Skip to main content

Home/ Riverside County Crime Victims/ Group items tagged reference

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Nye Frank

New York Supreme Court Criminal Term Library - Powered By Bloglines - 0 views

www.bloglines.com/...PLL

supreme court victims laws felons

shared by Nye Frank on 24 Jul 09 - Cached
  • Nye Frank on 24 Jul 09
     
    A5628 Townsend (MS) -- Prohibits reduction of felony charge where the victim of the felony was 65 years or older SUMM : Amd SS180.50 & 180.70, CP L Prohibits the reduction of a felony charge where there is reasonable cause to believe the defendant committed a felony in addition to a non-felony offense and where there is reasonable cause to believe the defendant committed such felony against a victim who was 65 years of age or older at the time of such offense. Criminal Sanction Impact. 02/21/07 referred to codes LAW / CRIM-PROC A5630 Walker (MS) -- Permits denial of bail or release in certain cases involving dangerous crimes or to protect jurors, witnesses or evidence; repealer SUMM : Rpld & add S530.10 & S530.30 sub 1, amd CP L, generally Permits a judicial officer on application of a prosecuting attorney to deny bail or pretrial release to certain persons accused of dangerous crimes or to release such persons on condition in certain circumstances; further permits denial of bail or pretrial release of persons accused of a crime when necessary to protect trial witnesses, jurors or evidence; permits the post trial detention or release on condition of persons convicted of a dangerous crime awaiting sentence or the decision of an appeal. Criminal Sanction Impact. 02/21/07 referred to codes LAW / CRIM-PROC A5633 Wright -- Relates to bias related criminal activity SUMM : Add Art 491 S491.00, Pen L; amd S720.10, CP L Proscribes conduct constituting a bias related crime, meaning for such purposes, the commission of a designated act that demonstrates a prejudice based on the race, color, religion, national origin, age, ethnicity, disability, gender or sexual orientation of the victim, and denies the granting of youthful offender status for any offender committing such a crime. Criminal Sanction Impact. 02/21/07 referred to codes LAW / CRIM-PROC A5652 Aubertine (MS) -- Extends orders of protection to last for the life of the party against whom the order is issued or until
Nye Frank

ScienceDirect - Journal of Clinical Forensic Medicine : Clinical forensic medicine - ma... - 0 views

www.sciencedirect.com/science

forensic medicine

shared by Nye Frank on 25 Sep 09 - Cached
  • Nye Frank on 25 Sep 09
     
    rticle Outline * Defining clinical forensic practice and its components * Specific responsibilities of the forensic medicine specialist in trauma * Investigation of trauma * Preservation of evidence * Physical evidence * When to collect evidence * Processing of clothing * Investigation of wound characteristics * Certifying death * Standards and liability issues * Role of clinical forensic medicine * Forensic nursing and trauma care * Role of photography in clinical forensic medicine * Role of the ambulance and rescue workers * Conclusion * References Corresponding Author Contact InformationCorresponding author. Correspondence to: Dr. B. R. Sharma, Tel.: +91-172-665545; Fax: +91-172-608488 Journal of Clinical Forensic Medicine Volume 10, Issue 4, December 2003, Pages 267-273 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WHN-49W33W3-1&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2003&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3550fb628d8b58851a28da49eab06979
  • Nye Frank on 25 Sep 09
     
    rticle Outline * Defining clinical forensic practice and its components * Specific responsibilities of the forensic medicine specialist in trauma * Investigation of trauma * Preservation of evidence * Physical evidence * When to collect evidence * Processing of clothing * Investigation of wound characteristics * Certifying death * Standards and liability issues * Role of clinical forensic medicine * Forensic nursing and trauma care * Role of photography in clinical forensic medicine * Role of the ambulance and rescue workers * Conclusion * References Corresponding Author Contact InformationCorresponding author. Correspondence to: Dr. B. R. Sharma, Tel.: +91-172-665545; Fax: +91-172-608488 Journal of Clinical Forensic Medicine Volume 10, Issue 4, December 2003, Pages 267-273 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WHN-49W33W3-1&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2003&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3550fb628d8b58851a28da49eab06979
Nye Frank

