Posts Tagged ‘Law’
Tuesday, January 24th, 2012
by Megan Grimes
The 4th amendment states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” This text explains briefly about the necessary probable cause to obtain a warrant to validate the search. The Supreme Court has since debated on specific issues that may arise and ruled accordingly. The rulings are then used to debate future issues that may seem grey. In this case, a GPS tracking device was placed on a car in order to obtain information leading to a conviction.
A GPS tracking device can be used to monitor a person’s movements 24 hours a day, for extended periods of time. This information can be useful for convictions. The question is does this violate someone’s constitutional rights? The Supreme Court released their ruling yesterday to answer this question. Upon a unanimous decision, the court ruled that placing a GPS tracking device onto a car requires a warrant. Although all votes were unanimous, they were split upon their reasoning behind the choice.
This new ruling has reversed the cocaine-trafficking conviction of a nightclub owner in Washington, DC. Police attached a GPS tracking device to the car of Antoine Jones, back in 2005, while it was parked in a public parking lot. On the conspiracy to distribute cocaine, documentation of the traveling was used against him to win the conviction.
Justice Antonin Scalia stated that this is a physical intrusion by the government “for the purpose of obtaining information constitutes a search” explains his opinion on the ruling. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor also agree with this view of the ruling. On the other hand, the four other Justices, believe that the expectation of privacy was violated by the placing of a GPS tracking device. In each opinion, the outcome is the same, but the reasoning behind their choices are different.
This will change the use of GPS tracking devices for future cases. In order for the police to attach a GPS tracking device, they will be required to obtain a warrant. This will require probable cause, which is a reasonable belief by a third party person that a crime could be committed. A warrant is obtained by providing probable cause to a judge and getting them to sign off on the search you want to perform.
A search is a very grey area to discuss. There are two important factors pertaining to a search. First is an expectation of privacy. Do you expect privacy in your own vehicle? Of course you do. The second is that society is willing to protect that privacy. Do you expect privacy on public transportation? Well if society isn’t willing to protect that privacy then you don’t have a search. For example, if you are in your own vehicle you expect privacy and society is willing to protect that privacy, therefore a warrant is required to search your vehicle. However, if you are a passenger in someone else’s car, you might expect privacy but society isn’t willing to protect that privacy. Therefore, it is not considered a search and no warrant is required. This leads back to the discussion of the two viewpoints on the GPS decision. All nine justices agree that the placing of a tracking device is considered a search and will require a warrant. The only difference is the basis of the choice. Five justices agree that it’s an intrusion by the government to obtain such information, and is considered a search for that purpose. However, the other four justices agree that it’s actually a violation of your expectation to privacy by placing the tracking device and is also then considered a search.
Either way, a search warrant will now be required place a tracking device onto a vehicle. Once more instances of GPS tracking rise to the Supreme Court, exceptions will arise just as with other vehicle searches. But for now, the current ruling will stand.
Tags: Law
Posted in Guest Bloggers | No Comments »
Tuesday, August 23rd, 2011
ASHLING GABIG
Guest Blogger
One of the toughest things a forensic professional has to face in their career is testifying as an expert witness in court. It is not uncommon to be challenged in court on many topics, including one’s own background, education, and employment history. This is why we thoroughly prepare for our time in court in various ways. Many of us pass rigorous training programs before we are allowed to work a case on our own. We spend hours catching up on the latest forensic journals and research, as well as getting advanced criminal justice and science degrees. The nature of forensic science breeds people that are always challenging themselves by constantly learning and contributing to the field.
That being said, many of you have experienced the “CSI Effect,” which has resulted in lay people calling themselves experts in the field. Many of us have faced the occasional person at a crime scene telling us how to do our jobs, saying they “saw it done on CSI.” We usually humor them and explain the limitations in our field. However, there are a select few that take their opinions too far, affecting both the field of forensic science and the lives of people on trial.
