Juvenile Facilities in Minnesota

Based on the Criminal Justice Sourcebook’s report, it appears that the total number of juvenile facilities in Minnesota has overall decreased. In 2000, there were 121 juvenile residential facilities total, 22 were public, and 99 were private. In 2002, there were 100 juvenile facilities total, 24 were public, and 76 were private. In 2004, there were 89 juvenile facilities total, 24 were public, and 65 were private. (Sourcebook Staff, 2004)

Total Public Private
2000 121 22 99
2002 100 24 76
2004 89 24 65


Looking at the data, the number of privately run juvenile facilities in Minnesota has steadily decreased. There are several possible reasons for the gradual decline in the number of privately run juvenile residential facilities in Minnesota. (Sourcebook Staff, 2004)

One possible reason is lack of funds. Because these facilities are not government run, whatever private company or organization running the juvenile detention centers. Especially with the economy doing so poorly these recent years, running private residential facilities for juvenile delinquents may not be at the top of a company’s priority list.

Another potential reason for the decreasing number of private facilities possibly less juvenile delinquents being incarcerated. This could be that there is possibly less crime among minors in Minnesota. Another possibility is that juveniles are not sentenced to juvenile detention centers and the state is putting more and more of them are put on probation and given more lenient punishment. Yet another that there could be fewer inmates is possibly that more and more minors are being tried as adults, not even entering the juvenile justice system. Finally, it could be a combination of all three of these situations the decrease in juvenile delinquent population in Minnesota.

The last possible reason for the decreasing number of privately run juvenile residential facilities could be linked to the private prison vs. public prison debate. There are many arguments for and against the privatization of prisons. While proponents maintain that private facilities are more cost effective, opponents counter stating that privatized prisons are nonunion labor, and “that such cost-cutting results in lower-quality staff, with significant consequences. Poorly trained guards and higher turnover increase the risk of escapes, inmate violence and prisoner mistreatment” (Clement, 2002, para. 6).

Clement, D. (2002, January). Private vs. public: the prison debate. Retrieved from http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=2049

Sourcebook Staff. (2004, October). Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics Online: Public and private juvenile residential facilities. Retrieved from http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t100092004.pdf

Jail Capacity for Minnesota: 1999

In 1999, Minnesota Jails were not over capacity (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1999). I believe there are three reasons for this. One, Minnesota only had a population of 4,775,508 in 1999 (Roach, 1999), this helps because when there are less people living in a state, there are less people to put in prison, hence the not over crowded prison system in Minnesota in 1999. Two, there are few “big cities” in Minnesota, so therefore there would be less of a chance for the more common crimes, such as pick pocketing, shoplifting, ect. also having less to attract people to your state, you won’t get as many drifters and what not committing crimes in your state. Three would have to be Minnesota’s strong police presence. When there are more cops visible and around, in a state with a small population, than people are less likely to be doing criminal acts, in that state.

References

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1999). Census of Jails NCJ 186633 [Chart]. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t1998.pdf

Roach, K. (1999, December 29). Minnesota's population growth continues to outpace its neighbors, [Press Release]. Retrieved from http://www.demography.state.mn.us/resource.html?Id=1706

Inmate Populations in Minnesota

photo courtesy of The Situationist

According to the collected data by the Bureau of Justice (2008), as of 2007 Minnesota imprisons a total of 9,468 prisoners under state or federal correction authorities. In 2007 the female prisoner population accounted for 602 persons and male prisoners accounted for 8,866. The male population is over 14 times greater than the number of females incarcerated!

The female population, dating from 2000-2007, is increasing at a rate of 7.1-7.3% compared to the male population, which is increasing at a rate of 1.8-1.9% according to the data provided by the Bureau of Justice (2008). In comparison with the rest of the country, Minnesota does very well, ranking at the bottom for the number of incarcerated prisoners per population. The yearly increase in population, however, is much higher than the national average. The percentage increase for the males is 3.7% compared to the national average of 1.8%. A large increase can also be seen in female incarceration as represented by a population increase of 7.1% compared with the national average of 1.7% (Bureau of Justice, 2008).

What might account for the correction systems continual population swell? A possible explanation for the increase of both male and female prisoners under the state and federal correction authority may be due, in part, to an increase in the states overall population. Another reason for the increases may be a result of the rise of drug use and the countries declaration of war on drugs. The economy may also contribute to this boost; unemployment is at an all time high, which may possibly lead to more theft. Declining educational standards across the country may also contribute. The continual break down of the nuclear family may also put a strain on individuals that may also lead to a life of crime. Decreased funding for community programs, such as the girls and boys club, after school programs and big sisters & big brothers, may also affect the rate at which juveniles commit crime and recommit again later as adults.

David Wilson (2008) a former British prison governor and criminologist, acknowledges the low number of prisoners versus the states population as an amazing and desirable trend that is unique to Minnesota. He is curious to find out how Minnesota remains at the bottom of the list for number of prisoners incarcerated. On a visit to MN, he asked individuals involved with the corrections system what they believe is the reason for the low numbers and “by far the most common answer was: "we put in jail those people we are frightened of, not those that we are mad at"”(Wilson, 2008, para. 6). Minnesota’s philosophy may act as an inspiration for the rest of the nation, the prison population will continue to increase as long as the nation continues to implement prison time when possibly penalties or probation may suffice for lesser non violent crimes.

References:

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2008). Prisoners in 2007 NCJ 224280 [Chart]. Washington, DC: West, H.C. Retrieved from https://webcampus.nevada.edu/webct/urw/lc33129041.tp0/cobaltMainFrame.dowebct

Wilson, D. (2008, January 11). Minnesota's prison miracle. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jan/11/minnesotaprisonmiracle

Parole Population and Probation Population

The state of Minnesota has the following statistics based on parole populations and probation populations. Statistics are based as of December 31st, 2006.

Minnesota lists 5427 stated on parole with a population of approximately 4431 (Glaze & Bonzar, 2006).

Minnesota reports 88,735 entries of probation, while reporting 80,324 exits of probation. The population as of December 31st, 2006 is stated as 127,289 (Glaze & Bonzar, 2006).

Compared to other states in the Midwest, Minnesota has the highest number aside from Illinois, Ohio, and Michigan. This statistic could be due to the fact that states such as Illinois and Ohio have cities with higher urban populations, or higher populations in general. Higher urban populations would mean more crime.

Minnesota has a higher number compared to all states in the West except California.

Numerous states in the Northeast have higher numbers than those of Minnesota's.

Sources:

Glaze, L. E., & Bonzar, T. P. (2006). Bureau of justice statistics [Chart]. Annual probation survery and annual parole survey. Retrieved from https://webcampus.nevada.edu/webct/urw/lc33129041.tp0/cobaltMainFrame.dowebct

The First and Last Execution

The first execution in the state of Minnesota was on December 29th 1854. It was the hanging of a Native American man named Yu-Ha-Gu. This man was executed for committing a murder. The last execution in the state of Minnesota was on February 13th 1906. Another hanging, this time the executed was William Williams a 27 year old white male also convicted of a murder. (Executions, 2004) The differences between these two executions include only race, where the first man was Native American and the last was White, and date, where the first execution was in December of 1854 and the last in February of 1906. However, the age of the first man is not given and that could have been a difference also.

Source:

Executions in the U.S. 1608-2002: The ESPY file [Chart]. (2002). Executions by state. Retrieved from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/ESPYstate.pdf

Death Penalty in MN Statistics

Minnesota, abbreviated MN, does not allow the death penalty. MN is in the Midwest region. Before 1976, MN had 66 executions and after 1976 they had no executions. On death row, MN doesn’t have anyone on there currently. There are also no women on death row. The murder rate per 100,00 is 2.2. In MN life without parole is an option and a defendant can’t get death for a felony in which he/she was not responsible for the murder. Also, there weren’t any people who were innocent freed from death row. The number of clemencies, a disposition to show mercy, granted is also zero (Death Penalty Information, 2009).

