Group items tagged

While it is thus true that this office generally defers to a law enforcement agency's classification of an investigation as active, inactive, or closed, fully recognizing that we have no statutory authority to order the agency to close an investigation for open records purposes , we have had occasion to question an agency's reliance on KRS 61.878(1)(h) and KRS 17.150(2), and its classification of an investigation as open, where several years have elapsed and the agency fails to provide an adequate explanation or otherwise meet its statutory burden of proof. See, e.g., OAG 86-80 (eight years); OAG 90-143 (one and one-half years); 02-ORD-20 (ten years). In so doing, we were guided by the language found in KRS 17.150(3), echoed in KRS 61.878(1)(h), and the statement of legislative policy that appears at KRS 61.871, declaring that "free and open examination of public records is in the public interest" and that the referenced exceptions to public inspection must be "strictly construed" to promote the public's right to know. Underlying these decisions was the recognition that "[s]ecret police activity without some overriding justification is repugnant to the American system of government," OAG 80-54, p. 3, and that when an investigation has been inactive for an inordinate period of time, the public's interest in seeing an offender brought to justice may have to yield to the public's right to review the conduct of the police in discharging their statutory duties

While it is thus true that this office generally defers to a law enforcement agency's classification of an investigation as active, inactive, or closed, fully recognizing that we have no statutory authority to order the agency to close an investigation for open records purposes , we have had occasion to question an agency's reliance on KRS 61.878(1)(h) and KRS 17.150(2), and its classification of an investigation as open, where several years have elapsed and the agency fails to provide an adequate explanation or otherwise meet its statutory burden of proof. See, e.g., OAG 86-80 (eight years); OAG 90-143 (one and one-half years); 02-ORD-20 (ten years). In so doing, we were guided by the language found in KRS 17.150(3), echoed in KRS 61.878(1)(h), and the statement of legislative policy that appears at KRS 61.871, declaring that "free and open examination of public records is in the public interest" and that the referenced exceptions to public inspection must be "strictly construed" to promote the public's right to know. Underlying these decisions was the recognition that "[s]ecret police activity without some overriding justification is repugnant to the American system of government," OAG 80-54, p. 3, and that when an investigation has been inactive for an inordinate period of time, the public's interest in seeing an offender brought to justice may have to yield to the public's right to review the conduct of the police in discharging their statutory duties

6 - Chapter 1. Introduction  Chapter 2. Homicides and Clearance Rates - 7 ACCORDING TO THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION'S (FBI) Annual Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) for 2005, the number of homicides in the United States increased by 4.8 percent compared to 2004-the largest single-year increase for homicides in 14 years. And, for June 2006 the trend continued, with preliminary UCR data showing that homicide increased by 0.3 percent, with a much larger increase of 6.7 percent in cities with populations of 1 million or more. While the number of homicides in the U.S. has fluctuated since the 1960s, the number of homicides being solved has decreased in that time. Homicide clearance rates have decreased by approximately 30 percent since the 1960s.Despite this overall national decrease, however, some jurisdictions have maintained their ability to solve homicides at a high rate. This chapter provides an overview of homicide rates and clearance rates in the United States. It discusses the effect of unsolved homicides on the department and the community. This chapter also highlights trends affecting homicide investigations and investigative factors associated with cleared homicide cases. Strategies for improving homicide clearance rates are examined, as well. OVERVIEW OF HOMICIDE RATES AND CLEARANCE RATES Since 1930, the FBI has annually collected data on the number of crimes reported from more than 17,000 law enforcement agencies in the United 2 Homicides and Clearance Rates  States and the number of crimes that are cleared by an arrest. The FBI releases this information to the public through its UCRs. For the purposes of the UCR, a crime is considered cleared if at least one person has been 1. arrested, 2. charged with the crime, and 3. handed over to the courts for prosecution.1 The UCR also considers some cases cleared when certain "exceptional means" are met. For a case to be cleared by "exceptional means," the law enforcement agency must have identifi

6 - Chapter 1. Introduction  Chapter 2. Homicides and Clearance Rates - 7 ACCORDING TO THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION'S (FBI) Annual Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) for 2005, the number of homicides in the United States increased by 4.8 percent compared to 2004-the largest single-year increase for homicides in 14 years. And, for June 2006 the trend continued, with preliminary UCR data showing that homicide increased by 0.3 percent, with a much larger increase of 6.7 percent in cities with populations of 1 million or more. While the number of homicides in the U.S. has fluctuated since the 1960s, the number of homicides being solved has decreased in that time. Homicide clearance rates have decreased by approximately 30 percent since the 1960s.Despite this overall national decrease, however, some jurisdictions have maintained their ability to solve homicides at a high rate. This chapter provides an overview of homicide rates and clearance rates in the United States. It discusses the effect of unsolved homicides on the department and the community. This chapter also highlights trends affecting homicide investigations and investigative factors associated with cleared homicide cases. Strategies for improving homicide clearance rates are examined, as well. OVERVIEW OF HOMICIDE RATES AND CLEARANCE RATES Since 1930, the FBI has annually collected data on the number of crimes reported from more than 17,000 law enforcement agencies in the United 2 Homicides and Clearance Rates  States and the number of crimes that are cleared by an arrest. The FBI releases this information to the public through its UCRs. For the purposes of the UCR, a crime is considered cleared if at least one person has been 1. arrested, 2. charged with the crime, and 3. handed over to the courts for prosecution.1 The UCR also considers some cases cleared when certain "exceptional means" are met. For a case to be cleared by "exceptional means," the law enforcement agency must have identifi

