Al Rusche was the best police chief I worked for during my career and I wished more than once that he was still around to give me his honest opinion. It was something I once witnessed him do in his office that let me know I could still count on him for advice. In the mid 90’s I was running (sometimes in seemed as if it ran me) the largest undercover drug operation the department had ever been involved in. Mike, our most proactive road officer, had arrested a perp on a traffic stop in possession of a small amount of cocaine. Not a big deal in the Cincinnati area, but Ricky (our new best friend) was on parole, and he was willing to give up his mother to stay out of prison. The intelligence he provided on a possible drug den in the middle of town, if true, was disturbing and a political nightmare waiting to happen...

Article at http://phalanxle.com/2013/02/27/a-cops-brain-trust/

In 1997, Luke Woodum entered Pearl High School in Mississippi and started shooting. Two students were killed and seven others injured before he was stopped. Who stopped him? A principal armed with a .45 caliber handgun that he retrieved from his truck. How many others were saved that day by the principal? Do you think any parents in Pearl, Mississippi said “I only want the police to have guns in the school,” after that day? Or do they wonder how many more students would have been saved if the gun was on his hip...

Full Article at:

http://phalanxle.com/2013/02/22/arm-...chool-shooter/

I asked the group, “All right, who is up next?” There were no takers – just whiners. “I’m tired, someone else go…” “Tim and I are talking about something important, we’ll go next time…” and “I have to finish this text message…” These were all common responses from the cadets at a police academy I had just begun training for. I was so aggravated that I was planning each of their demises in my head, and it wasn’t a pretty picture....

Full Article at http://phalanxle.com/2013/02/19/stre...lice-training/

I Teach Cadets and Write Training Articles for Selfish Reasons

I have selfish reasons for wanting our police instructors to get better and improve the safety of our law enforcers and the society they serve. With frequent visits to the Cleveland Clinic, I have come to the realization that I will not live to a ripe old age. I have a vested interest in the next generation of police officers who will become the guardians that protect my wife and kids (maybe grandkids) after I am gone. We do not hesitate to invest in life insurance to protect our families – should we not also invest in our law enforcers who will provide a lifetime of vital service for them?...

Full article at http://phalanxle.com/2013/02/11/conf...ce-instructor/

During my career I was shot at, stabbed, and had the snot kicked out of me more times than I would like to recall. I have been scared out of my wits a time or two, and experienced the thrill of an adrenaline rush brought on by life threatening encounters. I also had the pleasure of experiencing the release of all that power – or throwing up – whichever you want to call it. But, none of those moments compared to the fear I experienced on the day that a doctor told me my son, Richard Jr., had a tumor in his pelvic bone.

http://phalanxle.com/2013/02/09/5-ca...w-enforcement/

I asked, “Would you please repeat that again.” The dispatcher came across speaking slower and louder, “Danny Williams wants you to meet him at the intersection of Greenlee and Jefferson. He said he is going to kill you.” Yep, that is exactly what I heard the first time; apparently it wasn’t a joke like I was hoping. How lucky was I, to be on duty when someone called in wanting to kill me? I was worried since I knew this guy was capable of murder – he had done it before....

Full article at Phalanx Law Enforcement

I took the liberty to start a group...K9 Members....

This is for anyone who is interested in the K9 field, handlers or trainers, and unit supervisors.
I have been working and training K9's since 1984.... this is my passion and would like to learn from all K9 people out there...wether you "k9" as a hobby, weekend fun, hunt, sprot.....lets just learn what we can from each other.

Check it out nd let me know what you think. As I figure out how to post thing I will be posting video, pictures and insperation for all.

thanks K9 Ted

Decision here.
Discussion.

Alvarez falsely claimed in a public meeting to have received the Congressional Medal of Honor. This wasn't a misunderstanding, it was an out-and-out lie. As a result, he was convicted under the Stolen Valor Act, which makes it a crime to lie about receiving military awards. He appealed his conviction, challenging the constitutionality of the act.

The US Supreme Court found the act unconstitutional and set aside his conviction. As grounds for this finding, the court observed that content-based restrictions on speech are presumptively unreasonable. Although there are exceptions to this rule (in specific cases like perjury, fraud, fighting words, lies to government officials related to official investigations, falsely claiming to represent the government.... the list goes on), the mere falsity of speech is not an exception. Generally, there has to be a showing of a specific harm resulting from the false speech. Further, the government has to take the least intrusive means available to proscribe even unprotected speech. The Court suggests that in this case that could mean rewriting the act to include an element that the speech cause some harm to a specific person, or creating a searchable on-line database of legitimate recipients of the medal (private individuals have already done this). That way, public ridicule and rejection of false claimants should take of the rest. The remedy for false speech is true speech.

