New Blog by Mark W. Falzini, Archivist for the New Jersey State Police.
The site will have articles about the history of the State Police and the Lindbergh Kidnapping.
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Leadership
"In matters of style swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock."
Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson
Saturday, November 04, 2006
Liberty
"Freedom is a light for which many men have died in darkness"
"The independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint councils and joint efforts of common dangers, suffering and success" (Washington Farewell Address, Sept. 17, 1796)
"The independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint councils and joint efforts of common dangers, suffering and success" (Washington Farewell Address, Sept. 17, 1796)
Friday, June 16, 2006
Police Intrusion for Evidence Allowed
Police who enter a home illegally without knocking and find incriminating evidence can use it in a trial, the U.S. Supreme Court declared Thursday, carving an important exception in the 45-year-old rule that keeps unlawfully seized evidence out of court.
In a 5-4 ruling, with new Justice Samuel Alito casting a crucial vote, the court said police intrusions on residential privacy are adequately restrained by several factors -- including "the increasing professionalism of police forces'' -- without suppressing evidence that is obtained with a search warrant.
The reasons for requiring police to knock on the door, announce their presence and wait a reasonable period before entering "do not include the shielding of potential evidence from the government's eyes,'' Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion.
Those requirements -- part of English law since the 13th century, enacted as a U.S. statute in 1917 and declared a constitutional standard by the court in 1995 -- remain intact, Scalia said. But dissenters said the rule was now toothless.
"The court destroys the strongest legal incentive to comply with the Constitution's knock-and-announce requirement,'' said Justice Stephen Breyer. "Officers will always know ... that they can ignore the knock-and-announce requirement without risking the suppression of evidence discovered after their unlawful entry.''
The case reflected the importance of President Bush's appointment of Alito to succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who retired in January. No ruling was issued before she left, and with the court evidently deadlocked 4-4, the case was reargued after Alito was seated.
The ruling upheld the conviction of Booker Hudson of Detroit for possessing cocaine and a loaded gun that police found in his home in 1998. Officers went to the home with a warrant, announced their presence and waited three to five seconds before entering.
Past rulings have required police to wait at least 15 to 20 seconds before entering, allowing immediate entry only when officers have reason to fear that announcing their presence or waiting would lead to violence or the destruction of evidence.
A number of states, not including California, authorize search warrants that excuse police from knocking before entering if they convince a judge that announcing their presence would be dangerous.
The court said police entered Hudson's home too quickly but could nonetheless use the drugs and gun as evidence, because the warrant authorized them to take those items. Scalia said the purposes of the knock-and-announce requirement -- to avoid the indignities or potential violence that might result from a sudden entrance -- were unrelated to the seizure of the evidence against Hudson and would not be promoted if the evidence was suppressed.
Wayne State University law Professor David Moran, who represented Hudson before the court, said the same rationale could allow evidence from searches that violate the terms of a warrant -- for example, nighttime searches with warrants that specify daytime entries, or searches after a warrant has expired.
He also said a portion of the ruling signed by Scalia and three other justices, one short of a majority, "calls into question the legitimacy of Mapp,'' the historic 1961 ruling that barred evidence seized in searches that violate constitutional standards.
That ruling, which aimed to deter police lawbreaking, has been scaled back by more conservative majorities in subsequent cases, most notably a 1984 ruling that allowed evidence from illegal searches that were conducted in good faith.
Scalia said much has changed since 1961, including the availability of new types of civil damage suits and increasing evidence that "police forces across the United States take the constitutional rights of citizens seriously,'' reducing the need to suppress evidence.
But Moran said civil suits are meaningless -- most are dismissed because of government immunity, and no one has gotten more than $1 in token damages in the past 30 years, according to his research. And he said improvements in police training were a direct result of the 1961 ruling.
But Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in Sacramento, which filed arguments supporting the Michigan prosecutors, said those predictions are unfounded. He said the ruling indicates only that "the court is not inclined to expand rules suppressing evidence'' and does not foreshadow a major rollback.
Dave LaBahn, executive director of the California District Attorneys Association, predicted that police in California still will knock before they enter. "It is a good officer safety procedure,'' he said.
The case is Hudson vs. Michigan, 04-1360. E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.
In a 5-4 ruling, with new Justice Samuel Alito casting a crucial vote, the court said police intrusions on residential privacy are adequately restrained by several factors -- including "the increasing professionalism of police forces'' -- without suppressing evidence that is obtained with a search warrant.
The reasons for requiring police to knock on the door, announce their presence and wait a reasonable period before entering "do not include the shielding of potential evidence from the government's eyes,'' Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion.
