Articles Posted in Criminal

KNOCK AND TALK: A TACTIC POLICE USE TO BYPASS THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT

It’s the middle of the night. Someone is banging on your door yelling for you to open the door. Whoever it is does not identify himself and you do not recognize the voice. The adrenaline rushing, you grab the gun in your safe and cautiously open your front door with your gun in hand but pointed safely towards the floor. Just before you are shot dead, you see it was the police banging at your door. Sounds outrageous but that is exactly what happened to a Florida man, Andrew Scott, who committed no crime. In fact, the police were investigating a crime that had nothing to do with Mr. Scott. Accounts of the incident vary but Mr. Scott’s girlfriend, who witnessed the incident said Mr. Scott never even raised his gun and was retreating from the front door right before he was shot.

Now this incident, unfortunate though it was, was an isolated incident. The police tactic, known as “Knock and Talk” is an investigative tool used when the police have no search warrant but believe there is reason to search a residence so they knock and “request” to search the residence. While police often use this tactic, they usually don’t kill someone in the process but you can see how it could quickly escalate into a dangerous situation. The police don’t normally politely knock on your door and politely ask if they may search your premises. Polite requests are easy to decline. Rather, the police typically intimidate the resident by banging on the front door and staging a threatening presence, sometimes with many officers, guns drawn and sometimes even in SWAT gear as happened in a Michigan case over the dangerous crime of …. marijuana butter.

Our system of justice is designed to be impartial and fair. But judges and juries are not robots. In any criminal case, the judge and jury will not only view the evidence with neutral eyes and ears but will also rely on “soft” skills such as intuition and biases. A perfect example of this is during the sentencing phase. When a defendant is convicted of a crime, the sentence he or she receives depends—perhaps too much—on the perceived remorse of the defendant.

We like to think that we are good at detecting the heart and minds of others. When an offender is convicted of a crime he or she will often be called upon to make a statement during sentencing. This is the opportunity for the now guilty offender to offer contrition and remorse. It is not uncommon to hear a judge or juror opine after such a statement that he or she didn’t believe the offender really meant it — that the statement was merely used as an opportunity. And, that may be true. But can the judge or juror, even when tasked with this awesome responsibility, reliably infer the offender’s true motives and emotions?

There is a well-known study called “mind in the eyes” —you may be familiar with this study. Scientists showed study participants various photographs of a pair of human eyes. The study participant was then asked to pick the mental state or attitude that best matched what the eyes expressed. The participant was given a list to choose from such arrogance, annoyed, upset, or worried. Supposedly the test determines how well a person can read the emotions of others simply by looking at (or some would say “in”) their eyes. Another way of putting this is that we intuit the emotions and mental state of others from what their eyes are “telling” us.

DEPORTABLE CRIMES

With immigration a big topic in the news, many are confused about who exactly can be deported from the United States. It goes without saying that someone who is in the US without going through the proper channels, i.e., no visa allowing entry (undocumented), can be deported in most instances. Exceptions might be made on humanitarian grounds for example for asylum seekers and people who were born in another country but brought to the U.S. as children.

This post is about those who can be deported even though they are in the U.S. legally, whether on a visa, a resident alien, or categorized as an asylum seeker waiting approval or those who have been allowed to stay pending review of their particular case.

CRIME RATES REMAIN STABLE THROUGH CALIFORNIA’S POLICY REFORM ERA

In 2011 the Public Safety Realignment Bill became law in California. This legislation was designed to stem the “revolving door” of non-violent criminals in the state prisons. Realignment, as it is commonly called, was in response to the severe overcrowding in California’s prisons and mandated by requirements set by the federal court. It resulted in major changes in the state’s criminal justice system is administered.

Essentially, realignment provided for offenders convicted of certain non-violent, non-serious crimes would serve their sentence in county facilities rather than the state prison system. It sounds as though the bill just off-loaded low-level felons from the state to the counties and in many respects, that is true. But Realignment is also focused on a reduction in recidivism and has provisions that allow house arrest and other alternative sentencing schemes.

Researchers have discovered a there is a genetic link between personality and mental illness. As one of the researchers explained: “Mental illnesses can be viewed as maladaptive or extreme variants of personality traits.” The researchers studied the genetic profiles of 260,000 people focusing on the five long-established personality traits (extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, openness to experience and conscientiousness) that are considered the basic categories of personality. What the researchers found was that these personality dimensions when identified on a person’s genome map (yes, there are “personality genes”) strongly correlated to gene variations that predicted various mental illnesses.

Now you might say, “What’s new?” It is observable in our everyday life that people we know who have, for example, a neurotic personality also tend to have anxiety disorders and depression. These links between personality and mental illness have long been observed and studied. What this study reveals however is that there is a genetic link; in other words, it’s not all nurture. The researchers theorize that the personality a person is born with may tip over into mental illness when pushed to extremes by life experiences.

This field of research, which is sure to eventually unlock the keys to mental illness, is a potential minefield in terms of the criminal justice system. It would not be a stretch to say that many criminals are born. In other words, a criminal is born with a certain personality type—as are we all— but the criminal personality is one susceptible to the risk of mental illnesses, such as antisocial disorders or psychopathy. Indeed, it is estimated that more than half of all incarcerated criminals have some kind of mental illness. (Removing the large numbers of persons incarcerated for victimless crimes would increase that percentage substantially.)

On November 8, 2016, California voters passed Proposition 57, The Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 201, by an overwhelming majority of 64%. This proposition contained two key provisions:

1) It makes certain non-violent felons eligible for immediate parole and

2) It requires a court hearing before a juvenile can be tried in adult court.

NEW CALIFORNIA LAW PULLS IN THE REINS ON LAW ENFORCEMENT’S SEIZING OF PROPERTY

You have probably heard of civil asset forfeiture but did you know that under this procedure law enforcement can confiscate property—be it money, a house, a vehicle, or any other asset—without any due process to the owner of the property. The property can simply be seized under civil asset forfeiture laws on the “suspicion” that the asset was gained by or used for a criminal enterprise.

While the owner of the asset can petition for the return of asset, the petition must be filed within a very short period of time and the process is daunting. In the end, the government can refuse to return the asset on the continuing suspicion that the asset is connected with criminal activity. And guess what: Even if the owner of the asset is never convicted of any crime as it relates to the suspected criminal activity for which the asset was seized, the asset is not returned to the owner.