due process: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com - 0 views

www.answers.com/due-process

due process CONSTITUTIONAL

shared by Nye Frank on 31 Dec 09 - Cached
  • Legal proceedings carried out fairly and in accord with established rules and principles. Due process standards are sometimes referred to as either substantive or procedural. Substantive due process refers to a requirement that laws and regulations be related to a legitimate government interest (e.g., crime prevention) and not contain provisions that result in the unfair or arbitrary treatment of an individual. The 5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States states that "no person shallÂ…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This right was extended to the states by the 14th Amendment (1868). Fundamental to procedural due process are adequate notice before the government can deprive one of life, liberty, or property, and the opportunity to be heard and defend one's rights. The boundaries of due process are not fixed and are the subject of endless judicial interpretation and decision making. See also rights of the accused; double jeopardy. For more information on due process, visit Britannica.com.
Nye Frank

759. Arbitrary Administrative Discretion-Federal Court Riverside Officials - 0 views

chestofbooks.com/...Administrative-Discretion.html

arbitrary administrative discretion Nye Frank Crime victims rights howstuffworks caching how

shared by Nye Frank on 17 Mar 10 - Cached
  • Nye Frank on 17 Mar 10
     
    " Is this what Riverside County includes. Second time to Fraudulently state false facts to deny elder rights. Perjury Knowingly making false statement of material fact of falsely denying knowledge of a material fact is perjury, a felony. If you are aware of possible perjury, contact the appropriate enforcement agency or your County Attorney's Office immediately. Description This section is from the book "The Constitutional Law Of The United States", by Westel Woodbury Willoughby. Also available from Amazon: Constitutional Law. 759. Arbitrary Administrative Discretion Generally speaking, it may be said that while wide discretionary power may constitutionally be granted to administrative agents, that discretion must be one which must be guided by reason, justice, and impartiality, and must be exercised in the execution of policies predetermined by legislative act, or fixed by the common law. In Yick Wo v. Hopkins29 the court laid down the doctrine that the legislative investment of purely personal and arbitrary power in the hands of any public official is a denial of due process of law. " The very idea," say the court, "that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself." 30 Of the ordinances in question the court say: "They seem intended to confer and actually do confer, not a discretion upon consideration of the circumstances of each case, but a naked and arbitrary power to give or withhold consent, not as to places but as to persons. . . . The power given to them [the supervisors] is not confided to their discretion in the legal sense of that term, but is granted to their mere will. It is purely arbitrary, and acknowledges neither guidance, nor restraint." 29 118 U. S. 35G; 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1004: 30 L. ed. 220. 30 Quoting and approving City of Balt
  • Nye Frank on 17 Mar 10
     
    Perjury Knowingly making false statement of material fact of falsely denying knowledge of a material fact is perjury, a felony. If you are aware of possible perjury, contact the appropriate enforcement agency or your County Attorney's Office immediately.
Nye Frank

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress) - 0 views

thomas.loc.gov/thomas

probation legislative elder law in hearings legislation research congress

shared by Nye Frank on 29 Jul 09 - Cached
  • 27. H.R.448 : To protect seniors in the United States from elder abuse by establishing specialized elder abuse prosecution and research programs and activities to aid victims of elder abuse, to provide training to prosecutors and other law enforcement related to elder abuse prevention and protection, to establish programs that provide for emergency crisis response teams to combat elder abuse, and for other purposes.Sponsor: Rep Sestak, Joe [PA-7] (introduced 1/9/2009)      Cosponsors (5) Committees: House Judiciary; Senate Judiciary Latest Major Action: 2/12/2009 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  • Nye Frank on 29 Jul 09
     