Politics-Murky closing of Homicide Cases Homicide Clearance Exceptional Homicide Clearance

Politics-Murky closing of Homicide Cases Homicide Clearance Exceptional Homicide Clearance

Politics-Murky closing of Homicide Cases Homicide Clearance Exceptional Homicide Clearance

Legal Duties It is no reflection on either the breadth of the United States Constitution or the importance of traditional tort law to say that they do not address the same concerns.4 Thus, while negligence claims against a police officer or the department may be recognized under state law, the Supreme Court has held that simple negligence-or lack of due care-is insufficient to establish the violation of a federal constitutional right. These distinctions between state tort claims and federal constitutional tort claims can have a bearing on the different ways the courts treat allegations of policy violations. The basic formula for any lawsuit is 1) existence of a legal duty owed by one party to another, 2) an alleged breach of that duty, and 3) injury or loss resulting from that breach. Legal duties may arise in a variety of contexts, but most generally are established by custom, statute, or constitutional law. Whatever its source, a legal duty must be owed to the plaintiff by the named defendant in order for a civil suit to be viable. That being the case, a departmental policy must create a legal duty to a potential plaintiff before a violation of that policy can create liability. In reality, whether a policy violation is even relevant to the question of the legal liability of an officer or department depends to a large extent upon the nature of the claim and the forum in which it is brought. For example, policy violations in tort claims brought under state law alleging negligence will generally be treated differently than claims brought under federal law alleging violations of federal constitutional rights. The relevance of departmental policy also can depend upon whether a legal duty, or standard of conduct, is clearly delineated by law, or whether it is determined by reference to custom or practice.

This duty to accommodate is perfectly consistent with the well-established due process principle that, "within the limits of practicability, a State must afford to all individuals a meaningful opportunity to be heard" in its courts. Boddie, 401 U. S., at 379 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).20 Our cases have recognized a number of affirmative obligations that flow from this principle: the duty to waive filing fees in certain family-law and criminal cases,21 the duty to provide transcripts to criminal defendants seeking review of their convictions,22 and the duty to provide counsel to certain criminal defendants.23 Each of these cases makes clear that ordinary considerations of cost and convenience alone cannot justify a State's failure to provide individuals with a meaningful right of access to the courts. Judged against this backdrop, Title II's affirmative obligation to accommodate persons with disabilities in the administration of justice cannot be said to be "so out of proportion to a supposed remedial or preventive object that it cannot be understood as responsive to, or designed to prevent, unconstitutional behavior." Boerne, 521 U. S., at 532; Kimel, 528 U. S., at 86.24 It is, rather, a reasonable prophylactic measure, reasonably targeted to a legitimate end. For these reasons, we conclude that Title II, as it applies to the class of cases implicating the fundamental right of access to the courts, constitutes a valid exercise of Congress' §5 authority to enforce the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore affirmed.

Legal | Consumer | Child Support (DCS) | Other Government Legal Oregon Courts Oregon Revised Statutes Links Oregon Constitution Links Oregon Administrative Rules Oregon State Bar Association United States Courts Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals United States Supreme Court Consumer American Association of Retired Persons Better Business Bureau Construction Contractors Board Federal Communication Commission Federal Trade Commission Food & Drug Administration Securities and Exchange Commission Division of Child Support DCS Links Other Government United States Department of Justice United States Senate United States House of Representatives Oregon Legislature Oregon Governor State of Oregon |Back to Top

Legal | Consumer | Child Support (DCS) | Other Government Legal Oregon Courts Oregon Revised Statutes Links Oregon Constitution Links Oregon Administrative Rules Oregon State Bar Association United States Courts Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals United States Supreme Court Consumer American Association of Retired Persons Better Business Bureau Construction Contractors Board Federal Communication Commission Federal Trade Commission Food & Drug Administration Securities and Exchange Commission Division of Child Support DCS Links Other Government United States Department of Justice United States Senate United States House of Representatives Oregon Legislature Oregon Governor State of Oregon |Back to Top

In traditional justice systems, victimsof aggression have usually found support and assistance from their family, village or tribe. The informal social network softens the impact of victimization and assists the victim in recovery. This same network often assists in the resolution of the conflict and in ensuring that any decisions made are actually implemented. Within this context, it is taken for granted that the victim (and his or her kin), the victimizer (and his or her kin) and the entire social group will share the burden of dealing with the conflict.

III. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARDSummary judgment is proper if the moving party can demonstrate that there is no genuineissue of material fact and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In considering whether5genuine issues of material fact exist, the Court determines whether a reasonable jury could returna verdict for the nonmoving party in the face of all the evidence presented. The Court is required6to construe all facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

Civil Rights/Legal Assistance for the Disabled A disabled person has, by law, guaranteed rights to education, employment, health care and other public or private services that are federally funded. If you feel that a school, hospital or social service is violating these rights, write or call your regional Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services.

Section 3 establishes procedures for the court to dismiss or settle a whistleblower action under the TAF Model Bill and procedures for a whistleblower to be heard on the AttorneyGeneral's motions to dismiss or settle such an action. These provisions differ from the federal civil FCA, however, by (a) requiring only the written consent of the court, not the Attorney General, (b) requiring the court to take "the best interest of the parties involved and the public purposes behind this chapter" into account prior to granting a dismissal, and (c) granting whistleblowers additional rights in these proceedings. These additional requirements, rights, and evidentiary privileges could clearly be problematic in litigation involving pendent state claimsunder the federal civil FCA. Arguably, these provisions also interfere with the Attorney General's prosecutorial discretion and the separation of judicial and executive powers