Group items tagged

Most programs process claims through a staff centralized in one office in the state capital, but a few states have branch or regional offices or make use of locally based individuals in other agencies to perform preliminary work on applications, such as gathering documents. Typically, states request and analyze police reports to confirm that a crime took place and to determine whether the victim was involved in any illegal or contributory activity when victimized. Information from service providers like hospitals, doctors, counselors, and funeral homes, as well as employers if work loss is claimed, forms the basis for benefit determinations. Decision-making authority varies from state to state, with about a third of the states using part-time boards or commissions to determine eligibility and awards, and the rest authorizing full-time administrative staff (usually program directors) to make determinations. In three court-based programs, judges or court officials decide claims.

All of the programs are authorized to deny or reduce benefits to people who are injured while committing crimes or engaging in substantial misconduct contributing to their victimization. Programs rely primarily on police reports to make these determinations, and expend considerable effort to make careful and appropriate decisions on these issues. Five state compensation laws also authorize denial based on prior criminal activity unrelated to the current victimization. The eligibility of a victim's dependents or other secondary victims generally hinges on the eligibility of the "direct" victim (the one who suffered the injury or death). For example, if a homicide victim was engaged in criminal activity, the family generally would be ineligible for any benefits. Each state operates under its own law, rules, policies and procedures, and while all of the programs share broadly similar eligibility requirements, it's important for those accessing any program to check with the individual state to learn exactly how it operates.

Law Enforcement and Adult Protective Services Working Together: A Team Approach to Elder Abuse CasesAge in Action; Vol. 19 (3), Summer 2004.Journal article (scholarship)This article highlights the Central Virginia Task Force on Older Battered Women (OBW Task Force), a regional coalition of aging, domestic violence (DV), law enforcement, and legal services agencies dedicated to raising awareness of the needs of women who experience domestic violence/intimate partner violence and sexual assault in later life. Established in 1998, the project focuses on developing collaborative and interdisciplinary community responses to address violence against older women. A case study is presented from Henrico County that illustrates how adult protective services (APS) and the police department conducted a joint investigation of a sexual assault of a 65 year old assisted living facility resident. The following key elements for successful collaboration were identified: the need for all members to understand and respect the expertise and distinct role of each member; the need for investigators to attempt to conduct joint interviews whenever possible; and to the need to ensure that time and resources are shared effectively. (Note: This article is available online only at:   http://www.vcu.edu/vcoa/ageaction/AGEsu04.htm.) 2003 P5623-25Heisler, C. & Stiegel Enhancing the Justice System's Response to Elder Abuse: Discussions and Recommendations of the "Improving Prosecution" Working Group of The National Policy Summit on Elder Abuse Journal of Elder Abuse and Neglect; Vol. 14 (4), 31-54; 2002.**Journal article (scholarship)This article elaborates upon two of the recommendations identified through the "Improving Prosecution" working group session of the National Policy Summit on Elder Abuse (December 2001, Washington, D.C.): "improving the legal landscape by strengthening elder abuse laws" and "increasing awareness within the justice system." The following topics were considered: the role of the federal and state governments in increasing elder abuse reporting and enhancing prosecution; the need for expert witnesses, support, and technical assistance; the identification of barriers to accessing the criminal justice system; the improvement of outcomes in criminal cases; and the need for training of law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, coroners, court personnel, and advocates. The authors also provide a historical perspective on the response of the criminal justice system to elder abuse, which was initially minimal, based in part upon the underreporting of the problem. P5404-88* Johnson, K., for the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS

29 NATIONAL PROSECUTION STANDARDS, (2 nd ed. 1991), Standard 26.7, p. 94. 30 NATIONAL PROSECUTION STANDARDS, (2 nd ed. 1991), Standard 26.3, p. 93. 31 See NATIONAL PROSECUTION STANDARDS, (2 nd ed. 1991), Standard 26.7, p.92

Plaintiffs Teri and Thomas Lewis, Philip Lewis's parents, filed suit in Sacramento County Superior Court against Sacramento County, the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department, and Officer Smith. The Lewises allege a deprivation of their son's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. S 1983 and wrongful death under California state law. Defendants removed the case to federal court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction and moved for summary judgment on various grounds

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants on the S 1983 claims. The court also granted summary judgment in favor of Smith as to the state causes of action. The court denied summary judgment as to the pendent state law causes of action against the County and the Sheriff's department, dismissing those claims without prejudice. The district court's decisions are summarized below.

We review de novo the district court's grant of summary judgment. We must determine, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law. We do not weigh the evidence or determine the truth of the matter but only determine whether there is a genuine issue of fact for trial. Jesinger, 24 F.3d at 1130

We pause to recall our standard of review. We review the denial of a motion to suppress for errors of law, deferring to the trial court's findings of historical fact when there is evidence in the record to support them. Ehly, 317 Or at 75.

The democracy conundrum The most appealing justification of standing law is that, in preserving the separation of powers, it protects the majoritarian political process from undue intrusion by the unelected judiciary. But not all issues are amenable to the political process. All too often, the inevitable consequence of a decision denying standing is "that the most injurious and widespread Governmental actions c[an] be questioned by nobody." n60 In those cases, standing law undermines the notion of accountability that supports a constitutional system premised on the rule of law. In Sections VI C and D, I propose a means of recapturing these values.