    The Library of Congress > THOMAS Home > Bills, Resolutions > Search Results THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT GO TO Next Hit Forward New Bills Search Prev Hit Back HomePage Hit List Best Sections Help Contents Display Limited To: DATES FROM 01/01/2007-01/01/2010 31 Bills from the 111th Congress ranked by relevance on "probation " . 31 bills containing your phrase (or variants of its words) in the same order . Listing of 31 bills containing your phrase (or variants of its words) in the same order . 1 . CAN DO Act of 2009 (Introduced in House) [H.R.1303.IH] 2 . Ex-Offenders Voting Rights Act of 2009 (Introduced in House) [H.R.59.IH] 3 . MEGA (Introduced in House) [H.R.330.IH] 4 . Whereas there are approximately three million Americans employed within the justice system; (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House) [H.RES.45.EH] 5 . SERV Act (Introduced in Senate) [S.902.IS] 6 . SERV Act (Introduced in House) [H.R.2138.IH] 7 . Whereas there are approximately three million Americans employed within the justice system; (Introduced in House) [H.RES.45.IH] 8 . Safeguarding America's Seniors and Veterans Act of 2009 (Introduced in House) [H.R.746.IH] 9 . Managing Arson Through Criminal History (MATCH) Act of 2009 (Introduced in House) [H.R.1727.IH] 10 . Calling on the Government of Vietnam to release from prison, end the detention without trial, and cease the harassment and house arrest of the people who signed the Manifesto on Freedom... (Introduced in House) [H.RES.334.IH] 11 . Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the President of the United States should not issue pardons to senior members of his administration during the final 90 days... (Introduced in House) [H.RES.9.IH] 12 . National Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2009 (Introduced in Senate
Nye Frank

42 USC Sec. 233. Civil actions or proceedings against commissioned officers or employees - 0 views

biotech.law.lsu.edu/...42usc233.htm

42 usc 233

shared by Nye Frank on 01 Mar 10 - Cached
  • Upon a certification by the Attorney General that the defendant was acting in the scope of his employment at the time of the incident out of which the suit arose, any such civil action or proceeding commenced in a State court shall be removed without bond at any time before trial by the Attorney General to the district court of the United States of the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending and the proceeding deemed a tort action brought against the United States under the provisions of title 28 and all references thereto. Should a United States district court determine on a hearing on a motion to remand held before a trial on the merit that the case so removed is one in which a remedy by suit within the meaning of subsection (a) of this section is not available against the United States, the case shall be remanded to the State Court: Provided, That where such a remedy is precluded because of the availability of a remedy through proceedings for compensation or other benefits from the United States as provided by any other law, the case shall be dismissed, but in the event the running of any limitation of time for commencing, or filing an application or claim in, such proceedings for compensation or other benefits shall be deemed to have been suspended during the pendency of the civil action or proceeding under this section.
Nye Frank

Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstit... - 0 views

www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html

government law reference history usconstitution

shared by Nye Frank on 02 Aug 09 - Cached
  • Nye Frank on 02 Aug 09
     
    There are some common misconceptions about some of the things that are in the U.S. Constitution - this page debunks some of those myths
Nye Frank

Center for Problem Oriented Policing | Problem Guides | Financial Crimes Against the El... - 0 views