Such is the case of Leigh Stubbs, a Mississippi woman who was sentenced to 44 years in prison on questionable forensic testimony. Ms. Stubbs was convicted of physically assaulting her friend Kim Williams, despite no physical evidence. Here is where Michael West enters the scene, carrying with him a reputation of shady forensic practices and an inflated resume. Mr. West’s resume stated that he was a self proclaimed expert in the following fields: wound patterns, trace metals, gunshot residue, gunshot reconstruction, crime scene investigation, blood spatters, tool marks, fingernail scratches, coroner investigations, video enhancement, and something called “liquid splash patterns.” Recognized by the American Bar Association and American Board of Forensic Odontologists as an unscrupulous witness, Mr. West was not modest in the least, quick to point out that he had an error rate on par with Jesus Christ. He attempted to compare Ms. Stubbs’ dental impressions with only photographs of Ms. Williams’s injuries. Mr. West also somehow managed to enhance surveillance footage of the women, producing results that even the FBI said was insufficient for details.
At one point in the trial, Mr. West told the courtroom that he believed Ms. Stubbs to be a lesbian, and even used his “expert knowledge” to claim that it was common to see this kind of violence in homosexual relationships. Despite the odd and flagrantly false testimony, Ms. Stubbs was sentenced to 44 years in prison, having no prior criminal record. With the help of the Innocence Project, she is trying to clear her name. Several innocent people Mr. West has sent to prison on his false testimony have either been exonerated, or are currently appealing their cases.
In a recent sting operation, it was found that Michael West was knowingly giving false forensic information, and yet his cases are still defended by the prosecution to this day. The presence of Michael West in forensic science makes the true professional’s job much harder, and unfortunately he is not the only one out there. There are people who testify as fingerprint experts, crime scene investigators, and even coroners, who have falsified their credentials and placated to the defense. While this has an effect on forensic science, it has a much greater impact on the lives of those who are truly innocent.
For more on the Stubbs case, go here. Others like it can be found by searching Mr. West’s name.
Tags: Evidence, Forensic Science, Law
Posted in Forensics in The News, Guest Bloggers, Trials | No Comments »
Wednesday, June 29th, 2011
By Laura A. McKee
Laura McKee is a graduate student in museum studies at Johns Hopkins University. She works as a curatorial and exhibitions intern at the National Museum of Crime and Punishment.
“Presided over almost 100 executions” would stand out on any résumé, but in the case of Jim Willett, it would also be true. As a 21-year-old business major at Sam Houston State University, Willett accepted what he thought would be a temporary position as a guard at the maximum-security “Walls Unit” in Huntsville, Texas. He was given a rifle and a fabric patch and told to relieve the man coming off his shift in a guard tower. Fearfully, he obeyed. That was in 1971. Five years later, Texas reinstated the death penalty and executions by lethal injection resumed in 1982. By then Willett had ascended up through the correctional officer ranks and even left Huntsville for a time to work at other units, but he returned in 1998 as warden of the 1,500 men incarcerated in Walls. At that point, his responsibilities took on a challenging new dimension, and he found himself escorting a total of 89 condemned persons (88 men and one woman) to the death chamber. He watched them struggle violently or go quietly as they were led out of their cells. He watched them eat their final meals and heard them say their final words. He watched them as they were infused with a cocktail of chemicals. He watched the expressions on the faces of their relatives and on the faces of their victims’ families. He watched them die on the gurney. He clocked a record 40 executions in 2000. That same year, he won the James H. Byrd, Jr. Memorial Award for top correctional administrators at the larger facilities run by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. But he wondered about the morality of putting prisoners to death, leading to this penetrating observation and question: “In most cases, the people we see here are not at all the people they were when they came into the system … does that mean we rehabilitated them?” At the end of the day, however, he chalked it all up to just doing his part of the job, and was glad that he had not been the judge or had served on the jury that had decided their fates.
Mr. Willett helped to narrate the Peabody Award-winning documentary “Witness to an Execution” that aired on National Public Radio’s “All Things Considered” in 2000. After he retired from Huntsville, he co-wrote the autobiographical book Warden with his friend, the author Ron Rozelle. Willett’s exhibition case at the National Museum of Crime and Punishment holds these and other objects relating to his remarkable 30-year tenure in the Texas prison system.