Source:

Death Penalty Information Center. (2009.) State by state database. Retrieved from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/state_by_state

Reducing Youth Gun Possession

photo from: City of Minneapolis, Minnesota

Officials in Hennepin County have instituted a program that will enforce gun control for juveniles. The program will also provide them with educational courses on the dangers of carrying firearms. The mission statement for the new program is "don’t carry a gun - if you do, there will be consequences"(Mayors, 2008).

Initiated by the Hennepin County Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (CJCC) in May of 2008, the program was put into effect the following summer. It was intended to help reduce the number of juveniles carrying firearms through several coordinated activities. Some of these activities will include court-sanctioned penalties for any youths caught carrying BB guns or any other type of replica fire arms, and even real weapons. Interventions will include probation, classroom gun education and also out-of-home-placement to ensure offenders actually learn their lesson. Along with those efforts local communities will hold street level policing targeted directly at juveniles who have prior records of firearms and have warrants out for their arrest. These local patrols will encourage the juveniles to turn themselves in in order to not suffer higher consequences. For juveniles placed on probation, the supervision will be much more intense and aggressive and be linked to the Minnesota Anti violence Initiative. The MAI accompany authorities and probation officers on home visits to any juvenile that is on probation to make sure all the demands are being met. Furthermore, the youth curfew law will be enforced more consistently and strictly especially on the weekends as well as stronger enforcement of new replica firearms ordinances in cities with such laws (Mayors, 2008).

County officials from Hennepin County and its neighoring communities are teaming together to put an end to juvenile gun violence in the city. “The bottom line is, kids and guns don't mix. If you’re a juvenile with a gun in Hennepin County, we want you to know there are clear and swift penalties. But with the penalties, there is education: A 40-hour gun education program that informs the juvenile of the dangers of guns. But let's not forget, the penalties also include time away from home and a substantial amount of hours of work-without-pay”(Mayors, 2008), said Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman.

Mayor R.T. Rybak also shared the point of view of Freedman stating that the goal was to reduce hte number of youth carrying gun, NOT placing more under arrest. “With clear, consistent consequences, we are making it tough for kids to have guns, we want to make it clear to youth that it’s safer to not carry a gun than to carry a gun. Our main goal isn’t just to arrest more youth, but to reduce the number if youth with guns”(Mayors, 2008).

County Sheriff Rich Stanek hopes that with the programs instalment the number of crimes caused by juveniles will decrease, especially those realted to firearms. “Kids with guns are serious business and a major contributor of violent crime throughout Hennepin County. Through the joint efforts of the entire criminal justice system in Hennepin County – the local police departments, the Sheriff's office, the county attorney, probation and district court – we will be arresting kids with guns and getting them off the streets”(Mayors, 2008).

Minneapolis Police Chief Tim Dolan is looking for the program to cut down on the number of juveniles carrying firearms. He feels that with this new program, juveniles will not move on to do more serious offenses and potential more serious crimes. “Our goal is to get guns – real or fake – out of the hands of kids and off our streets. Stronger penalties mean that we may not see juveniles ‘graduate’ to more serious offenses”(Mayors, 2008).

The program will focus on bringing safety to all those involved as well as those not involved. It wil target every community in Hennepin County. It will be aimed at juveniles (ages 10-17 years old). The program will also look to state more dire consequences than those listed if a firearm real or fake is used to commit any particular crime, such as intentionally pointing a gun at another person or using it in a robbery. The list of the program is as follows:

HENNEPIN COUNTY JUVENILE GUN OFFENDER PROGRAM (Mayors, 2008)

1. First time in court and the youth has a BB or replica gun - probation, 40 hours of education on the dangers and effects of guns, 60 hours work without pay (STS), and if the youth does not complete the 100 hours, then 4-6 weeks out of home placement.

2. First time in court and the youth has a real gun or fired a BB gun - probation, 4-6 weeks out of the home, then 40 hours of education on the dangers and effects of guns and if the youth does not complete these requirements, then long term (4-6 months) out of home placement.

3. Already on probation and the youth has a real gun or fired a BB gun - probation, 90 days at Red Wing or similar program, then 40 hours of classes on the dangers and effects of guns and if the youth does not complete the program, then long term (6-12 months) out of home placement.

4. Any youth who has a new gun offense who had a prior gun offense - sent out of home to long term (6-15 months) placement and probation.


Mayor's Office. (2008, May 20). Multiple initiatives in place to reduce youth gun possession this summer. Minnesota Mayor's Office. Retrieved from
http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/mayor/news/20080520newsmayor_citycountylaunchyouthguneffort.asp

City of Minneapolis Hennepoint County Mayor's Office

Jury Selection Assignment

Find a newspaper article from your state which describes the jury selection for a current trial. Describe the crime the defendant is charged with. Were any jurors challenged for cause or preemptory challenges? Describe the types of jurors you think the prosecution would want and the type you think the defense would want.

The case selected is Capitol v. Thomas, where Jammie Thomas-Rasset of Brianerd, Minnesota, was accused of copyright infringement and illegally sharing 24 songs on the file sharing application Kazaa. Originally, the defendant, Thomas-Rasset, was found legally responsible in a 2007 trial for illegally sharing the said 24 songs and was ordered to pay $222,000 in statutory damages. The judge in Thomas-Rasset’s trial, Michael J. Davis, ordered a retrial when he “decided he had erred in giving jury instructions [for 2007 trial]” (Karnowski, 2009).

The Thomas-Rasset’s second trial was held on June 15, 2009. On the same day, the Court went through the procedure of jury selection. As Nate Anderson of Ars Technica put it, the process “appeared to confirm Minnesota's reputation as a place of Lutheran virtue and hard work. Of the 19 people called up for questioning, no one admitted to having used Napster, KaZaA, or a P2P file-sharing program—and this despite the presence of several college students and recent grads.” The final 12 jurors were “five men and seven women, all white, ranging in age from college students to retirees” (Anderson, 2009).

The retrial actually made things worse for Thomas-Rasset. The new jury found that she “willfully violated copyrights, awarding the companies $80,000 per song, or $1.92 million” (Karnowski, 2009).

As clarified in the second paragraph, in the retrial, there were no jurors who challenged for cause or preemptory challenges. This jury selection was exactly what the prosecution wanted as they were law-abiding citizens who seemed to have no sympathy for the defendant. If the defense could have it their way, they would have wanted a jury full of people who were advocates of file sharing and opponents of big record companies.


Anderson, N. (2009). Jury selected in Thomas retrial: shockingly law-abiding. Retrieved November 10, 2009, from http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jury-selected-in-thomas-retrial-shockingly-law-abiding.ars

Capitol v. Thomas. (2009, September 28). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 10:23, November 10, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capitol_v._Thomas&oldid=316727088

Karnowski, S. (2009, June 19). Jury awards $1.92m in music-sharing suit. Associated Press, p. 9. Retrieved from http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2009/06/19/jury_awards_192m_in_music_sharing_suit/

Grand Jury V. Preliminary Hearing

In Stearns County, Minnesota, they use the grand jury system (County of Stearns Minnesota, 2004). The differences between grand juries and a preliminary hearing method vary. For example, a grand jury decides if there is a probable cause to accuse individuals or corporations on criminal charges based on the evidence provided (US Courts, 2007). Grand jury sessions are held in a private room, with only the grand jury, which consists on 23 people, government lawyers, court reporters, an interpreter if needed, and the witnesses to be heard, all are under oath (US Courts, 2007). While a preliminary hearing is where the judge decides if there is enough evidence to force the defendant to stand trial (FindLaw, 2009). In reaching this probable cause decision, the judge listens to arguments from the government (through a government attorney, or "prosecutor"), and from the defendant (usually through his or her attorney) (FindLaw, 2009). The prosecutor may call witnesses to testify, and can introduce physical evidence in an effort to convince the judge that the case should go to trial (FindLaw, 2009). The defense usually cross-examines the government's witnesses and calls into question any other evidence presented against the defendant, seeking to convince the judge that the prosecutor's case is not strong enough, so that the case against the defendant must be dismissed before trial (FindLaw, 2009).