www.popcenter.org/...references

policing problems elders

shared by Nye Frank on 21 May 09 - Cached
  • Nye Frank on 21 May 09
     
    crimes against elders
Nye Frank

FindLaw | Cases and Codes - 0 views

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/...getcase.pl

1983 indifference minimum in standard case

shared by Nye Frank on 29 Jul 09 - Cached
  • To sustain a S 1983 civil rights action, a plaintiff must show "(1) that the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) that [such] conduct deprived the plaintiff of a federal constitutional or statutory right." 2 Wood v. Ostrander, 879 F.2d 583, 587 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 938 (1990). Here, it is undisputed that defendants were acting under color of state law. At issue here is whether Officer Smith, the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department, or Sacramento County engaged in conduct that deprived Lewis of a federally protected righ
    • Nye Frank
      Nye Frank on 29 Jul 09
  • F.2d 272 (6th Cir. 1990) (noting that the Supreme Court's reasoning in Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), likely "preserve[d] Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process analysis for those instances in which a free citizen is denied his or her constitutional right to life through means other than a law enforcement official's arrest, investigatory stop or other seizure"), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 851 (1990).
  • But when a law enforcement officer arbitrarily acts to deprive a person of life and personal security in the course of pursuing his official duties, constitutional due process rights may be implicated. Daniels, 474 U.S. at 331 ("The touchstone of due process is protection of the individual against arbitrary action of government."). Section 1983 "contains no state-of-mind requirement independent of that necessary to state a violation of the underlying constitutional right." Daniels, 474 U.S. at 330 . See Daniels, 474 U.S. at 330 . The underlying constitutional rights at issue here are substantive due process rights to life and liberty or personal security. In Daniels, the Supreme Court held that where an official's or government entity's conduct constitutes mere negligence, no substantive due process violation occurs. Daniels, 474 U.S. at 328 . Daniels expressly left open the question whether something less than intentional conduct such as recklessness or gross negligence would suffice "to trigger the protections of the Due Process Clause." Id. at 334 n.3. But in City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989), the Court held that nonintentional government conduct can violate the Due Process Clause and thus lead to S 1983 liability. City of Canton held that a municipality may be liable for a failure to train its employees when such failure demonstrates "deliberate indifference to rights of persons with whom police come into contact." Id. at 388.
  • ...9 more annotations...
  • Five circuits have addressed S 1983 liability in the context of high-speed pursuits. These circuits have applied various labels to the standard of conduct that may lead to liability. See, e.g., Fagan v. City of Vineland, 22 F.3d 1296 (3rd Cir. 1994) (en banc) (overruling previous reckless indifference standard and adopting shocks the conscience standard); Medina v. City and County of Denver, 960 F.2d 1493, 1496 (10th Cir. 1992) (reckless disregard); Temkin v. Frederick County Comm'rs, 945 F.2d 716, 723 (4th Cir. 1991) (shocks the conscience), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1095 (1992); Roach v. City of Fredericktown, 882 F.2d 294, 297 (8th Cir. 1989) (holding gross negligence insufficient but not stating what standard should be applied); Jones v. Sherrill, 827 F.2d 1102, 1106 (6th Cir. 1987) (holding gross negligence or outrageous conduct sufficient in some circumstances). 4
  • In one such due process case, we held that either "gross negligence, recklessness, or `deliberate indifference'" was sufficient to state a substantive due process violation. Wood v. Ostrander, 851 F.2d 1212, 1214 (9th Cir. 1988) ("Wood
  • I"), reh'g granted and opinion modified by, 879 F.2d 583 (9th Cir. 1989) ("Wood II"), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 938 (1990). Relying on the standard set out in Wood I, we later held that "grossly negligent or reckless official conduct that infringes upon an interest protected by the Due Process Clause is actionable under S 1983." Fargo v. City of San Juan Bautista, 857 F.2d 638 (9th Cir. 1988). But Fargo's grossly negligent standard was explicitly based on Wood I, which was modified on rehearing and superseded by Wood II. In Wood II, we stepped back from the grossly negligent standard. We noted that an intervening Supreme Court decision, City of Canton, 489 U.S. 378 , had called into question this standard as set forth in Wood I and Fargo. Wood II, 879 F.2d at 588.