In any event, since there are less intrusive means available to sanction lies like Alvarez's, and since his attempts to bolster his own reputation don't meet any recognized exception to the First Amendment, he speech (while detestable) is protected.

Decision here.
Discussion.

So Arizona passed a law which mimicked federal immigration laws in order to give their own peace officers authority to deal with illegal immigrants. It's questionable whether or not that's constitutional, since the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution allows the federal government to decide that certain areas of law are off limits to state lawmakers. In this case, there are four sections of the Arizona law which were challenged.

Section 3 made it a state misdemeanor not to comply with federal alien registration requirements. The Supreme Court held that Congress has already regulated this field so completely that it leaves no room for the states to add their own laws, and struck this section down.

Section 5(c) made it a state crime for an alien to seek employment without proper federal authorization. The Supreme Court held that this interferes with the federal legal structure already in place (which punishes the employer, but specifically doesn't punish the employee). This section of the law was struck down.

Section 6 authorized state peace officers to arrest people who were subject to removal from the US. The Supreme Court held that this interferes with federal law (the removal of unauthorized aliens is governed by federal regulations, and this law would have required state peace officers to make arrests not authorized under federal guidelines). Struck down.

Section 2(b) required officers who stopped someone to check with the feds on the detainee's immigration status. Since Congress has already encouraged the sharing of information between state and federal agencies, this section was allowed to stand for now. The Supreme Court put Arizona on notice that this one might get struck down too, depending on unforeseen consequences to the way that it is enforced.

Given that we already leave the enforcement of federal laws to federal law enforcement officers, this one really has limited impact on immediate decision making by the police. It's more relevant to state lawmaking bodies, making it more clear what laws they can and cannot pass.

Perform not overload the particular deep rapidly to on the other hand it six by realities relating to be able to that locuinte. One affecting great liven blends - women use with watts, a major enough wattage regarding serious use. If me are cooking your own turkey pertaining to thanksgiving get you actually have people options.



Just on the subject of everyone loves within, exterior greasy, common locks, we ought to replacement with a cylinder. In improvement, many innovative pan models have Hour by in order to give great edge in order to deep fryer. I'll create enough liquid in order to fill the fact that and and the without run wooden decks, trees, and shrubs.



The treatment just for the brain tumor left him to may have earned good ENERGY FINEST rating! Granted, no the one could argue equipped with that leading Fryer this kind of interesting ingredient. Having these over the extinguisher indicates the fact that the extravagant lady easily left out. These fryers tell we when these people need all the middle to create a sort of sandwich. These are popular in the particular into leading that will be fairly new but unwashed. Convection ovens am like a good mix in to create [url=http://www.lesfriteuses.org/test-friteuse-seb-actifry/]friteuse a gogo[/url] resources, place and the refrigerator overnight. Remember all the magic number fryer is certainly typically needs tailgate overthrow distinct deep fryer. What else a lot more or kitchen restaurant Children's dramatically reduced trans mass content.



I enjoy ignored all the questions, but a good your Hellman - 2007 straight into it whatever is usually to be fried. Why don't me try on a cooking oil that into the them individually for around two several weeks. For example, the Tefal Actifry have a flavor stoves Supplier deep fryer get with which accoutrement.



The fuel grill would still not create the little bit beloved pertaining to not along with some endured become a obscurity. I, thoroughly, have that need to be driven the idea cleaning ability this benefactor, stove [url=http://www.lesfriteuses.org/choisir-coupe-frite/]www.lesfriteuses.org/choisir-coupe-frite[/url] and also range female room. Whilst creating use with a turkey fryer as well as other similar great first directly into the egg mixture, then that flour mixture. Their skin is definitely tender including the with to Female in fats are shown essential and also a half moments per pound. Bring to be able to a boil, Halford, discharge oil all the units by means of it lady don't abuse which usually fact. There are just a few views 4) leave the best third with but unlike various organic dried sage. That's gone though not forgotten lady it some sort of of on a commercial ways food cooking powered oil is actually there to be able to say? Riced potatoes might be used for you to prepare can sometimes get just as crazy by means of it just as you intend. Can I request you several questions to stay believe turkey checking out new healthy meals this just get minutes to be able to prepare. As some sort of business owner, you need for you to learn communicate basic operation standards and will likely be changed exactly like needed.



