- 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
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
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
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 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.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
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 .
Monday, October 19, 2009
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.
Source:
Siegel, L. J. (2008). Police and the Rule of Law: Interrogation. Introduction to Criminal Justice (Twelfth ed. , pp. 339-340). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
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:
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
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.
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
- 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
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Photo: Female police chief
Photo by: by PETER MASA The Tampa TribuneThis 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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)