Suspect Description Sheet Form

“Why does police paperwork take so long? I hear that officers can spend up to 4 hours to process a DUI suspect. Do officers spend that time just filling out boxes on a large stack of paper?”I was involved in several hundred (maybe close to a thousand) DUI and Zero Tolerance cases during my career and I can attest to the fact that DUI cases — especially the reporting process — were generally the most time-consuming cases I was involved in.The basic reason why DUI cases take so long to complete? Defense attorneys.First, I am going to be as clear as possible in this regard and state, unequivocally, that it is good and proper that a DUI defendant's rights must be a primary consideration. It is essential to the US criminal justice system that the defendant has a competent, vigorous defense. That defense, however, is the major reason why so much goes into reporting a DUI case.A maxim in policing is “If it’s not in the report, it didn’t happen.” Since DUI cases sometimes come to trial several months or even years after the incident, it would be ridiculous to believe that an officer would be able to remember much about a particular incident. That’s why officers write reports, and those reports must document a lot of observations made by the officer. Video has helped tremendously, but you can’t always count on video being available (due to problems with equipment or data corruption) or useful (a squad car’s camera facing the wrong direction or a body-worn camera obstructed by the Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) instruction book). Officers must be prepared and capable of writing very detailed reports on their observations of suspected DUI drivers.Successfully defending against a DUI case generally involves attacking the primary reason for the stop, the officer's decision to further investigate the driver for DUI, or the administration of the SFST battery. Of these three issues, most of the time and attention is given to attacking the administration of the SFST battery.Again, I'll be clear — it is very important that an officer knows how to properly administer the SFST battery. However, some of the attorneys who attack the SFST battery apparently believe these tests are done in a controlled laboratory environment, because some of their complaints are based on very exacting standards. For example, the SFST battery instructions for the one-leg stand test include asking the person to stand on one leg for 30 seconds. Some successful defense attacks have been based on the officer telling the person to end the test after 29.4 seconds instead of after the full “30” seconds. In others, the test is attacked based on another officer letting the person stand on one leg for 31 seconds.In other cases, defense motions to quash SFST results were successful based on the officer having a driver complete the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test, but mistakenly starting the HGN test by moving the stimulus to the officer’s left, not the driver’s left. While everything else may have been done exactly right, the defense motion to quash is successful because the HGN “standard” was established by officers moving the stimulus to the driver’s left. I have never heard of anyone actually claiming that the results would be different by moving the stimulus to the officer’s left first, but the test was developed and certified by moving the stimulus to the driver’s left, so if it’s not done that way, the results may be inadmissible.Another issue with HGN is the time frame involved in moving the stimulus from side to side, and how long the stimulus is held at the far outside edge of the driver’s vision (maximum deviation). Defense attorneys have successfully attacked HGN by timing the tests down to a tenth of a second, complaining both when the test is done too quickly and when it takes longer than the “standard” time.So… to make a short story long, officers must know how to administer the test and how to document that the test was administered properly. That adds a lot of time to the initial arrest and process of documenting the case.Again, to be very clear on the matter, I’m not saying it’s wrong or bad to expect officers to know what they’re doing while investigating and reporting a DUI. I would love it, though, if someone would re-evaluate the SFST battery including some of the variations involved in defense claims. For instance, does it really make any difference if the HGN is started from the left instead of the right? I’m guessing no. The same goes for ending the one-leg stand a half-second early or two seconds late, or any of the very minute differences involved in those defense claims.