Sources:

County of Stearns Minnesota. (2004, October 28). Stearns County Grand Jury Returns 1st Degree Murder Indictment re: Eric Maurice Wright. Retrieved November 5, 2009, from

http://www.co.stearns.mn.us/1271_3561.htm

FindLaw. (2009). Preliminary Hearing. Retrieved November 5, 2009, from http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/criminal_stages/criminal_preliminary_hearing/

US Courts. (2007, October). Grand Jury Handbook. Retrieved November 5, 2009, from http://www.uscourts.gov/jury/grandjury.html

The right to a Speedy Trial (Minnesota vs. Nevada)

Minnesota House of Representatives
photo courtesy of Policy and Medicine
http://www.policymed.com/2009/10/state-policy-minnesota-reconsidering-physician-reporting-and-gift-law.html

The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental principle in our criminal justice system. Although each state is independent in its ability to draft statues to address the timelines involved in criminal proceedings there is a similarity throughout the states in this manner. This post will look at both Minnesota and Nevada and their statutes relating to the right to a speedy trial.

Minnesota’s Office of the Reviser of Statutes states the speedy trial statute as such: 90% of all criminal cases must be concluded within 120 days from beginning to end, 97% of all criminal cases must be complete 180 days and 99% of all criminal cases must be complete of within 365 days. Minnesota measures these days from the time of a criminal complaint or indictment until the defendant is sentenced and placed in jail or found not guilty (Minnesota Office of the Reviser of Statutes, 2009).

The speedy trial statute for the state of Nevada allows that the state shall have a trial within 60 days following arraignment. The state does, however, have exceptions. The state may allow for continuances based on a defendant’s request for more time to prepare his or her defense for trial and in such cases when the court is unable to proceed to trial due to time and calendar conflicts. Under certain circumstances, if the case involves a victim under the age of 16, a continuance may not be granted by the state (Nevada Revised Statutes, 2007).

Sources:

Minnesota’s Office of the Reviser of Statutes. (2009). Criminal Trials; Timing Objectives for Case Disposition. Retrieved November 7, 2009, from https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?view=info

Nevada Revised Statutes. (2007). Right of State to trial within 60 days after arraignment; exceptions. Retrieved November 7, 2009, from http://search.leg.state.nv.us/

Deliberations Begin in Burnsville Murder Trial

After 8 days of hearing testimony from both the defense and prosecutors deliberations by the jury have begun in the Tina San Roman murder trial. 19-year-old Taylor Pass is being charged with second degree murder as well as attempting to kill 24-year old Odai Al-Refo, roommate of San Roman who was 35 (Powell, 2009).

According to authorities, Pass stabbed San Roman in the garage, who then called for help. Al-Refo came to her aid and was also hurt in the altercation. The 911 recordings indicate the nature of the crime as San Roman is heard saying "Help me, I'm dying." after receiving a 4-inch stab wound to the chest (Powell, 2009).

The defense argued that Pass was not the murderer but rather Al-Refo was the one responsible, and to cover up his actions, proceeded to stab himself. Prosecution lawyer Lawrence Clark argued "She's not asking for help from somebody who has stabbed her, she's asking for help from somebody in a similar situation" (Powell, 2009). The tapes also confirmed this as San Roman is heard crying out to Al-Refo.

The defense also claimed that police wrongfully accused Pass, since once arriving on the scene they immediately arrested him and named him the culprit before examining the DNA as well as the crime scene. The defense stated that "police probed the wrong man and didn't collect evidence, didn't get it all tested properly, and didn't share all of the lab results they did get with prosecutors or the defense until the trial was more than half over" (Powell, 2009).

San Roman was found inside the home on the staircase, and it is believed she was trying to reach her 9-year-old son, Brendon Kulyas. San Roman would die from her wounds a week later in the hospital, while Al-Refo would make a full recovery and move to North Carolina. Kulyas was unharmed that night.

The defense also pointed to a grey hoodie that was found bloodstained in the garage claiming "there were unknown wearers DNA found on the grey hoodie, along with a cap in the garage. That cap was black with orange flames on the sides and on the bill, and it had the word Sniper in large white lettering on the front. Those items had both the blood of San Roman and Al-Refo on them, but also touch DNA from two or three more wearers" (Powell, 2009).

According to video surveillance taken from Shooters Billiards on Hwy. 13, Pass can be seen wearing both the hoodie and hat in question, thus negating the claims by the defense. The prosecution called for "jurors to consider what the defense claimed that Al-Refo had concocted this story, and that he cut himself was ridiculous.
As invoking a phantom suspect and urged the jury to not speculate nor go on a wild expedition" (Powell, 2009).


Taylor Pass
Photo credit: Dakota County Sheriff

Powell, J. (2009, November 4). Jury Deliberates in Burnsville Murder Trial. Minnesota StarTribune. Retrieved November 8, 2009, from http://www.startribune.com/local/south/69127562.html?page=1&c=y

Selecting Judges in Minnesota

- The state of Minnesota selects its state supreme court judges by means of non partisan general elections. Partisanship and political parties play a huge role in the nomination of these candidates ("Justice at Stake," 2001).

- The state of Minnesota selects its intermediate appellate court judges by means of non partisan elections, opposite to that of supreme court judges ("Justice at Stake," 2001).

- The state of Minnesota selects trial court judges by means of non partisan elections for all general jurisdiction judges ("Justice at Stake," 2001).

Popular elections have their differences. On the other hand federal judges at the national level are appointed by the president and approved by the United States Senate. Federal judges do not have a fixed term and are appointed for life. Having popular elections at the state and local levels has its own benefits. Popular election in a way sort of strengthens the judiciary. Judges that are forced to run for office and seek reelection would consistently seek to please public opinion and stay close to we the people, which is indeed what local and state justice's are supposed to do. The founding fathers of this nation wanted the judicial branch to completely steer clear of political partisanship, to be free of the chains of partisanship, and free to be able to interpret the law fairly without any bias judgment. Partisanship creates bias judgment (Hall, 1999).

Sources:

Hall, K. 1999. The Judiciary on Trial: State Constitutional Reform and the rise of an Elected Judiciary. The historian 46. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/justice/howdid/kermit.html

Justice at Stake Campaign, National Surveys of American Voters and State Judges,. October 2001 – January 2002. [PDF document]. Available at www.justiceatstake.org

What Court Would Hear This Case?

Taking place in 2007 Everson appealed ruling, requesting that his conviction be reversed and a new trial conducted based on the grounds of the process of jury deliberations. The Minnesota Supreme Court would have heard the case, however, Everson’s request to a new trial was denied.

Chaska, Minnesota (2008, May 29). Website of Chaska Herald Newspaper. Retrieved online from: http://www.chaskaherald.com/news/breaking-news-alert/minnesota-supreme-court-denies-everson-appeal-4466


Minneapolis police arrest Dwayne Murray, 46, of robbery for grabbing money from a cash register at the Candy Jar. He was then charged later with two other robberies in South Minneapolis for robbing a jewelry store and a florist shop. The court of general jurisdiction would hear this case.

Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota newspaper (2009, Oct.23). Website of Star Tribune newspaper. Retrieved online from: http://www.startribune.com/local/65879807.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU

Minnesota's Court System

According to the website for the “National Center for State Courts”, As of 2007, Minnesota’s court system is broken up into three different court sections.
Minnesota has one trial court, and two appellate courts. The first of the two Appellate Courts, the Supreme Court is labeled as a court of last resort of which seven justices sit en banc. The Supreme Court mainly handles mandatory jurisdiction in criminal, administrative agency, and federal cases. The second appellate is the court of appeals of which sixteen judges sit both en banc and in panels. The court is referenced as an intermediate appellate court, or IAC. The IAC deals with Civil, Criminal, Administrative Agency, and Juvenile cases.
Lastly, the District Court is named a Limited Jurisdiction Court. The District Court serves ten districts of which 276 judges sit in jury trials, with the exception of small claims and non-extended juvenile cases. Cases mainly seen in the District court are those of tort, real property, mental health, domestic relations, criminal, traffic, small claims and miscellaneous violations. (“National Center for State Courts”)

There is extensive information about all three courts including, justices, judges, jurisdictions, arguments, rulings, and publications at the following links:

Supreme Court of Minnesota: http://www.mncourts.gov/?page=550

District Court of Minnesota: http://www.mncourts.gov/?page=238

Court of Appeals of Minnesota: http://www.mncourts.gov/?page=551

Cite: "Court Statistics Project." National Center for State Courts. 10 26 2009. The National Center for State Courts, Web. 26 Oct 2009. .

Minnesota's Court of Appeals

Photo Courtesy of Minnesota Court of Appeals

Minnesota Supreme Court

Minnesota Warrantless Search News Story

On May 24, 2007, in the Minnesota v. Davis case, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that police need only “articulable suspicion” to be able to use a drug sniffing canine to sniff the outside door of a person's residence.

The Burnsville police were informed by maintenance workers in an apartment complex that they believed they saw marijuana grow lights and that Davis would not allow them in his apartment to fix a water leak. Based on that information, police brought a drug sniffing dog to the apartment complex, and the dog reacted outside the apartment door. Police then used the maintenance workers' information, the drug dog alert, and Davis's past criminal record to attain a search warrant, which resulted in the finding of various items of contraband and three drug charges against Davis.

At his trial, Davis moved to restrain the evidence, arguing that police had to have probable cause to “sic a drug dog on his apartment door because the drug dog sniff of his door exterior actually amounted to a "search" of his apartment, thus requiring probable cause.” (Drug War Chronicle, 2007)

Davis lost at the trial court, which decided that police needed only articulable suspicion and that the police had met that standard. The Minnesota Court of Appeals confirmed that decision, and the state Supreme Court has reaffirmed it.

In this case, the type of warrantless search utilized was plain view: the principle that evidence in plain view of police officers may be seized without a search warrant. This is kind of a stretch, as the evidence was the odor the drug sniffing dog reacted to. (Siegel, 2008)

Search and Seizure: Minnesota Supreme Court Okays Drug Dog Sniff Outside Apartment Door. (2007, June 1). Retrieved October 20, 2009, from http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/488/minnesota_supreme_court_upholds_drug_dog_door_sniff_search

Siegel, L. J. (2008). Warrantless Searches and Arrests. In Introduction to Criminal Justice (Twelfth ed. , ). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth .

Miranda Warning

The purpose of the Miranda Warning is to allow individuals the opportunity to speak with an attorney prior to interrogation by police and inform individuals of their right to council even if they are unable to afford one. It also states that individuals may or may not remain silent, but any statement may be used against them in a court of law (Siegel, 2008). The case of Miranda vs. Arizona (1966), preempting the use of the Miranda Warning, not only protects suspects rights, but protects officers from possible future appeals of coercion and intimidating the suspect into a confession of a crime that they did not commit. There are times, however, that statements obtained illegally are permissible in court. One such incidence is when a defendant perjures themselves in court, then the prosecutor may impeach prior testimony and include it during the trial (Siegel, 2008). For example during the trial of man for the murder of his business partner it is discovered that his statements during cross examination were lies. The prosecutor, upon reflection, realizes that earlier statements that the judge threw out due to Miranda issues can now be reintroduced because the perjury brings those statements directly into question. Another situation is when a suspect, who has not been properly Mirandized, provides information and or a confession during an interrogation without specifically requesting to speak with an attorney. The statements themselves may not be used against the individual, but the evidence obtained from them may. Mention or referencing the idea of speaking with an attorney, such as "I don't know maybe I should talk with a lawyer", is not adequate. In a public safety or an emergency situation, police officers may take statements without reading the Miranda Warning. This is known as the public safety doctrine (Siegel, 2008).

Source:

Siegel, L. J. (2008). Police and the Rule of Law: Interrogation. Introduction to Criminal Justice (Twelfth ed. , pp. 339-340). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Police Misconduct & Brutality

Photo source: Police State Net

http://police-state.net/fascistswillrisetothetop.htm

Exclusionary Rule

This article was about a man, Bradley Harrison, who was stopped by Canadian police in 2004 because of “license plate confusion” (Liptak, 2008) and was arrested after an officer did an unlawful search of the car and found several million dollars worth of cocaine in the car’s trunk. “Without minimizing the seriousness of the police officer’s conduct or in any way condoning it,” the Court of Appeal for Ontario ruled in Mr. Harrison’s case in February, “the exclusion of 77 pounds of cocaine, with a street value of several millions of dollars and the potential to cause serious grief and misery to many, would bring the administration of justice into greater disrepute than would its admission.” The case is now before the Canadian Supreme Court.” (Liptak, 2008).

My take on this exclusionary rule is that it should not be. I feel this way because if some damning evidence is found “illegally” by a cop, it should be used. Especially if it will put away a murder, child pornographer, rapist, or a thief. I feel that it would be stupid to pull someone over and illegally, maybe accidentally on the policeman’s part, search their car and find out they are a serial killer, but we couldn’t use that evidence against them in court and it would be thrown out? I totally disagree with the exclusionary rule because if evidence is found that will put a dangerous person in prison, that’s on the streets, why not do it? The criminal did not care about rights or people or the law when they committed the crime, so why should they get the respect of the United States government?

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/us/19exclude.html

Priceless

An article was released by a public radio website for Minnesota State from a case involving a Police Officer pending since April of 2008. All of the given facts suggest it’s a clear case of police corruption, namely, Selective enforcement or non enforcement. By definition from Introduction to Criminal Justice, this type of corruption is said to be "an abuse of police power, when an officer abuses his discretion for money." This is seemingly the situation for Mike Roberts, a Police Officer who is being tried in Minnesota.

On May 13, 2009, an FBI agent who interviewed Roberts testified that secretly recorded video surveillance proved that the officer was sharing data from a squad computer, with who the officer knew to be a gang member. Each time information was shared, the informant gave Roberts one hundred dollars. In his statement, Roberts claimed he was not keeping the money for himself despite the video evidence showing him putting the money in his own pocket. Witnesses in the PD provided statements that the Officer also completed a false police report that says he placed the money in police inventory.

Many factors could have contributed to the outcome of the Officer's behavior. Although there is very little a police force can do in the way of controlling indivual ethic and moral values, there are certain things that can be heightened to hopefully prevent corruption, overall. PD’s could emphasize the severity as well as the consequences of police corruption. Perhaps stronger discipline may need to be enforced in such instances, along with extensive training programs that spotlight “zero tolerance” on corruption as part of a job requirement for pre hired officers.

Cites:
Defense lays out case in Minneapolis Police Corruption Trial. Article retrieved October 6, 2009, from website
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/05/13/mplspdcorrputiontrial/

Siegel, Larry. Introduction to Criminal Justice. Wadsworth, : Cengage Learning, 2008.

Gender differences

Research questions based upon the differences in gender amongst police officers.

- Are men or women considered more likely to use excessive force when on duty?

Men are considered to use excessive force more due to their more aggressive nature. Women on the other hand have been proven to rely more on negotiation rather than physical confrontation.

-Do police stations consider gender differences for recruitment?