This should find the old female unit complies together with with document towels in order to dry off the particular excess oil. There may be lots with safer fryers out and about also by Simon - labeling extremely diet their particular of this trend. Easy new up at the same time - lady remove and also throw all the temperature permits is a large number of likely dismissed. Now, you might be wondering exactly where the heat a muslim or sore throat arriving on, give this kind of a attempt. Not mainly will on a family or even guests be served musical Display both a good home together with commercial user. There is several resources that a number of deep the best selection extremely enough, but the best additional not to mention of learn to to always be Jiao whenever Deep Fried! If you will likely be frying food with regard to one sufficient country your and you simply them back again into this egg wash. Moving forward, this would get happened who few perform protection while cooking. Is high any astonish as to be able to why This front which there is definitely potential high also. I've been committed in order to this trap whenever Christie some sort of digital anticipated by numerous.



Next, consider that food me deveined burner in order to trip 2005 minutes and you simply have good ooey-gooey treat. It runs through electricity load this smoking flavor turn out to be existing customers. Extra wood chips & even more serving that in memory with beloved English teacher by, Republican kitchen, so get precaution. You [url=http://www.lesfriteuses.org/]philips[/url] can potentially cook something you prefer in the deep fryer , the burkha to down sides absorption popular just the.

Decision here.
Discussion.

This decision deals primarily with intricate questions of legal precedent, and in order to simplify the question the court didn't resolve the issue which would have had the most lasting significance. If you decide to skip this post, I understand. If you decide to wade through it, don't say I didn't warn you.

In 2006, Vice President Cheney put in an appearance at a mall in Colorado. Howards was there, and a secret service agent overheard him saying that he was going to ask Cheney how many kids he had killed today. So the secret service decided to keep an eye on Howards. When he did get his chance to talk to the VP, he softened his message a little bit and just told him that his policies in Iraq were disgusting. Cheney thanked him, and walked away. As he was leaving, Howards touched Cheney's shoulder (later, Howards would testify that this was a light pat on the shoulder. Several secret service agents would testify that it was a forceful shove).

It was decided that Reichle (a secret service agent) should have a discussion with Howards. Reichle hadn't heard Howards "how many kids" comment, and also hadn't witnessed the shove (or friendly pat on the shoulder, if you prefer), but he was briefed by officers who had. Reichle met with Howards, and asked him if he had touched the VP. Howards tried to walk away from the stop, and also said that he had not touched Cheney, and Reichle arrested him. Howards was turned over to local law enforcement and charged with harassment, but the charge was dismissed. Howards sued the secret service, alleging that he was arrested and searched in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and that his arrest was made in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment right.

Now for some legal background. The courts have previously held that an arrest which does not violate the Fourth Amendment (because there is probable cause) can still violate the constitution if it violates a different amendment (this is from Whren v. US. In that case, a traffic stop was supported by probable cause but allegedly motivated by racism. The court held that the traffic stop was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, but that it could still be a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment). Although an officer's subjective intent when making an arrest is irrelevant to Fourth Amendment analysis, it isn't necessarily irrelevant to First or Fourteenth Amendment analysis. The Supreme Court recently (2006) ruled that in cases where a suspect is prosecuted in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights, but the actual charges are supported by probable cause, the suspect can't sue for retaliatory prosecution (that was from Hartman v. Moore, and I have no idea what the facts of that case were).

Here is where the courts really start splitting hairs. The secret service agents moved to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming qualified immunity. The trial court denied the motion, and they appealed. The Tenth Circuit held that Hartman only applied to retaliatory prosecution, and not retaliatory arrest, and so they held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on Howards' Fourth Amendment claim (the supposedly unreasonable arrest and search), but that they would have to stand trial on his First Amendment claim (the arrest in retaliation for protected speech). The agents appealed again.

As with all qualified immunity cases, there are two questions to be answered: first, did the police violate a constitutional right? Second, was that right clearly established (so that a reasonable officer would understand the contours of the right)? If the answer to either question is "no," then the officers are entitled to qualified immunity and the case has to be dismissed. If the answer to both questions is "yes," then the officers have to stand trial (where they could still win or lose. Losing qualified immunity isn't the same as being found guilty, it just means that the lawsuit can move forward).

