Seminars I will be doing for the next four months

Here are the seminars I will be presenting for the next four months --

I am now open to do seminars for individual departments, so if your department wants a seminar for its officers, contact me at this website or at DAA2000@aol.com.

All of the classes I do are intended to make officers as "court smart" as they are street smart, so I emphasize "creative policing" to do the right thing in the street and understand the affect of what happens on the street -- and how that translates into testimony in court.

October 30 -- Hodgkins PD -- Civil Liability, Constitutional Issues, etc.

November 7-9 -- MTU 4 Moline -- Search and Seizure, Civil Liability, etc.

November 13-15 --Darien PD (NEMRT)-- Search and Seizure, Civil Liability, etc.

November 19 -- Oak Lawn -- Civil Liability, Constitutional Issues, etc.

November 27-29 -- McHenry Govt Center (NEMRT) -- Search and Seizure, Civil Liability, etc.

December 4-6 -- W Dundee Public Safety (NEMRT) -- Search and Seizure, Civil Liability, etc.

December 11-13 -- Oswego PD (NEMRT) -- Search and Seizure, Civil Liability, etc. (Sgrs)

January 4 -- Buffalo Grove (NEMRT) -- Law of Interrogations

January 15-17 -- Marana, AZ -- Search and Seizure, Civil Liability, etc.

January 21-25 -- PHX, AZ -- Constitutional Law, Report Writing, Testimony, Civil Liability, etc.

January 31 -- Naperville PD (NEMRT) -- Recent Case Law

February 5-7 -- Gurnee PD (NEMRT) -- Search and Seizure, Civil Liability, etc. (Sgts)

February 13 -- Oak Lawn PD -- Civil Liability, Constitutional Issues, etc.

February 19-28 -- El Paso, TX PD -- Constitutional Law, Civil Liability, etc.

Again, if you are interested in a seminar, please contact me. I am now scheduling for March and April.

Best -

Dale Anderson

Traffic Stops -- may officers seek consent?

A relatively recent case says yes -- as long as the consent search doesn't prolong the stop.

The case is People v Starnes -- an Illinois Court of Appeals case -- District 2.

In Starnes, an officer stopped the car Starnes was driving on minor traffic-type offenses.
After the stop, the officer asked to search Starnes and his car. He consented.
The officer found drugs.

The Court of Appeals basically stated that since several United States Supreme Court cases have said that officers may do things during a traffic or Terry stop that do not relate to the reason for the detention, that Illinois is bound by those decisions until the Illinois Supreme Court decides to rule otherwise under the Illinois Constitution.

The United States Supreme Court cases discussed which support the decison are:
1. CABELLES (which held that officers may bring a dog out during a traffic stop).
2. HARRIS (which held basically that officers may run passengers during a traffic stop).
3. MUELLER (which held that officers may question detainees about matters other than that for which the detainee is being held).

The court cited several other Illinois cases supporting its decison.

The case which tends to go against this court of appeals decision is People v Gonzalez. The Illinois Supreme Court in Gonzalez basically ruled that officers may NOT do anything during a traffic stop except traffic matters unless the officer has reasonable suspicion to ask about the other matters.

According to the State Appellate Prosecutors Office, the defendant did not appeal the case to the Illinois Supreme Court.

For now -- at least until the Illinois Supreme Court rules differently -- I would say, you can seek consent to search as long as you can consduct the search during the time it takes to do a traffic stop.

A word to the wise -- use good judgment in who to ask consent from. This is a power that the courts can still take away (again).

Best --

DA

Arresting TERRY Suspects Who Refuse to Give Their Names

I have been discussing the bill -- HB993 -- which requires a TERRY suspect to reveal his name and explain his actions -- with numerous officers and attorneys.

1. The statute, as written, would be unconstitutional to the extent it requires an explanation of his actions from the TERRY suspect. The 5th Amendment cases make clear that a suspect may remain silent in the face of questioning.

2. Even worse, the statute has no teeth whatsoever in that it provides for no sanctions if the suspect refuses to give his name. So the bill as presently written is worse than nothing.

I have been told -- and I believe -- that most officers who are street-smart can get a name and explanation from most suspects.

The problem is the street-smart gang member who will not talk.

Let's say you see a gang member with a television set at midnight in an alley. You stop him, he is mute, and you can't figure out where the burglary is. Some courts would hold that there might be probable cause -- but most courts would rule that there is not enough suspicion to arrest.

At this point you MUST let the suspect go -- and the victim's tv -- unless you can figure out relatively quickly where the burglary occurred! (Technically, you cannot hold the tv and tell the suspect to pick it up the next morning.)

Now let's say instead of releasing the suspect -- you take to the police station for fingerprinting, etc. -- which many officers do -- the United States Supreme Court has ruled this conduct is tantamont to an arrest -- and is unconstitutional. Therefore not only will the evidence be suppressed -- but you are vulnerable to being successfully sued.

So, let's say you let suspect go -- The next morning the victim calls the station reporting the burglary -- where he / she complains of lost jewelry, etc -- in addition to the tv. Do you tell him / her that you caught the burglar -- but had to let him go -- with the victim's property??

I think -

1. Officers need this statute for that 1 in 100 case where the supects do not talk at all. I think you should always have the power to obtain a suspect's name during a TERRY stop.

2. Most other states already have this statute -- and many enacted it after the HIIBEL case (in 2004), which basically held that you have the power to get a suspect's name during a TERRY stop.

I, and others who feel like I do, are going to try to get the bill straightened out and then I'm going to ask every officer to get their Senator and Representative to vote for the bill.

I will keep you appraised of our progress in these blogs.

Let's get this passed this year.

DA

Seminar

I will be presenting a law seminar at the Oak Lawn Police Department on November 2.

The seminar will include issues related to civil liability and the 4th Amendment implications related to dealing with suspects. I will also discuss testifying and other related issues.

If you are interested contact me at DAA2000@aol.com for details.

Best -

Dale Anderson