MSPOA 30 Gun Raffle
Tickets are $50 each and can be purchased November 2011 - June 2012.
To purchase a raffle ticket or get more information, please contact an MSPOA Board Member or call the MSPOA Office at (406) 443-5669. |
|
"The trouble with the law these days is that criminals know their rights better than their wrongs."
~ Author Unknown |
|
U.S. SUPREME COURT
VISUAL STRIP SEARCHES AT JAIL INTAKE OF PERSONS BEING PLACED IN GENERAL POPULATION NEED NOT BE SUPPORTED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION
March 2012
by Jack Ryan, Attorney
In Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington [i] the United States Supreme Court examined whether or not jails can strip search all persons to be booked into general population, no matter how minor the offense, and without reasonable suspicion to believe they were hiding contraband or weapons. The Court’s syllabus outlined the facts relating to the strip searches of Florence as follows:
In 1998, seven years before the incidents at issue, petitioner Albert Florence was arrested after fleeing from police officers in Essex County, New Jersey. He was charged with obstruction of justice and use of a deadly weapon. Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to two lesser offenses and was sentenced to pay a fine in monthly installments. In 2003, after he fell behind on his payments and failed to appear at an enforcement hearing, a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. He paid the outstanding balance less than a week later; but, for some unexplained reason, the warrant remained in a statewide computer database.
Two years later, in Burlington County, New Jersey, petitioner and his wife were stopped in their automobile by a state trooper. Based on the outstanding warrant in the computer system, the officer arrested petitioner and took him to the Burlington County Detention Center. He was held there for six days and then was transferred to the Essex County Correctional Facility. It is not the arrest or confinement but the search process at each jail that gives rise to the claims before the Court.
Read the entire article
REESTABLISHING SCHEDULED INSPECTIONS/AUDITS OF POLICE HIGH RISK, HIGH LIABILITY TASKS
April 2012
by Lou Reiter
Police organizations used to advocate regular staff inspections of various agency operations. [i] That was considered to be a sign of a professional organization. Somewhere in the ensuing years that practice seems to have been lost. We need to reinstitute this practice and focus it towards the high risk, high liability aspects of our job. That's not only being professional; it's being wise with today's increased litigation potential.
As a police agency you need to focus on those aspects of your operations that present the most significant potential of risk. These need to be conducted at a minimum of at least once each year. Each agency is a little bit different as tasks vary. The next step is to identify the frequency for these types of inspections/audits and who will be assigned the task. A significant step is how to effectively and efficiently conduct a reasonable inspection/audit of the specific high risk, high liability task. The personnel responsible for the function of the unit should never do these audits. Conducting this form of inspection/audit is designed to ensure that our personnel perform these tasks properly and either eliminate or reduce the potential for liability. However, we can never ensure that mistakes won't happen or some personnel members won't consciously circumvent proper procedure. Conducting these types of inspections/audits on a regular schedule and documenting your conduct usually will, at least, insulate the agency and supervisors from liability.
Lets take a look at just four (4) of these high risk, high liability tasks and briefly discuss how you could conduct an inspection/audit of each task: (1) special operations units; (2) property and evidence; (3) booking intake; and (4) IA/OPS functions.
Read the entire article
Copyright
© Montana Sheriffs & Peace Officers Association
&
|
 |