No it is against the law, under the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, Article VII. This law protects all from any kind of discrimination in the workplace, including gender. Prior to the 1970s, women police officers were scarce in numbers and were primarily involved in assignments of a social welfare nature, matron duties, juvenile and family problems, sexual assault investigators, and clerical assignments. As time progressed, more women joined the force, but not enough. As of right now women account for roughly 46% of the American workforce over the age of 16. In comparison women account for 12.8% of the working police force population. 18% of the LAPD is female, which mirrors exactly the percentage of women who apply to become police officers.

- Do female police officers have to fit into the masculine occupational subculture in order to be socially acceptable in the work place as a cop?

No, not necessarily, the masculine brute force cop is just a common stereotype given to police officers. There are many different types of police styles, ranging from the social worker type cop in blue, to the fearless crime fighter. Respect is earned through performance.

- Could statistics in civilian police resistance be altered if more women were in the police force?

Maybe. Maybe men who would violently resist arrest from a male officer would not violently strike a police officer if they were a female due to cultural upbringing or moral belief. Or maybe an offender, male or female, would see a female police officer as genetically weaker than a typical male police officer and use it to their advantage by resisting violently. Now that's some food for thought eh?

- Which gender is more susceptible to the largest problem in policing, corruption?

Niether. We're all human and face the same temptations. There is however a roughly 74% majority of men in the police force. The police force is still a male dominated field, and bands of corruption still exist.

SOURCES

Poteyeva, M & Sun, I. (3 September, 2009). Gender differences in police officers' attitudes: Assessing current empirical evidence. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V75-4X4XGGH-D&_user=516213&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1036591330&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000023038&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=516213&md5=623501405b8f33f831056733fa97e09f

Photo: Female police chief

Photo by: by PETER MASA The Tampa Tribune

This is Tampa's first female police chief, an example of women working their way up the chain in a mostly male dominated field.

The Crime Fighter

BLUtube is powered by PoliceOne.com


This is an example of THE CRIME FIGHTER style of policing. This video fits the description because the police have busted a notorious gang. They investigated the crime and apprehended the criminals. They are trying to catch the dangerous criminals and keep them off the streets.

Contrasting Problems, Then and Now

The Prohibition era was like a wave of organized crime that affected many of Americas major cities in the 1920s and 1930s, including cities in Minnesota. Notorious gangsters and mobsters ran wild in Minnesota's major cities like St. Paul. Perhaps the hardest thing to fight for the police officers of Minnesota was corruption. In a time where bribery, extortion, and pay offs were all too common, it was hard to distinguish which police officers were legitimate or compromised. Mobsters who ran the illegitimate underground operations of murder, racketeering, extortion, bribery, boot legged goods, and prostitution ran major cities as they pleased. Their business booming illegal operations allowed them to generously pay off countless police officers and run wild. Alcohol was illegal at the time, but it could be found almost everywhere. Why would a police officer arrest an individual for a law that he himself may even think is unreasonable? Better yet why would he risk his own life to arrest a mobster for petty crimes that are seen everywhere, every day? It was way to dangerous to be a good cop and do a good cops work, doing so could mean a sure death sentence. Being corrupt seemed like a much better alternative. Police officers didn't have the luxuries and technologies that officers have today. Statistically police officers back then were fewer in number. 24 hour shifts were much more rare in cold cold Minnesota then they are today. Mobsters back then were a force to be reckoned with, gangs were well manned and had advanced Tommy machine gun weaponry that could stand up to police officers any day of the week. Today officers are much better equipped with technology and training. Systems such as Coplink and 24 hour radio dispatch help fight crime more effectively. Of course corruption and gang violence are still things that police officers have to battle today, things are looking better. As time progresses police officers and the criminal justice system become better, more effective, and more efficient.

Some Criminal History

The Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, known as the Prohibition Amendment from 1920-1933, prohibited the manufacture, sale, transport, import, or export of alcoholic beverages. The mandated shutdown of breweries and distilleries ended the lawful production of alcoholic beverages and created a market that was filled by the unlawful production, sale, and control of bootlegged products and lawless activities which included smuggling, gambling, prostitution, extortion, robbery, and murder. Many of Minnesota's large cities became a center haven for crime much similar to those of Chicago's Al Capone and other mob lord activity seen across the country. Lawlessness and the corruption of officials and police along with the unintended consequences of the legislation infected many American cities, including St. Paul. The city became a center of operation and a haven for such notorious gangsters as John Dillinger, Babyface Nelson, Roger "the Terrible" Touhy, Machine Gun Kelly, Alvin "Creepy" Karpis, and the Barker gang, whose activities extended to robbing banks, holding up mail trucks and trains, and kidnapping and holding their hostages for ransom.

Retrieved on (September 29, 2009)
Moley, R. (May, 2007).
Gangsters in St. Paul. Minnesota Historical Library. Retrieved from
http://www.mnhs.org/library/history_topics/14gangsters.html

Cops! Where are they?

According to the 2004 census of state and local law enforcement agencies, Minnesota has a total of 442 agencies, 355 law enforcement agencies and 87 sheriffs’ offices statewide (Reeves, 2007). The total of full time local law enforcement personnel per 100,000 residents is 6810 and 5521 for the sheriffs’ offices (Reeves, 2007). The ratio per 100,000 residents to sworn officers is a combined 7947 officers statewide. The state law enforcement also has 821 full time employees per 100,000 residents with sworn personnel equaling 544 per 100,000 residents. In total, the state of Minnesota employs 8,491 full time sworn officers per 100,000 residents (Reeves, 2007).

Is this an adequate number of sworn officers to protect and serve the citizens of Minnesota? Probably not! The F.B.I. ranks Minnesota almost dead last with a ranking of 48th in the country for the number of police officers per 1,000 residents (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2008). Even though Minnesota is more rural than most, citizens of Minnesota would like to see more police presence which in turn would encourage more community policing. Minnesota could use more sworn personnel. Minnesota recently attempted to increase the needed amount of officers by applying to the COPS program (community oriented policing) laid out earlier this year by the Department of Justice. Fourteen agencies in MN received an amount of around 11 million dollars through the COPS program This amount is only able to fund an additional 53 police officers in the state, a majority (28) will work for the St. Paul Police Department. According to the DOJ, the 1 billion awarded nationwide is only a small sliver of the total requested, at only 12% (Bodley, 2009). There is more demand than there is money. In Minnesota, however, out of the 470 odd officers requested, only 53 were accepted. This additional 53 officers is a small step toward increasing the states demand of more sworn officers and will no doubt help Minnesota with their policing for the good of the residents (Bodley, 2009). Minnesota may also benefit from hiring private security firms, however budget is always a hot topic.

Each city is responsible for determining the amount of policing needs. The leaders of communities determine the needs of their residents; how much police visibility do we want, what is our available funds, what is the population, and what is the current and forecasted growth rate. Without the funds to hire and train new officers, the Mayor of Wanamingo John Simonson states, "(we have) contracts with the Sheriff for police coverage rather than hire our own police officers. This decision was made because the city believes we will be getting quality service at less cost” (The City of Wanamingo, 2007).


Sources:

Bodley, P. (2009, August 6). No stimulus dollars for more police officers. ABCNewspapers. Retrieved September 25, 2009, from http://abcnewspapers.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=847

The City of Wanamingo. (2007) Goodhue County, Minnesota, Wanamingo Office.Retrieved September 25, 2009, from
http://www.co.goodhue.mn.us/departments/sheriff/Wanamingo.aspx

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2008, November). Crime and Safety-Number of police officers Rate per 1000 population. Retrieved September 15, 2009, from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

Reaves, B. (2007, June 13). Bureau of Justice Statistics. [Chart]. Census of State of Local Law Enforcement Agencies. 2004 Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 2004, NCJ 212749.