When I worked as a 9-1-1 operator there was a line of questioning developed to determine the priority of the call. These calls usually originated in a certain part of the city and the person calling usually reported a Black or Latino person acting "suspiciously."  Well 9-1-1 operators wanted to catch the bad guys, too. So we would try to determine what the "suspicious" behavior was. Was the person looking into car windows? House windows? Were they walking down the street?  They would report a Black or Latino male who was walking down the street or sitting in his car eating lunch. We erred on the safe side and would put out an information only call. Officers are aware of crime trends in the area and if an area has been experiencing a higher number of vehicle or house burglaries, then the information broadcast might be useful to the car that is patrolling that area.  One night a woman called from the West side of the city,  frantic because she heard a noise on the side of her house. There was a car nearby and we sent on a possible prowler at the location, no suspect description. We told her the police were on the way and to call back if she had a description.  She called back. "I have a description!" "Yes Ma'am, is the suspect Black, White, Latino or Asian?"  "They're two of them, and... and they are Black!"  "What color shirt and pants are they wearing?"  "They're both wearing dark clothing! Where are the police! Oh my God!!! They are on the side of my house looking around!  Get the police out here now! Hello? Hello?" "Unit at ____ the P/R is on the line. She describes the suspects as two male Blacks wearing dark clothing on the side of the house right now." "Control, that's us. The P/R is describing us. We're two Black officers. We're wearing dark clothing, our uniform. Tell the P/R to open the door and come out and talk to us. The noise she's reporting is a tree branch." The operators had it easy, it's a tougher call for an officer. Err on the side of safety and treat people respectfully and hope that situation turns out okay for everyone. My motto, everyone gets to go home.

I have a few times. People are so quick to call. I will use for example a time I was asleep sick and didn’t pick my son up on time and the police came to the house and woke me up. My husband is deceased so I don’t have help. It is legitimate to be sick and asleep, not if it occurs constantly but we are all human. The cop notified CPSWhat to do:dont answer the door, there is no law requiring you to answer the door, they will leave their cardwhen calling them from card left record you talking on the phone. In my state I can’t record another person without them knowing but I can record my end of the conversation.you are not required to participate in their investigation, they will say it’s our policy….which it is. It’s also the law you are not obligated to participate or allow a home check or to speak with your child.many CPS advocates will state don’t say anything, which I agree with but on a case by case situation. I used the example above to show in this situation I told the worker I was sick, etc. and the steps I have already taken to ensure it doesn’t happen again. If it is something founded and can be resolved like this situation then I feel it’s best to state that. So I told them I gave the complex the ability to enter my home if for some reason I am not answering the phone when the school calls. So they want to see problem and resolution. Obviously if it is an unfounded aligation there can not be a resolution, or if you don’t want to tell them a resolution….you have the right. Simply tell them you are not participating in their investigation and your child is safe and well cared for.They will ask you questions like where do you get your income from or how do you discipline. In the example above I stated - that is not relevant to the situation that occurred. Otherwise you say - I am not participating in your investigation. It’s just a fishing expedition to find what they can use against you. You could be called on for making your son sleep on the moon every night (something obviously false) but then get into a case because they determined you have mental health issues that are affecting your parenting. So you tell them NO information (except for the limited info I mentioned above if the circustsatances warrant it). Simply state - I am choosing not to participate in your investigation.Make sure to verbally state - I do not allow you to speak to my childthey will say they need to come see the home. Nope. Absolutely under any circumstances do you ever let them come into your home. I have seen kids be taken for dirty dishes, it’s just a way to find something to use against you. They are an officer of the court, which means to enter your home they need a warrant. On the phone when they say we need to do a home visit, simply state, you may as long as you have a warrant. They won’t have one, they need your permission to get into the homewhat if they come to the house with a cop? The cop is not there to enforce or back up anything the worker is stating. The cop comes technically for the worker protection, but they use it as a manipulative tactic to make it seem like what they are stating (whatever they want - entry into the home, you to do a drug test - even removal of child) is backed up by the law and it isn’t. If you answer the door you should not answer know the cop is not there to enforce anything or to back up or legitimize anything the worker states.Removal of child….you know how extremely difficult it is to get a child removed. Very difficult. But Michelle they are removed all the time? Nope they are not. They are voluntarily handed over through manipulation. The worker can and will lie to you. If worker comes to the door with a cop and says we are removing your child get his things, go get him. And you do, they didn’t remove the child….you GAVE them the child. The worker needs you to give them the child and they will lie to do it. When I help parents of babies I tell them not to hold the baby, put the baby down. The worker