Those requirements -- part of English law since the 13th century, enacted as a U.S. statute in 1917 and declared a constitutional standard by the court in 1995 -- remain intact, Scalia said. But dissenters said the rule was now toothless.
"The court destroys the strongest legal incentive to comply with the Constitution's knock-and-announce requirement,'' said Justice Stephen Breyer. "Officers will always know ... that they can ignore the knock-and-announce requirement without risking the suppression of evidence discovered after their unlawful entry.''
The case reflected the importance of President Bush's appointment of Alito to succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who retired in January. No ruling was issued before she left, and with the court evidently deadlocked 4-4, the case was reargued after Alito was seated.
The ruling upheld the conviction of Booker Hudson of Detroit for possessing cocaine and a loaded gun that police found in his home in 1998. Officers went to the home with a warrant, announced their presence and waited three to five seconds before entering.
Past rulings have required police to wait at least 15 to 20 seconds before entering, allowing immediate entry only when officers have reason to fear that announcing their presence or waiting would lead to violence or the destruction of evidence.
A number of states, not including California, authorize search warrants that excuse police from knocking before entering if they convince a judge that announcing their presence would be dangerous.
The court said police entered Hudson's home too quickly but could nonetheless use the drugs and gun as evidence, because the warrant authorized them to take those items. Scalia said the purposes of the knock-and-announce requirement -- to avoid the indignities or potential violence that might result from a sudden entrance -- were unrelated to the seizure of the evidence against Hudson and would not be promoted if the evidence was suppressed.
Wayne State University law Professor David Moran, who represented Hudson before the court, said the same rationale could allow evidence from searches that violate the terms of a warrant -- for example, nighttime searches with warrants that specify daytime entries, or searches after a warrant has expired.
He also said a portion of the ruling signed by Scalia and three other justices, one short of a majority, "calls into question the legitimacy of Mapp,'' the historic 1961 ruling that barred evidence seized in searches that violate constitutional standards.
That ruling, which aimed to deter police lawbreaking, has been scaled back by more conservative majorities in subsequent cases, most notably a 1984 ruling that allowed evidence from illegal searches that were conducted in good faith.
Scalia said much has changed since 1961, including the availability of new types of civil damage suits and increasing evidence that "police forces across the United States take the constitutional rights of citizens seriously,'' reducing the need to suppress evidence.
But Moran said civil suits are meaningless -- most are dismissed because of government immunity, and no one has gotten more than $1 in token damages in the past 30 years, according to his research. And he said improvements in police training were a direct result of the 1961 ruling.
But Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in Sacramento, which filed arguments supporting the Michigan prosecutors, said those predictions are unfounded. He said the ruling indicates only that "the court is not inclined to expand rules suppressing evidence'' and does not foreshadow a major rollback.
Dave LaBahn, executive director of the California District Attorneys Association, predicted that police in California still will knock before they enter. "It is a good officer safety procedure,'' he said.
The case is Hudson vs. Michigan, 04-1360. E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
National Guard's Deployment
CBP Border Patrol Chief David V. Aguilar and Lt. Gen. H. Steven Blum, Chief, National Guard Bureau, hosted an operational news conference Monday to discuss the National Guard's deployment to the southern border in support of the Border Patrol.
To read more go to link on this page. (US Customs and Boarder Protection)
To read more go to link on this page. (US Customs and Boarder Protection)
Sunday, June 04, 2006
Concepts of Leadership about knowledge
Knowledge is information that changes something or somebody -- either by becoming grounds for actions, or by making an individual (or an institution) capable of different or more effective action." -- Peter F. Drucker in The New RealitiesAchterbergh & Vriens (2002) further write that the function has two main parts. First, it serves as a background for the assessment of signals, which in turn, allows the performance of actions. As to the first part, they write, "To determine whether a signal is informative, an observer has to "attach meaning to it," e.g., to perceive and interpret it. Once perceived and interpreted the observer may evaluate whether the signal is informative and whether action is required."
And secondly, "The role of knowledge in generating appropriate actions is that it serves as a background for articulating possible courses of action (articulation), for judging whether courses of action will yield the intended result and for using this judgement in selecting among them (selection), for deciding how actions should be implemented and for actually implementing actions (implementation)."
And secondly, "The role of knowledge in generating appropriate actions is that it serves as a background for articulating possible courses of action (articulation), for judging whether courses of action will yield the intended result and for using this judgement in selecting among them (selection), for deciding how actions should be implemented and for actually implementing actions (implementation)."
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Anthrax
What Is Anthrax?