Perham, Minnesota Community Policing

The mission statement of the city of Perham, Minnesota police department is: “to protect and serve the citizens of Perham in the most effective, responsive, and ethical manner possible. The Police Department will always be striving to improve service to the Citizens, and will be continually conscious of new and innovative community policing programs, which will allow us to meet the needs of the Citizens we serve. We understand that in order to be effective as a Police Department we must be aware of what is taking place around us, and be responsive and flexible to change with the innovation of technology. We will strive to maintain a professional image within the community. We believe that for us to be successful in accomplishing these goals, we must understand and adapt to the needs of the citizens we serve.” The city of Perham’s police department does much more than just police, they also provide services, such as: Drug Abuse Resistance and Education, or D.A.R.E. Where the officers will go in and talk to kids during their school day about the dangers of drugs and drunk driving. They also offer the MN Safe and Sober challenge, where the program is designed to heighten public awareness in the areas of seatbelts, driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol, and it is their effort to decrease the number of alcohol related driving accidents. This department has also made a crosswalk safety program, where they work with the public to bring attention to new laws in the state about crosswalks, and they have been putting “yield to pedestrian” signs at primary crosswalks in downtown Perham. Another thing the Perham police department does with the public is a “Bike Rodeo”. The clinic includes bike registration, bike safety check, obstacle course, drawing an giveaways for prizes. During the rodeo bike helmets are on sale for a nominal price. The Police Department and Lions Club, send flyers home with elementary students in the spring of the year as to when the clinic is, and the best part, the clinic registration is only $1.

One of the challenges of community policing however is reorienting recruitment. However, the city of Perham has successfully dealt with this challenge in a well thought out and organized manor. They have a reserve officer program that is made up from volunteers from the community, that has duties such as: residential checks, patrol, bike safety, traffic control and security to name a few. The rules are you must be 21 years old, with the exception if you are enrolled in criminal justice in college, than you can join younger, a good driving, be in good physical condition, and you must be at least be a high school graduate. This is just one of the examples of how the city of Perham overcomes community policing difficulties.

Sources Used:

1.http://www.cityofperham.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={6F2EA21C-DD29-4AC1-8DBE-388ADCE1D3D5}&DE=

2. http://www.cityofperham.com/index.asp?Type=B_LIST&SEC=%7BF27E64C6-2259-4707-B337-D12CFF21A3FD%7D

Police Brutality in St. Paul Minnesota at RNC

Photo by Paul Demko, Minnesota Independent



Youth beaten by police at RNC.

Source: The Minnesota Independant

Insanity Test

The M’Naughten test is used in Minnesota. This rule is used in the majority of the United States. It was named after the case of Daniel M’Naughten in 1843 in Great Britain. He was a Scottish woodcutter who killed the secretary to the prime minister in an unsuccessful attempt to assassinate the prime minister. M’Naughten seemingly believed that the prime minister was the reason behind all his personal and financial misfortunes. During his trial, several witnesses testified that he was insane, to which the jury cleared M’Naughten, finding him “not guilty by reason of insanity.” Queen Victoria did not like this outcome, so she appealed to the House of Lords to review the ruling with a panel of judges. The judges annulled the jury decision, and the method that resulted from their review became the foundation of the law regulating legal responsibility in cases of insanity in England: “that a defendant should not be held responsible for his actions if he could not tell that his actions were wrong at the time he committed them.”(PBS) The M’Naughten was later used by American courts and legislatures as well.

The verdict Minnesota hands down if the offender meets the requirements of the insanity test is “Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity.” As far as punishment, the defendant is generally placed in a psychiatric hospital.

From Daniel M'Naughten to John Hinckley: A Brief History of the Insanity Defense . (2005). Retrieved September 22, 2009, from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/crime/trial/history.html#mn

Siegel, L. J. (2008). Various Insanity Defense Standards. In Introduction to Criminal Justice (Twelfth ed. , ). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth .

Minnesota Statutes

Felony:
"Assault" is:
(1) an act done with intent to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm or death; or
(2) the intentional infliction of or attempt to inflict bodily harm upon another.
Misdemeanor:
Burglary: “Whoever enters a building without consent and with intent to commit a crime, or enters a building without consent and commits a crime while in the building, either directly or as an accomplice, commits burglary…”

The assault crime is similar because they both state that assault is the intent of putting one in bodily harm. The books definition isn’t just the intent but putting one in fear of being assaulted. The burglary crime in the book and Minnesota’s statute are the same because they both are the intent to commit a crime when breaking and entering; however, Minnesota’s statute is more specific in stating that if you are directly or indirectly involved, you are guilty of burglary. Over all Minnesota’s statutes are more specific due to it being geared toward the running the law of the state.

Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes (2009). Website about Minnesota Statutes. Retrieved online from: https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=609.02&keyword_type=all&keyword=felony

Minnetrista man charged with reckless discharge of a firearm, a felony

37-year old Jeremy Scott Eggersgluss was charge with reckless discharge of a firearm, a felony, on Friday September 18th in Minnestrista, Minnesota. Minestrista police come to his home on Kingswood Road early Thursday after a call a multiple shots fired according to criminal complaints. Neighbors claimed the shots began around 11:30 p.m. and conitnued for about half an hour.

First reponse officials were forced to retreat twice upon hearing the gunshots and ever forced to call emergency response units. According to Minnetrista Public Safety Department Chief David Kold officers made several attempts to establish contact with the homeowners. Officials tried flashing car lights as well as using the public address system but to no avail. It is after these failed attempts that units from the Lake Area Emergerncy Response Team were called in. The LAEP is a police tactical unit made up of members from the cities of Orono, South Lake Minnetonka and Mound Minnessota. Upon arriving to the scene the LAEP used tear gas as well as pepper spray to draw Eggersgluss from the home. Police were also forced to call a state police helicopter to the scene under the impression they were facing a stand-off.


After arresting Eggersgluss police search the home and found two shotguns, a handgun in a cabinet, and a rifle with a silencer attached the barrel. Police also found 20 shotgun shells on the deck and one fired 9-mm cartridge casing. Upon further investigation Eggergluss was found to have had a blood alcohol level of 0.17 well above the legal limit of .10. Eggergluss later admited to consuming wine prior to the inicident. Kolb claims thas despite this alcohol was not a factor in the incident.

Officials later spoke with a 32-year old woman who also also resides in the home. She informed police that Eggersgluss came in worried about his chickens after firing off some shots to scare off raccoons. She told authorities he did this about 10 times.

Eggergluss claims he was firing at raccoons to protect is chicken coop. He told authorities that he fired his shotgun about 15 times and shot at raccoons ten times. He also claims that he was trying to train his dog by shooting at other wildlife including cayotes as well as a blue jays. He posted bail set a $20,00 and is to appear Monday afternoon in court at the Hennepin County District Court. No one was injured during the incident.


photo credit to:WN/ Aruna Mirasdar

souce: Star Tribune

Internet Crimes

In 2007 IC3 received at total of 2773 complaints from the state of Minnesota. The top ten complaints from Minnesota being: Auction Fraud, non-delivery of merchandise, check fraud, confidence fraud, credit card fraud, computer fraud, financial institutions fraud, Nigerian letter fraud, identity theft, and finally threats. The top dollar loss occurred in non-delivery of merchandise, and this cost the victim $448,040.00, while state losses all together were reported at $3.9 million. The median loss for each crime was: Auction Fraud: $506.00, Non-delivery: $386.00, Check fraud: $3,134.00, Confidence fraud: $1209.86, Credit card fraud: $210.40, Computer fraud: $2,000.00, Financial institutions fraud: $1858.00, Nigerian letter fraud: $3,000.00, Identity theft: $1,137.41, and Threats: $1,500. The total median dollar loss for all the complaints was $866.99. Of the crimes committed in Minnesota in 2007, males carried out 77.3%, while females carried out 22.7%. Per 100,000 population Minnesota ranks 38th highest at 16.95 while ranking 26th on total number of perpetrators identified as residing in Minnesota. This total accounts for 1.2% of all complaints where the perpetrator was identified. Of all the complaints in Minnesota, 56.7% of them were Male, and 43.3% of them were called in by females. Complaints called in by people under 20 made up 3.4% of all total complaints, while 20-29 year olds made up 22.2%, 30-39 year olds made up 23.6%, 40-49 year olds made up 24.5%, 50-59 year olds made up 17.9%, and people over 60 contributed with *.4% of the total complaints made in Minnesota in 2007. The amount of money lost per group, per complaint, looks like this: under 20 year olds lost $400.00, 20-29 year olds lost $525.98, 30-39 year olds lost $650.00, 40-49 year olds lost $1,200.00, 50-59 year olds lost $1,000.00, while 60 and older folks lost $930.00. Per 100,000 population Minnesota ranks 28th highest at 53.35 while also ranking 23rd on total number of complainants identified as residing in Minnesota. This total accounts for only 1.6% of all complainants in the United States.