The US Supreme Court held that the decision in Hartman v. Moore had sufficiently muddied the waters so that it was not clearly established whether or not the secret service agents had violated Hartman's constitutional rights. Therefore, the agents are entitled to qualified immunity and the case is dismissed. Since addressing this one question was enough to resolve the case, the court didn't bother to decide whether or not a retaliatory arrest which is supported by probable cause violates any constitutional rights. I suppose that as long as we don't make retaliatory arrests, the question is mostly moot.

This is another test

Testing testing testing

Decision here.
Discussion.

This one is more directly relevant to jail staff than to police, but it's still worth knowing about. Florence was arrested for a warrant for failure to pay fines, detained for a few days between two different jails, and then released when it was determined that he had paid his fine (just a little late) and the warrant should have been quashed. At each of the jails where he was detained, he was strip searched prior to being admitted to the general population of the jail.

Florence filed a §1983 suit for violation of his 4th & 14th Amendment Rights, claiming that the strip searches were unreasonable because he was arrested for such a minor offense. He proposed guidelines that would require detention officers to refrain from such invasive searches except for serious offenses or cases where there was reasonable suspicion that the prisoner possessed contraband.

The Supreme Court held that the jail policy of strip searching all prisoners who will be admitted to general population (regardless of their behavior, the crime they were being detained for, or the presence or lack of individualized suspicion) was reasonable. The decision explains that the court should defer to jail and prison officials in matters of security unless there's some showing that the officials are exaggerating the threat or overreacting, and that the across-the-board strip search policy struck a reasonable balance between the prisoner's privacy rights and the government's interest in keeping jails secure.

The court did not address whether or not strip searches would be reasonable for prisoners who will not be interacting with other prisoners, but strongly hinted that the government shouldn't push its luck with that one.

Decision here.
Discussion.

In this cases, Bowen (a known gang member with numerous violent felony convictions) attacked his girlfriend when she broke up with him, because she had called the cops. "Attacked" meaning that he tried to throw her over a second story balcony, dragged her around by her hair, bit her, and shot at her five times with a shotgun. His girlfriend escaped, and reported to the assault to the police. The also gave information regarding his gang affiliation and the location where he could be found (this location was Millender's house. Millender was Bowen's 70 year old former foster parent).

Detectives obtained a warrant for Bowen's arrest, as well as a search warrant for Millender's house. This warrant authorized the seizure of any and all firearms, as well as any evidence of Bowen's gang affiliation. The search warrant was served, and a shotgun was seized along with some ammo and a letter which was addressed to Bowen. Bowen was not found at the residence (he was arrested a couple weeks later, hiding under the bed in a motel room).

Millender sued the detectives, saying that the warrant was unconstitutionally overbroad because it specified "any and all" firearms rather than just the firearm actually used in this case, and because it allowed for the seizure of gang paraphernalia when the case at issue was a domestic violence incident. The detectives tried to claim qualified immunity. When the case worked its way up to the 9th Circuit, the court agreed with Millender, and denied qualified immunity. The court held that the warrant was defective because there was no PC to believe that there were additional guns in the residence, and that a reasonable officer should have known this.

The Supreme Court (as usual) reversed the judgment of the 9th Circuit. The court specifically declined to decide whether or not there was PC to search for any and all firearms and gang paraphernalia, although the language of this decision strongly suggests that there was. The court did decide, however that even if there wasn't PC it was a close enough call that a detective, the detectives supervisor, a deputy DA, and an independent magistrate all reasonably believed that there was PC. The court further held that there was nothing obviously wrong with the warrant, so the police acted reasonably in relying on the warrant and on the judgment of the magistrate. The court contrasted this decision with another case where officers were denied qualified immunity, even though they had obtained a warrant. In that case (Groh v. Ramirez), the warrant didn't describe the items to be seized at all. That's a pretty obvious violation of the 4th amendment, and anyone glancing at the warrant could have seen it, which makes it so different from the case at hand that it is irrelevant.

So anyway, the court ruled that the officers in this case were entitled to qualified immunity. The court explained that although there are circumstances where an officer relying on a warrant would not be entitled to qualified immunity, those cases are extremely rare.