Anthrax is a serious disease caused by Bacillus anthracis, a bacterium that forms spores. A bacterium is a very small organism made up of one cell. Many bacteria can cause disease. A spore is a cell that is dormant (asleep) but may come to life with the right conditions.
There are three types of anthrax:
skin (cutaneous)
lungs (inhalation)
digestive (gastrointestinal)
How Do You Get It?
Anthrax is not known to spread from one person to another.
Anthrax from animals. Humans can become infected with anthrax by handling products from infected animals or by breathing in anthrax spores from infected animal products (like wool, for example). People also can become infected with gastrointestinal anthrax by eating undercooked meat from infected animals.
Anthrax as a weapon. Anthrax also can be used as a weapon. This happened in the United States in 2001. Anthrax was deliberately spread through the postal system by sending letters with powder containing anthrax. This caused 22 cases of anthrax infection.
How Dangerous Is Anthrax?
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention classifies agents with recognized bioterrorism potential into three priority areas (A, B and C). Anthrax is classified as a Category A agent. Category A agents are those that:
pose the greatest possible threat for a bad effect on public health
may spread across a large area or need public awareness
need a great deal of planning to protect the public’s health
In most cases, early treatment with antibiotics can cure cutaneous anthrax. Even if untreated, 80 percent of people who become infected with cutaneous anthrax do not die. Gastrointestinal anthrax is more serious because between one-fourth and more than half of cases lead to death. Inhalation anthrax is much more severe. In 2001, about half of the cases of inhalation anthrax ended in death. For additional information follow the link.
Source: The Center for Disease Control and Prevention
Anthrax is a serious disease caused by Bacillus anthracis, a bacterium that forms spores. A bacterium is a very small organism made up of one cell. Many bacteria can cause disease. A spore is a cell that is dormant (asleep) but may come to life with the right conditions.
There are three types of anthrax:
skin (cutaneous)
lungs (inhalation)
digestive (gastrointestinal)
How Do You Get It?
Anthrax is not known to spread from one person to another.
Anthrax from animals. Humans can become infected with anthrax by handling products from infected animals or by breathing in anthrax spores from infected animal products (like wool, for example). People also can become infected with gastrointestinal anthrax by eating undercooked meat from infected animals.
Anthrax as a weapon. Anthrax also can be used as a weapon. This happened in the United States in 2001. Anthrax was deliberately spread through the postal system by sending letters with powder containing anthrax. This caused 22 cases of anthrax infection.
How Dangerous Is Anthrax?
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention classifies agents with recognized bioterrorism potential into three priority areas (A, B and C). Anthrax is classified as a Category A agent. Category A agents are those that:
pose the greatest possible threat for a bad effect on public health
may spread across a large area or need public awareness
need a great deal of planning to protect the public’s health
In most cases, early treatment with antibiotics can cure cutaneous anthrax. Even if untreated, 80 percent of people who become infected with cutaneous anthrax do not die. Gastrointestinal anthrax is more serious because between one-fourth and more than half of cases lead to death. Inhalation anthrax is much more severe. In 2001, about half of the cases of inhalation anthrax ended in death. For additional information follow the link.
Source: The Center for Disease Control and Prevention
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Worldwide Incidents Tracking System
This site allow the view to search ALL Incidents relating to Terrorism throughout the world. Including the United States.
This Site is part of the Counterterrorism link contained on this page.
This Site is part of the Counterterrorism link contained on this page.
Saturday, September 24, 2005
National Preparedness Month
National Preparedness Month: September 2005Cosponsored by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the American Red Cross, National Preparedness Month is a nationwide effort to encourage Americans to prepare for emergencies in their homes, businesses, and schools. More information is available online
Saturday, August 06, 2005
Roll Call
Upon graduation from the Police Academy Officers take the following oath:
I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the
United States and that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the
same; and do further solemnly swear that I will support the
government established in this state of New Jersey, under authority
of the people, and that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
and do further solemnly swear that I will faithfully, impartially and
justly perform all the duties of the Police in the
interests of all the people according to the Best of my ability, so help me God.
Lets revisit our oath and actively perform our duties.
"Be a cop, lock up a bad guy"
Upon graduation from the Police Academy Officers take the following oath:
I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the
United States and that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the
same; and do further solemnly swear that I will support the
government established in this state of New Jersey, under authority
of the people, and that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
and do further solemnly swear that I will faithfully, impartially and
justly perform all the duties of the Police in the
interests of all the people according to the Best of my ability, so help me God.
Lets revisit our oath and actively perform our duties.