Sources Used:

http://www.ic3.gov/media/annualreport/2007/Minnesota%202007%20Report.pdf

Controversial Legislation

The hunting of the Gray wolves has been a controversial topic in Minnesota for decades. Over hunting caused the species to be nearly extinct forcing the federal government to take action. Minnesota had to comply. In 1974, wolves in the lower 48 United States were listed as endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973. This listing gave complete protection to wolves in Minnesota, and prevented the state from managing wolves in any way that caused harm or death. Wolves in the northern United States have always been an issue for ranchers as packs of wolves have been known to attack rancher livestock. Should ranchers have the right to kill an endangered animal if their property, industry, and means of income are being vandalized by wolves? Protection from the Federal Endangered Species Act has successfully protected wolves in Minnesota giving Minnesota the highest population of Gray wolves to date. Current restrictions have been lifted allowing ranchers to kill any wolf harming agriculture or livestock as the Gray wolf is no longer an endangered species. Legislation regarding this animal have gone in circles in regards to its wildlife status.

On March 12, 2007, Minnesota's wolf population was removed from the federal endangered species list. Wolves were managed under State Statute, Rule and by the Minnesota wolf management plan.

On September 29, 2008, after 18 months of state wolf management, a federal district court ruling placed wolves back on the endangered species list.

May 4, 2009 -20In order to comply with the federal court ruling, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service submitted another federal rule in April 2009 to delist wolves in the Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment. Wolves in Minnesota were removed from the federal endangered species list and returned management authority to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

July 1, 2009 - The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agreed to a settlement that reversed the decision to delist gray wolves, returning Minnesota’s wolves to the "threatened" classification under the federal Endangered Species Act.

Solution: Make it illegal to kill any Gray wolf in the state of Minnesota. History repeats itself, don’t let this animal become extinct again, doing so would greatly affect the food chain and equilibrium of Mother Nature. Ranchers should realize that wolf aggression is natural to livestock and should let nature run its course. If it is allowed to kill wolves sparingly, whose to monitor which killing is just and unjust?

­­­­--------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At the height of the Vietnam War in the early 1970s, 29 states began lowering their drinking age to more closely align with the newly reduced military enlistment and voting age. And of those 29 states drinking ages varied from 18 to 20 and sometimes even varied based on the type of alcohol being consumed. Minnesota was one of these states. Traffic fatalities rose as did a ccidents on national highways. On July 17, 1984, President Reagan signed into law the Uniform Drinking Age Act mandating all states to adopt 21 as the legal drinking age within five years.

Opinion: Around the same time President Carter made it mandatory for men ages 18 to 25 to register for the selective service in regards to the United States military. If young adults can be drafted and possibly die for their country, they should be able consume alcohol. It’s that simple. Alcohol has been a cultural norm in society for generations and young adults will always find ways to get a hold of it. Don’t punish young adults for an unjust law, spend time and effort on more important laws.

source http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mammals/wolves/index.html

Minnesota Justice Research Statistics

The trend for violent crimes is decreasing:
Murder decreasing 1.8% from 111 in 2007 to 109 in 2008
Rape decreasing 2.9% from 2,341 in 2007 to 2292 in 2008
Robbery decreasing 11.7% from 4,695 in 2007 to 4,148 to 2008
Aggravated assault decreasing 6.7% from 8,081 in 2007 to 7,536 in 2008

The trend for property crimes is also decreasing:
Burglary decreasing 9.5% from 28,790 in 2007 to 26,063 in 2008
Theft/Larceny decreasing 1% from 111,216 in 2007 to 110,372 in 2008
Motor Vehicle Theft decreasing 18% from 12,179 in 2007 to 9,948 in 2008.
Larceny is the most frequent crime committed in Minnesota.

Three Questions for UCR Data:
1. If a man slips a date rape pill into his date’s drink, but doesn’t get the chance to rape what is this recorded as?
2. In self defense, if a man is shooting back at someone shooting at him and accidentally shoots a by stander, is it considered homicide?
3. If a garage is left open and a person walking by takes something from the open garage would this be a crime?
Three Questions for NCVS Data:
1. Has there been a recent crime at your school?
2. Have you been aware of someone who was in possession of a weapon?
3. Do you know of anyone that is in relation to a gang?
Three Questions for Self-Report Data:
1. Have you been threatened by a person with a weapon?
2. Has any of your property been stolen?
3. Has someone broken into your house while you were present, but did not harm you?

Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Minnesota Justice Information Services (2008): State of Minnesota Department of Public Safety. Uniform Crime Report, retrieved online from http://www.dps.state.mn.us/bca/CJIS/Documents/crime2008%5Cmci2008.pdf

Government does not provide free college & techinical education to all citizens

The higher education system is vitally important of American society.Our society has great expectations of higher education. We don't really look to other institutions as a resources for the future. Higher education jobs is not just to train students, but to contribute to and answer the questions we face about society,quality of life and health. One of the most important contributions that higher education makes to the nation as a whole is to foster economic growth.

On the run

The Star Tribune reported that two students at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota escaped with minor injuries after being assaulted by a group of five young men on bicycles. Prior to the assaults, a campus security guard indicated that the same men punched a woman who was walking near the campus. Shortly thereafter, a young man at a bus stop reported to have been assaulted by the same group of men after refusing to hand over his I pod to the group of men. Once more, another young man walking from his dorm apparently crossed the men, and when he refused to let them use his cell phone, the men punched him in the face and head. According to reports, none of the victims of the assaults were seriously injured nor were they linked in any way. A spokeswoman for Macalester College says the crimes are rather unusual for the neighborhood they occurred in, as it is known to be a quiet one. Thus far, there have been no arrests made.

With all of the information given in the article, these particular incidents could be considered as a combination of crimes of the rational choice and societal theory. The assaults are seemingly random acts of violence with no apparent motives other than wanting to display some sort of message through abuse. The offenders are aware of what they are doing, as they repeatedly act out the crimes. It’s quite possible that the group of men could feel unwanted or unequal upon society as a whole, thus initiating several attacks on complete strangers, some of whom would not turn over personal belongings. The message conveyed is, “Give me what I want, or suffer the consequence.”

If and when the offenders are arrested, there would certainly be plenty of reason and opportunity to utilize counseling and a highly resourceful program that would instill positive reinforcement. Dependent on whether or not the victims desire or have the ability to press charges, incarceration would perhaps be another way, if not the only way to get the offenders to account for their actions.

