To download a PDF file of this update, click here

Cardboard Castles:
The Homeless and The Fourth Amendment
Legal Question of The Week

Vol. 1, Number 18
October 31, 2008 

Brian Beasley
Halloween Hater and Legal Adviser, HPPD

            Before we get to this week’s topic, which was an actual question this week,¹ asked by an actual police officer, we have some preliminary matters to get through.  First, the legal office would like to apologize profusely for not putting a spoiler alert on last week’s legal update.  Being an avid DVR user myself, I should have been more careful about spoiling the plot of Survivor for those that had not watched it yet.²  Rather than get Captain Williams and the Professional Standards Division involved, I have decided to punish myself by suspending myself a month with pay.  It’s the least I can do.

            Second, as many of you were quick to point out last week (who knew the law was so exciting?), the hit television show “24” will indeed have a two hour special on November 23^rd entitled “Redemption” and season seven will begin in January.  I suspect that the world will face a grave threat, Jack Bauer will reluctantly be placed in the position of having to stop it, there will be a traitor working for CTU, and the other people at CTU will make several boneheaded mistakes.  In other words, it will be very similar to the previous six seasons.³

            Alright, with that out of the way, let’s get to this week’s topic.  With the economy uncertain these days, to say the least, our thoughts might turn to the problem of homelessness in this country.  Putting aside for the moment the issues of what causes homelessness⁴ and what might be done to stop homelessness or help the homeless, let’s zero in on the question on everybody’s mind:  “What constitutional rights does a homeless person have?”  Specifically, if a homeless person has erected a cardboard box and is living in it, can I search the box without a warrant even though it is his “home?” Read More

To download a PDF file of this update, click here

The Mora Case, The Mora Bettah:
Mora v. Gaithersburg, Md.
Legal Question of The Week

Vol. 1, Number 17
October 24, 2008 

Brian Beasley
Survivalist and Legal Adviser, HPPD 

            Congratulations to all of us for making it through yet another International Home Furnishings Market without doing anything that was considered an act of war by another country.  I stood ready to assist all week by carrying around a list of countries that require notification of their consulate upon detention of a foreign national.¹  Fortunately, I did not have to use it.²  Now we can all go back to business as usual, which includes all the criminals hired by furniture companies this week going back to plying their normal trades down in Southside.

            Today we look at a 4^th Circuit case called Mora v. The City of Gaithersburg, Maryland.  As you know, the 4^th Circuit is the federal appellate court for the North Carolina federal district courts and its decisions are therefore controlling law in our great state.  The 4^th Circuit also includes Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina.³  Let’s set the stage with an actual quote from the court opinion. Read More

To download a PDF file of this update, click here

How To Get Out Of Going To Court:
Write A Good Report

Vol. 1, Number 16
October 17, 2008 

Brian Beasley
Avid Incident Report Reader and Legal Adviser, HPPD

For those of you who opened this thinking that I was about to share some underhanded, sneaky way for you to avoid having to go to court after being subpoenaed, I am sorry to disappoint you.  There is no way that I am aware of to avoid going to court once you have been served with a subpoena that does not involved the risk of arrest, your personal dishonor, and bringing disrespect to the police department as a whole, something our department (and especially the legal office) wishes to avoid at all costs.

            Instead, I decided to title this update thusly[1.  Not only does using the word “thusly” make you sound really smart, it is also just a fun word to say.  Don’t believe me?  Read that sentence out loud – you’ll see that it really excites your whole mouth.] because if I had simply titled it “Report Writing And You,” you would either not open it at all or open it with a glazed look in your eyes.  On the other hand, if I had titled it “Police Pursuits and Easy Women” several of you would have broken your computer mice by double-clicking with too much force.  These are some of the life and death issues that I have to deal with on a daily basis.

            And while police pursuits and easy women would not have anything to do with report writing, a good report WILL often keep you from having to go to court to testify.  Consider the following real life example: Read More

To download a PDF file of this update, click here

Georgia v. Randolph:
Current Co-Habitant Consent Cases Could Cause Confusion

Vol. 1, Number 15
October 10, 2008 

Brian Beasley
Alliteration Ace and Legal Adviser, HPP

            Before we get into our topic for today, I think it appropriate to have a moment of silence for the fish that gave their lives in the line of duty this week.  Reports are sketchy, but apparently as a search warrant was being executed, a flashbang was thrown into a house of known gang members causing them temporary blindness and disorientation while also contemporaneously destroying the “family” fish tank.  I have heard, although it hasn’t been confirmed, that one detective attempted to save the fish by performing mouth-to-mouth but soon decided instead to apply tartar sauce and eat them.¹  P.E.T.A. and the S.P.C.A. continue to leave messages on my phone.²

            Today we look at a United States Supreme Court case from 2006 called Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006).  In this case, Janet Randolph complained to the police that after a domestic dispute, her husband, Scott, had taken their son away.  Janet further helpfully volunteered that Scott was a cocaine user.  (Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, “The Mourning Bride” (1697) by William Congreve.)  While the officers were present at the house, Scott returned and explained that he had taken the child to a neighbor’s house out of concern that his wife was planning to take the child out of the country. Read More

To download a PDF file of this update, click here

Rothgery v. Gillespie County, Texas:
When One Screw-up Ruins Things For The Rest of Us

Vol. 1, Number 14
October 3, 2008

Brian Beasley
Primary School Graduate and Legal Adviser, HPPD

IMPORTANT NOTE!  THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED MONTEJO V. LOUISIANA IN MAY 2009 WHICH AFFECTED THE “ASSERTION” OF SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS.  AFTER THAT DECISION, OFFICERS MAY INITIATE INTERROGATION AND SEEK A SIXTH AMENDMENT WAIVER EVEN AFTER THE PERSON HAS REQUESTED COUNSEL OR HAD COUNSEL APPOINTED.  PLEASE SEE THE LEGAL UPDATE ON MONTEJO FOR FURTHER INFORMATION.

            Let us take a moment and reflect on those halcyon ¹ days of childhood, when all we had to worry about was staying inside the lines when coloring and figuring out how to tie our shoes.²  Maybe you, like me, were one of those kids who never got in trouble, always did what the teacher said, and received high marks in every subject.³  However, many times, if one or two of my fellow students were talking and cutting up, the whole class (most of whom were being little angels) would be punished with “silent lunch.”  This was a lunch where you couldn’t make a sound.  The only worse punishment was having to sit boy-girl, boy-girl – who wanted to talk to a girl, anyways? ⁴ And all because little Tommy couldn’t keep his mouth shut – oh, the injustice!

            I imagine it was just these kinds of injustices that caused most of you to want to enter the noble profession of law enforcement.  The case we will discuss today is one of those situations where one person’s screw-up (or county’s) has made life tougher on everyone.  The case is Rothgery v. Gillespie County and it completely changes how the 6^th Amendment operates. Read More