Tags: America's Most Wanted, Crime, CSI, DNA, Evidence, Forensic Science, Law, Law Enforcement, Murder
Posted in Crime Fighting, Fun Facts, Guest Bloggers, Pardons, Punishment: The Consequence of Crime, Resources, Uncategorized | No Comments »
Thursday, June 23rd, 2011
James “Whitey” Bulger was captured yesterday by the FBI’s Fugitive Task Force, along with his girlfriend Catherine Elizabeth Greig. Bulger was the inspiration for the Oscar-winning film The Departed in 2006 and Showtime’s Brotherhood, and his capture crosses him off the FBI’s Ten Mosted Wanted list.
Whitey’s girlfriend Catherine was also a wanted fugitive, and the FBI launched a media campaign focusing on Catherine to canvass for tips. The campaign was successful–Tuesday evening they received a tip that led the task force to an apartment in Santa Monica. After staking out the apartment and spotting the fugitives, the task force used a “ruse” to lure Whitey from the building. They then entered to arrest Catherine.
Whitey was wanted for 19 counts of murder, conspiracy to commit murder, extortion, narcotics distribution and money-laundering, crimes committed during his time as head of the Winter Hill Gang in Boston. He was on the Most Wanted list since 1999 and a fugitive since 1995. He was also featured on America’s Most Wanted a number of times.
For more on his capture, click here.
Tags: America's Most Wanted, Crime, Law, Law Enforcement, Murder
Posted in A Notorious History of Crime, Crime Fighting, Murder, Punishment: The Consequence of Crime | No Comments »
Tuesday, March 8th, 2011
When speaking on the first amendment, Chief Justice John Roberts says that it protects, “even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate”. The Supreme Court has ruled that Westboro Baptist Church’s picketing of soldier’s funerals is to be protected under the first amendment. Host of call-in radio talk program, Inside the Issues with Wilmer Leon, says that laying a loved one to rest is not a “public issue”, but a private act.
How far is too far? The first amendment prevents Congress from creating a law that eliminates freedom of speech, but not all speech should be protected. “Fighting words” and hate speech are examples of this. Even if the Westboro Church didn’t spew hatred with their famous picketing slogans including, “God Hates Dead Soldiers”, the location of their outbursts cannot be justified. Throughout history, the Supreme Court has placed restrictions on the content of some speech (i.e. The Klu Klux Klan and other famous hate groups). If individuals are unable to protest on private property, shouldn’t a private event like the mourning of a fallen hero be protected as well?
This has nothing to do with, “stifling public debate”, but everything to do with a family’s right to lay their loved one to rest without the frightening and hateful messages that the Westboro Baptist Church promotes.
Maryland Congressman, Dutch Ruppersberger, is planning to introduce a bill on Tuesday that will serve to protect families targeted by the Westboro Church. His bill states that no one can protest a military funeral five hours before or after the service. In this bill, protestors must also be 2,500 feet away from the funeral.
To read more about this, please click here or here.
Tags: Crime, first amendment, Freedom of Speech, hate speech, Law, Law Enforcement, Ruppersberger, Scott vs Phelps, soldiers, Tragedy, Westboro Baptist Church
Posted in Editorial | No Comments »
Monday, February 21st, 2011
This past Friday, February 18, 2011, the Green River Killer pleaded guilty to murder number 49. Gary Ridgway, the confessed killer, is currently serving 48 consecutive life sentences in Washington State Penitentiary for his slaying spree that began in 1982. His targets were primarily prostitutes or runaways, many of whom were later found near the banks of the Green River just south of Seattle, Washington—thus the name the Green River Killer.
The remains of Becky Marrero, Ridgway’s 49th known victim, were found last December in a steep ravine in King County, Washington. Marrero, a 20-year-old mother, disappeared more than 28 years ago. On December, 3, 1982, Marrero left her 3-year-old daughter with her aunt and departed for the Seattle airport. She was never seen alive again.
