either suspicion of criminal wrongdoing, or consent or exigency. But in a handful of cases, the court has considered another category of Fourth Amendment justification: basing a search or seizure on the suspect’s status as a parolee or probationer.
Read full article >>
Devallis Rutledge
|