  • In Fargo, we defined gross negligence as "`more than ordinary inadvertence or inattention, but less perhaps than conscious indifference to the consequences.'" Fargo, 857 F.2d at 641 (quoting W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts S 34, at 212 (5th ed. 1984)). We also noted that an officer's state of mind is not an issue in a claim based on gross negligence, "although the contrary may be true where the claim involves recklessness." Id. at 642. Although we declined to decide whether an innocent state of mind would negate recklessness or "whether recklessness may be presumed conclusively from conduct," we did note that recklessness and deliberate indifference are equivalent in the sense that they both generally refer to conduct involving "a `conscious disregard' of public safety." Id. at 642 n.7. We also said that, "where state officials have notice of the possibility of harm, `negligence can rise to the level of deliberate indifference to or reckless disregard for' the victim." Id. (quoting Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 357 (1986) (Blackmun, J., dissenting)). Because we concluded that a triable issue of fact remained as to whether the police officer's conduct might have been grossly negligent, we found it unnecessary to determine whether the officer's conduct might have risen to the more culpable standard of recklessness. Id. at 643
  • In Wood II, we redefined the standard forS 1983 substantive due process violations by police officers. As explained above, we recognized that the Supreme Court's decision in City of Canton, 489 U.S. 378 , had called into question our decisions in Wood I and Fargo that gross negligence was sufficient. Wood II, 879 F.2d at 588. Analyzing the facts in Wood under City of Canton's deliberate indifference standard, we concluded that there remained a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the police officer in Wood had been deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff's interest in her personal security. Id. at 588.
  • Wood II makes clear that, in this circuit, an officer can be held liable for a S 1983 claim if that officer's conduct is delib erately indifferent to or in reckless disregard of a person's right to life and personal security.
  • Here, plaintiffs have alleged that Officer Smith violated the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department General Order regarding pursuits ("General Order")6 by instituting and then continuing the pursuit even when a reasonable officer would have known that to do so was in reckless disregard of Lewis's and Willard's safety. A violation of police procedures is relevant to determine whether a substantive due process violation has occurred. Fargo, 857 F.2d at 642. Police procedures are designed, in part, to guide officers when they engage in conduct that poses a serious risk of harm to either a suspect or to the general public. See id.
  • The General Order requires an officer to communicate his intention to pursue a vehicle to the sheriff's department dispatch center. But defendants concede that Smith did not contact the dispatch center. The General Order requires an officer to consider whether the seriousness of the offense warrants a chase at speeds in excess of the posted limit. But here, the only apparent "offense" was the boys' refusal to stop when another officer told them to do so. The General Order requires an officer to consider whether the need for apprehension justifies the pursuit under existing conditions. Yet Smith apparently only "needed" to apprehend the boys because they refused to stop. The General Order requires an officer to consider whether the pursuit presents unreasonable hazards to life and property. But taking the facts here in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, there existed an unreasonable hazard to Lewis's and Willard's lives. The General Order also directs an officer to discontinue a pursuit when the hazards of continuing outweigh the benefits of immediate apprehension. But here, there was no apparent danger involved in permitting the boys to escape. There certainly was risk of harm to others in continuing the pursuit.
  • In City of Canton the Supreme Court held that deliberate indifference was the minimum standard of culpability necessary to maintain a S 1983 due process action against a municipality for a policy or custom of inadequate training of police officers. City of Canton, 489 U.S. at 388 . The Court reasoned that a municipality's inadequate training of its employees can only constitute a "policy or custom" when such inadequate training "evidences a `deliberate indifference' to the rights of its inhabitants." Id. at 389. But the Court also specified that the deliberate indifference standard "does not turn upon the degree of fault (if any) that a plaintiff must show to make out an underlying claim of a constitutional violation." Id. at 388 n.8. City of Canton thus did not explicitly overrule our decisions in either Wood I or Fargo because they involved claims of substantive due process violations against individual police officers.
  • Nye Frank on 29 Jul 09
     
    The Supreme Court has held that "[w]here a particular amendment `provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection' against a particular sort of government behavior, `that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of `substantive due process,' must be the guide for analyzing these claims." Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 , 114 S. Ct. 807, 813 (1994) (plurality opinion) (quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989)).
1 - 12 of 12
Showing 20▼ items per page