Given the plea deal arrangement made in November 2003 following his arrest in 2001, Ridgway pleaded guilty to Marrero’s murder, was given a 49th life sentence, and was returned to his cell at the Washington State Penitentiary in Walla Walla. The terms of the original plea deal were simple. According to King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg, prosecutors would not seek the death penalty if Ridgway agreed to “plead guilty to any and all future cases (in King County) where his confession could be corroborated by reliable evidence.” This deal was made in an attempt to resolve more cold cases. However, should any other victims of the Green River Killer surface outside of King County, there is no limit to what prosecutors can seek in terms of punishment.
With Ridgway’s 49th conviction, Satterberg hoped that Marrero’s family would finally be given the answers they had searched for, with some degree of justice.
For more information, please click here.
Tags: Crime, Gary Ridgway, Green River Killer, Law, Law Enforcement, Murder, Punishment, serial killers, Tragedy
Posted in A Notorious History of Crime, Cold Cases, Crime Fighting, Murder, Punishment: The Consequence of Crime | No Comments »
Friday, February 11th, 2011
 Ingmar Guandique For those of you following the Chandra Levy case, there is finally some closure. Ingmar Guandique, the man convicted this past November of the federal intern’s murder, was sentenced to 60 years in prison this morning. Prosecutors in the case had requested life without parole, but Judge Gerald I. Fisher decided on a lesser sentence. The Washington Post reported that a letter handwritten in Spanish by Guandique dated January 22nd was sent to one of their reporters. In the letter, Guandique purported his innocence and claimed that he was a victim of a “stupid, comedic farce that the detectives and prosecutors have engaged in,” and was thereby a scapegoat. For more information about the Chandra Levy case, please refer to CNN coverage or any of our other blog posts: Ingmar Guandique Found Guilty in Chandra Levy Case, The Chandra Levy Case is Back in the Spotlight as the Trial is Underway, or Cold Case Turned Hot: DNA May Be Key To Chandra Levy Case.
Tags: Chandra, Chandra Levy, Crime, CSI, DNA, Evidence, Forensic, Forensic Science, identification, Law, Law Enforcement, Levy, Murder, Mystery, Punishment, Tragedy
Posted in A Notorious History of Crime, Cold Cases, Crime Fighting, Forensics in The News, Murder, Punishment: The Consequence of Crime | No Comments »
Monday, February 7th, 2011
With the help of the FBI , two men were arrested on Sunday in connection with an Ohio shooting. Twenty-five year old student, Jamail Johnson of Girard Ohio, was killed while 11 other were wounded. Johnson was killed off campus of Youngstown State University, in a house nearby. The names of the 19 and 22 year olds who were arrested have not yet been released, and both remain un-charged at this point. Police are no longer looking for any other suspects.
According to Tina Creighton, spokeswoman for St. Elizabeth’s Health Center, all but three of the eleven people hurt had been treated and released by Sunday afternoon. Governor of Ohio, John Kasich said he was both, “shocked and saddened” by the events of the shooting and has extended state resources to both the university and local law enforcement.
At the time of the shooting, members of the fraternity Omega Psi Phi, were having a party in the house where Johnson was killed. Police found several shell casings from two semiautomatic handguns, and described shots as being “indiscriminately fired” within the house. Both suspects had been identified by witnesses as locals to the area. They had attended the party earlier in the evening, but were thrown out. They then returned and began firing. A friend of the victim stated that Johnson was a genuinely good person with big plans for the future, and that he was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.
For more information about this case, please click here or here.
Tags: Crime, Evidence, fatal, Law, Law Enforcement, Punishment, Scene, shooting, student, Tragedy, victim, witnesses
Posted in Crime Fighting, Punishment: The Consequence of Crime, Senseless Crimes, Uncategorized, shooting | No Comments »
Wednesday, February 2nd, 2011
Julie K. Schenecker of Tampa, Florida is being charged with 2 counts of first degree murder. A search warrant released on Tuesday, detailed that the mother was found unconscious in her home, and wearing a bloody robe; while her two deceased children lay wrapped up in blankets. Schenecker confessed to killing the 13 year old Beau Powers, and the 16 year old Calyx Powers, but gave no reason except to say that the teens were being, “mouthy”.