"Be a cop, lock up a bad guy"
Saturday, July 30, 2005
The Homeland Security Summit
October 12–14, 2005 in Arlington, VirginiaThe Homeland Security Summit will discuss the national initiatives of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, including the National Response Plan (NRP), the National Incident Management System (NIMS), the Interim National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP), and National Preparedness Goals (NPG). Session topics will include emergency planning and preparedness, critical infrastructure protection, crisis communications and systems integration, and incident management and command systems.
Online registration is available.
Online registration is available.
Thursday, July 28, 2005
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Thomas Edison State College
Thomas Edison State College Degree in Human Services: Specialization in Administration of Justice. Click on link and scroll down to Administration of Justice to see the course content. You can get all the information you need from this site. You can fill out the application online.
Monday, July 18, 2005
Roll Call
Circumstances that would justify a "Terry-Frisk
Circumstances that would justify a "Terry-Frisk
Some of the Below Listed Factors might justify a "Terry Frisk" in and of themselves. You should be able to articulate each factor that leads you to perform a frisk. Remember that a "Terry Frisk" is for Weapons. The reason for the pat down is for your safety, with the belief that there might be a weapon.
1. Hour of the stop- very late or very early. (Night time stop)
2.The absence of other traffic in the area leading to the isolation of the officer/trooper.
3.Knowledge that the area of the stop is a heightened crime area.
4.Highly erratic driving prior to the stop.
5.Additional evasive action on the part of the motorist, such as an unreasonable delay in stopping his vehicle upon being signaled to do so by the officer/trooper.
6.Other evasive action on the part of the driver or a passenger, including a full, unobstructed view of the driver or a passenger reaching under the seat in an attempt to grab something or hide something: ie, a "very pronounced" threatening gesture.
7.The occupants of the vehicle outnumbering the officer(s) present.
8.The plain-view observation of a weapon, ammunition or holster.
observing a large/suspicious bulge.
9.Absence of a driver’s license or satisfactory identification, either for the motorist or vehicle.
10.Lying to the police, for example, lying about a furtive movement.
11.Prior knowledge that the driver/occupant is armed.
12.Prior knowledge that the driver/occupant is a substantial dealer in narcotics.
13.Presence of other incriminating information about the driver/occupant.
14.The affirmative, reasonable statement by the investigation officer/trooper that he feared he was in danger.
*This is a guide. Each circumstance is unique. Being able to articulate these factors is crucial in validating your frisk.*
Friday, July 15, 2005
Federal Bureau of Investigation
The FBI's counterterrorism Website. Excellent site. There are many links to Terrorism information, statistics and many different publications.
Gang -Related Legislation by State:
Log into this site by state and see Gang-related Statutes for that state
Thursday, July 14, 2005
ROLL CALL: SAFETY ALERT
Officer Safety alert. Belt buckle knife. Video demonstrates its concealment ability. Takes about 2 minutes to download.
FBI's Crime Scene Search Handbook
The FBI's Crime Scene Search Handbook is now in the link section on this site.
Monday, July 11, 2005
Immunities Enjoyed by Law Enforcement Personnel
Immunities that are enjoyed by Police Officers. In New Jersey they enjoy absolute immunity, absent, "Willful Misconduct." However, ALL Police Officers should go by the "Good Faith Doctrine" which is Qualified Immunity. This is at the Federal Level, and applies to all. Basically, if you were acting in "Good Faith" you are covered. Again, in Jersey you have absolute, but you must meet the criteria for Qualified at the Federal Level, to be fully covered from Federal Law suits.
Absolute Immunity. Tice v. Cramer, NJ supr, 133 N.J. 347 (1993)
New Jersey Statute that provides this immunity:
N.J.S. 59:5-2 providing immunity to Law Enforcement
Qualified Immunity. Sacramento v. Lewis 523 U.S. 833 (1998)
Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 494-95 (1991)
Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1996)
Romero v. Kitsap County, 931 F.2d 624, 627 (9th Cir. 1991)
Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985)
These immunities pertain to pursuits as well as any other law enforcement action that is undertaken.
Absolute Immunity. Tice v. Cramer, NJ supr, 133 N.J. 347 (1993)
New Jersey Statute that provides this immunity:
N.J.S. 59:5-2 providing immunity to Law Enforcement
Qualified Immunity. Sacramento v. Lewis 523 U.S. 833 (1998)
Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 494-95 (1991)
Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1996)
Romero v. Kitsap County, 931 F.2d 624, 627 (9th Cir. 1991)
Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985)
These immunities pertain to pursuits as well as any other law enforcement action that is undertaken.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)