Welcome to Beasley's Blog!

Brian Beasley is the Legal Adviser for the High Point Police Department in High Point, North Carolina. In order to justify his exorbitant (not really) salary and keep his officers informed of the latest changes in the law, he writes legal updates from time to time. Brian knows that officers aren’t generally enthusiastic about reading something entitled “Legal Update” so he tries to include some humorous footnotes to encourage them. Since he began writing these updates, officers from other agencies have asked to be added to the mailing list, but Brian decided that creating a blog was by far a more arrogant and geeky option.

  • Site Navigation

  • Categories

  • Archives

    • SHOW / HIDE NAVIGATION

    Reasonable Suspicion Pop Quiz

    25 Jun

    Posted by Brian Beasley In Legal Update

    To download a PDF file of this update, click here

    Be Reasonable!:  A Reasonable Suspicion Pop Quiz

    Legal Question of the Week
    Vol. 3, Number 12
    June 25, 2010

    Brian Beasley
    Would’ve Made A Mean Schoolteacher  and Legal Adviser, HPPD

                Alright, kiddies!  Get out your looseleaf notebook paper and your #2 pencils, because it’s time for a little pop quiz!  Our subject today is inspired by a recent series of debates that have occurred in the legal office regarding whether reasonable suspicion existed in a particular case or not.1  Based on some research I’ve done on the topic, I’ve decided to allow you to test your knowledge on this very fundamental doctrine of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Since I’m springing this pop quiz on you without warning,2 why don’t we do a brief review of the basics to try and help you improve your grade?3 Read More

    1. Unlike most of the debates that occur in the legal office, I was not all alone at the time this one happened.  There were actually other people present, which was pretty exciting. ↩
    2. Putting the “pop” in “pop quiz.” ↩
    3. Prior to taking the bar exam after graduating from law school, most bar applicants take an eight week review course to learn the material they need to know to successfully pass the test.  I was no exception.  Which of course begs the question – if they can teach us everything we need to know to pass the bar exam in eight weeks, why did I have to spend three years in law school?  Yet another of life’s little mysteries. ↩
    • Share/Bookmark
    CommentsView Comments

    More on Miranda: When Silence Is Golden

    04 Jun

    Posted by Brian Beasley In Legal Update

    To download a PDF file of this update, click here

    More On Miranda: When Silence Is Golden

    Legal Question of the Week
    Vol. 3, Number 11
    June 4, 2010

    Brian Beasley
    Can’t Shut Me Up and Legal Adviser, HPPD

                Hello, darkness, my old friend.  I’ve come to talk with you again because a vision softly creeping left its seeds while I was sleeping and the vision that was planted in my brain still remains within the sound of silence.1

                According to the numerous emails forwarded to me this week numerous times by numerous officers, the United States Supreme Court has handed down another ruling which affects our understanding of Miranda and how it applies in practice.  Berghuis v. Thompkins2 is the third Miranda-related opinion handed down by the Supremes already this year3 and by far the hardest to say and spell.4 Read More

    1. Ok, you caught me.  I didn’t make this up.  Apparently some guy named Paul Simon wrote a song called “The Sound of Silence” (or “The Sounds of Silence” depending on who you ask) in his bathroom a few months after the assassination of John F. Kennedy.  Pretty deep stuff.  Ever notice how you can get away with run-on sentences in singing but not in writing? ↩
    2. 08-1470,  560 U.S. ____ (2010). ↩
    3. The other two were Florida v. Powell and Maryland v. Shatzer, which were both discussed in Legal Question of the Week, Vol. 3, Number 4 entitled “Maryland v. Shatzer:  Ernesto Miranda and the Fortnight Rule.” ↩
    4. In case you are curious (and who wouldn’t be), the reason this case isn’t titled “U.S. v. Thompkins” or “Michigan v. Thompkins” is because it is not a criminal appeal.  Defendants sentenced to prison in state courts that have exhausted all their direct appeals may under certain circumstances bring a habeas corpus suit in federal court to try and have their conviction overturned.  A petition for a writ of habeas corpus is actually a demand for the prison official with custody to appear before a court and prove that they have lawful authority to detain the prisoner.  As a result, Thompkins (our defendant) is one party to this action and Berghuis (the warden of the prison where Thompkins was serving his sentence) is the other party.  I could throw in a whole lot more Latin here, but let’s just leave it at that for now. ↩
    • Share/Bookmark
    CommentsView Comments