In Schenecker’s bedroom, police found five bullets and a Smith & Wesson box. They also found 15 live rounds and five spent shell casings in the bathroom. Calyx’s body was found in an upstairs bedroom with two shots to the head. Beau’s body was discovered in the front seat of an SUV inside the garage of the home. Thus far, the investigation has determined that the killings occurred on Thursday evening, but a medical examiner will determine the exact time of death.
Police also found writings thought to be from Schenecker in the house, indicating her intentions. During Monday’s court hearing, Schenecker appeared weeping with tissues in hand. Judge Walter Heinrich stated that she will likely undergo a psychiatric evaluation. Schenecker did not enter a plea, most likely for that reason. As of right now, no new court dates are set. Prosecutors will have three weeks to present the case to a grand jury.
To read more about this case, please click here or here.
Tags: confession, Crime, Evidence, family killing, Law, Law Enforcement, Murder, search warrant, Tragedy
Posted in Crime Fighting, Murder, Punishment: The Consequence of Crime | No Comments »
Wednesday, January 19th, 2011
KACEY LARSEN
B.A. English & Journalism, The University of Iowa
In a matter of minutes, six people were killed and thirteen were injured on Friday, January 7, 2011, in Tucson, Arizona. It has been determined that gunman Jared Lee Loughner, 22, specifically targeted Rep. Gabrielle Giffords during her “Congress in Your Corner” event at the La Toscana shopping center. Giffords had just been reelected to her third term in November and had been sworn into office only two days prior to the shooting.
Rep. Giffords was shot in the head during Loughner’s rampage, but luckily was attended to by intern Daniel Hernandez (who had prior nursing training) until emergency workers were able to arrive on the scene. Giffords and two others who were wounded in the shooting are in good condition at the University Medical Center in Tucson, while the nine others suffering injuries have been released. The health of the congresswoman appears to be continually improving as she has opened her eyes, is breathing on her own through assistance from a tracheotomy tube in her windpipe, and can respond to basic commands like squeezing a hand, which indicates to neurosurgeons that she is capable of brain function.
While people across the nation have been shaken by the shooting on January 7th, members of Congress have been especially hard hit by events. This marks the most recent attempt on the life of a sitting member of Congress since 1978 when Rep. Leo Ryan of California was killed while in Jonestown, Guyana. Tentative legislative business, including a reexamination of the current health-care law, has been postponed. Instead, talk has turned to issues of safety, such as a possible bill to enclose the House of Representatives’ public galleries in a material similar to Plexiglas and the installation of “panic buttons” within offices. While many citizens are calling for stricter gun control, legislators will not go as far, but instead talk of a bill banning high-capacity gun magazines.
The state of Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer has passed their own legislation in the meantime, banning protests within 300 feet of a funeral site. This law comes as a response to the Westboro Baptist Church announcing plans to picket the funeral of U.S. District Judge John Roll. While funerals and vigils are being held for those he killed and injured, Jared Loughner was taken into custody after being tackled by onlookers while reloading at the “Congress on Your Corner” event. He is currently being held in Phoenix without bail, facing federal charges for two counts of murder and three counts of attempted murder.
San Diego based lawyer Judy Clarke has been appointed to defend Loughner and has gained recognition in her career by previously defending Theodore Kaczynski, a.k.a. the Unabomber, and Susan Smith. Because of John Roll’s position as federal judge in Tucson, the remaining federal judges in his district have decided to not preside over the case in order to avoid a conflict of interest; a federal judge from outside the state may have to be brought in. More likely, Clarke will seek a change of venue in hopes of ensuring Loughner a fair trial. Though changes in venue are not typically granted, pretrial publicity can necessitate the move due to an impartial jury being unlikely within the community where the crime took place, as was the situation during the 1996 Oklahoma City bombing case.
Tags: Arizona, Congress in Your Corner, Crime, CSI, Evidence, Gabrielle Giffords, identification, Jared Loughner, Law, Law Enforcement, Murder, shooting, Tragedy, Tuscon
Posted in A Notorious History of Crime, Crime Fighting, Forensics in The News, Guest Bloggers, Murder, Punishment: The Consequence of Crime | No Comments »
|
|