Complete Article: www.startribune.com

Picture of the State of Minnesota

http://cartophilia.com/blog/postcards/minnesota.jpg

Justice Ain't Free

For the state of Minnesota, the total justice system expenditure for 2006 was $2,643,347. With a break down that looks like this, 48.9% or $1,293,770 being spent on police protection, 23.1% or $610,777 being spent on Judicial and legal needs, and finally 27.9% or $738,800 being spent on corrections. The most money, obviously, was spent on police protection, and the reason for that would have to be because people like to feel they are safe where they live in Minnesota, or anywhere for that mater. If people think they can put more and more money into a police force and think by doing that that they are protected from the “bad guys” then they will do it that is why the most money was spent on police protection, because people want to feel safe. One way that could reduce police protection spending would be to maybe, say a busy highway is having speeding problems, but they want to put less officers out there to reduce spending, just park a police car on the shoulder of a busy highway and put dummies in it to make it look like the police are there, and people will slow down, problem solved for speeding, and no officer had to be paid to sit in the car and watch, it was free to just park the police car there. Another way to reduce police spending could be if the police station needs another working radio for dispatch,
or something of the sort, they could go to another police force and see if they have an extra one they could have, or see if they could get a deal on a good used one instead of going out and buying all new equipment, which has got to get expensive after a while. The last thing I could think of that would reduce police spending is if they need a new police cruiser, or a new K-9 truck, then go to the police impound lot and find cars that the police station owns there that would fit their needs, and turn those into police cars. That way it saves the police force the trouble and money of having to go out and buy a new car and pay the expenses of a new car and what not, that is some ways I believe Minnesota can cut their police protection costs down some, and save some money in the long run.

Mission Statements are for Everyone

Minnesota Department of Corrections
Website address:
http://www.corr.state.mn.us/

Mission Statement is
Our Mission:
To hold offenders accountable and offer opportunities for change while restoring justice for victims and contributing to a safer Minnesota.

Our Dedicated staff will accomplish this by:

Fostering community partnerships
Optimizing best practices
Creating a respectful diverse culture
Utilizing effective communication
Strategic and efficient use of resources

Our Vision is to FOCUS on reducing risk.

**The Minnesota Dept of corrections mission statement seems to utilize both the Rehabilitation prospective and the Restorative Justice Prospective. While the statement admits to the importance of holding offenders accountable, it also offers to want to constructively restore justice as well as offering chances for change while making Minnesota safer without much focus or emphasis on punishment and more on ways of using resources and ideas to better the community.**

Minnesota Department of Public Safety

Website address:
http://www.dps.state.mn.us/

Mission Statement
The Minnesota Department of Public Safety is committed to protecting citizens and communities through activities that promote and support prevention, preparedness, response, recovery, education, and enforcement. These objectives are achieved through a focus on saving lives, providing efficient and effective services, maintaining public trust, and developing strong partnerships.

Dept of public safety mission statement adheres to the Rehabilitation Prospective as it offers activities, education, and recovery as key elements of making the public aware of ways to protect themselves as well as their own community. The statement displays a more educational or structural way of dealing with safety as a whole, as it suggests that each program is dedicated to the utmost public safety.




Minnesota Judicial Branch

Website address: http://www.mncourts.gov/default.aspx

Mission Statement:
The purpose of the Minnesota Judicial Council is to govern the Judicial Branch through the establishment and monitoring of administrative policies designed to achieve an accessible, fair and timely system of justice statewide and to ensure that the Judicial Branch functions as an independent and accountable branch of government.

In support of this purpose, the Judicial Council will exercise administrative policy-making authority for, but not limited to, the following:
Development and implementation of the branch strategic plan;
Budget priorities, budget request, and submission of the Judicial Branch budget request to the executive and legislative branches;
Collective bargaining;
Human resources;
Technology;
Education and organizational development;
Finance, including budget distribution amongst levels of court and amongst districts;
Programs, including jury, Guardian ad Litem, interpreter, expedited child support, and Children’s Justice Initiative; and
Core services, court performance and accountability.

The Judicial Branch mission statement indicates a policy in favor of the due process prospective of justice as it wants the system to be fair and timely, but also effective and accountable.

"Cake" for Everyone!

"Cake" for everyone!
The First layer of the Criminal Justice “Wedding Cake” is the Celebrated Cases. These cases involve famous people and those who are in the media. They are focused on by the media and receive the full spectrum of criminal justice procedures. The Second layer is the Serious Felonies. These cases include rape, robbery, and burglaries. They are in the second layer because they are committed by experienced offenders and the offenders receive a full jury trial. The Third layer is the less serious felonies. They include crimes committed by first time offenders or by people who are interrelated with one another. The Fourth layer and the last layer are the misdemeanors. These include crimes such as shoplifting, public drunkenness, minor assault (battery), and disorderly conduct.

Layer One: Celebrated Crimes
Chargers line backer, Shawne Merriman, was arrested for choking and restraining his girlfriend, Tila Tequila. She signed a citizen’s arrest warrant, charging him with battery and false imprisonment, both of which are felonies. Merriman says that he was trying to protect her; he was only taking necessary precautions to keep her from driving drunk. He had a few witnesses that would testify that Merriman was doing no harm and acting in the right. Merriman and his attorney seem confident that he won’t be charged by the District Attorney’s Office. However, for his football career things aren’t looking as great, general manager, A.J. Smith is not happy with Merriman’s extracurricular activity and just might let him leave when he is eligible to become an unrestricted free agent.
Wilson, B (2009, September 06). Chargers lb merriman arrested in domestic call. Yahoo! Sports, Retrieved September 07, 2009, from http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-merrimanarrested&prov=ap&type=lgns
Layer Two: Serious Felonies
In St. Paul, Minnesota two groups of young adults, believed to be in their 20’s, were having separate gatherings in their yards. The first party was interrupted around 1:45 am by two men wearing sweatshirts with hoods and bandanas. One of these men had a gun and told everyone to keep their heads down and give them everything they had. The second get together was broken up around 2:45 am. However, this crowd was not so cooperative, there was confrontation and one of the men at the party was shot in the abdomen. He was rushed to the hospital as the robbers fled on foot. The two men are still on the loose, but there is a look out for them. The people of the neighborhood feel they are going to end up with more punishment then it was worth, they ended up taking five wallets, two cell phones, a pack of cigarettes, less than one hundred dollars, and some now-useless credit cards.
Meersman, Tom (2009, September 06). Startribune.com. Retrieved September 7, 2009, Web site: http://www.startribune.com/local/57609362.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUac8HEaDiaMDCinchO7DU

Layer Three: Less- Serious Felonies
Two men are facing felony charges for taking pictures of two half dressed teens in a bedroom. They then took the pictures and showed other students at their high school, this is how the two students found out that pictures had been taken of them. One of the boys was suspended from school for admitting he had taken the pictures the other is facing other charges for a crime he committed later in the year, the pictures, according to court papers, were taken in November of last year.
Powell, J (2009, September 02). Startribune.com. Retrieved September 7, 2009, Web site: http://www.startribune.com/local/south/56673902.html?elr=KArksU, UUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU

Layer Four: Misdemeanors
Kids were caught draping trees with toilet paper against the wishes of the homeowners. The kids were cited with a petty misdemeanor and face up to a $300 fine. The punishment is also in hopes to deal with the trashing and toilet papering that usually comes with the homecoming activities. Most homeowners understand that this is a “traditional” activity during homecoming week they laugh and clean up the small mess. However, others were taking it seriously and raged back at the kids.
Lange, C (2009, September 02). Kids caught tp'ing in rural kandiyohi county face up to $300 fine. Twin Cities, Retrieved September 07, 2009, from http://www.twincities.com/ci_13252113?IADID=Search-www.twincities.com-www.twincities.com

A Welcome Post

Welcome to the Minnesota Mystery Machine criminal justice blog! This blog will follow and explore the criminal justice system in the state of Minnesota as it relates to the integration of police officers, courts and corrections under the umbrella of CRJ104! This blog is maintained by a group of undergraduate students from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.