can not go pick up and take the baby, they have to be given the baby. Never give your child to them despite what they might be saying. They are just trying to convince you to hand the child over. Never bring your child to their office, that is bringing the child to them to take. If you are in the first contacts with CPS and your bring your child to their office don’t expect to bring your child home.When they can TAKE your child they will have a warrant and a court order. It needs to list both your name and the child’s name. Make sure it is spelled correctly. There is another warrant called a warrant to investigate which is worthless. They already were investigating they didn’t need a warrant to do it. However they will get this meaningless warrant because it says warrant and looks official and confusing and is signed by a judge and try to use that to either get you to do something you were refusing to (like take a drug test) get into your home, or take your child. If they present a warrant look at it. If it’s a warrant to investigate tell them they already had the ability to investigate….you still have the right not to participate. For it to be a removal of a child it needs to state - warrant for removal and have a court order to remove the child - and SIGNED by a judge! So many times I see a worker try to use some document try make at the office and make it look official. Even try to use the word judge in whoever signs it. I appoint you judge of all signatures, now sign and I can put judge as your title. Check the name of the “judge” and google it, is it really a judge. These warrants for removal are very hard to get and is the only way CPS can take a child. Every other child they take is technically voluntarily given to them.just as a note the other way a child can be removed is during a crime, or in the act of neglect/abuse. That does not mean the worker shows up and thinks there is abuse, it means police come in your house for domestic disturbance and you are shooting up drugs while kids are hungry in the same diaper for 3 days, or during a DUI with a child in the car. It’s criminal abuse and neglect - if you are reading this then this likely doesn’t apply to you because these are the cases where children SHOULD be taken and those parents don’t research what to do. Then the worker has 3 days to get the court order to remove the child.So what happens when you don’t participate, after 30 days they have to close the case as unfounded or one of the many reasons why they close a case. So know you will hear from them in the beginning and as that 30 days comes around you will likely hear from them again as they try again to get in your home or get information from you. Simply state - I am not participating in your investigation. It is your right. Don’t ignore the rights you have.Never give them your child, they need to physically take the child, and not you giving permission for them to take the child. State you are not giving them your child. Then they need to barge into your house without a warrant and grab a child they have no right to take….which isn’t going to happen. If they need to see the child for marks or bruises (if relevant to allegation) let them know you will have them seen by their pediatrician and you will have a report by the pediatrician available for court if needs be. When they ask who the pediatrician is simply state - I am not providing that information. When they ask for a copy of the report state - it will be available for the judge if there is a court date. Then they don’t know what the report says, they are not going to go to a judge saying a child needs to be removed for abuse when the parent can hand the judge a report from the child’s dr stating no signs of abuse. Do not give them any info, do not let them inspect your child because they will always find something.Remember they are not looking for the truth, they are looking for what they can use to fit the narrative they already decided.They are not your friend, they are not trying to help you. If there are 2 parents they will try to pin you against each other. To resolve this….just don’t talk to them. If you give them nothing they have nothing. Then the allegation is just that, an allegation. It’s not proven to be true or false. It’s just an allegation, yeah allegations suck, but allegations don’t get your child taken alway. You get your child taken away when you start talking to them.I have helped many parents keep their kids when CPS came knocking. Contact me if need further help.

Depends on your behavior more than simply the act itself.I lived in Arizona for five years, walked through multiple gun shops at least once a week, if not more frequently. And four guns is child’s play.But to entertain your question, gun shop employee’s care more about the behavior the purchaser is exhibiting than the act of buying multiple guns at a time. I’ll give just a few examples of what I’ve personally witnessed to give explanations on why it is not considered unusual to buy multiple guns at once.Ex A: A guy walked in and requested to buy six rifles, all of them Japanese Arisaka rifles on the rack, because he’s a collector that wanted one from every year he could find based on the serial numbers, a 1940 production rifle, a 1941 production rifle, a 1942 production rifle, a 1943 production rifle, a 1944 production rifle, and a 1945 “Last Ditch Rifle”. Once said collector explains his reasoning why, the employee was most likely more than happy to hand the guns over since it cleared up some needed space.Ex B: A woman walked in and wanted to buy four guns, a rifle, a shotgun, and two handguns. Employee asks the woman why, and she explains that she got her tax return in and had $3000 of spending money to put towards guns for an upcoming 3-Gun match, which usually requires an AR-15 type rifle, a semi-automatic shotgun, and a full-size handgun, with pertinent accessories (ie red dot sights, spare magazines, a gun belt with holster and pouches), along with buying another handgun for concealed carry because she just got her Concealed Carry License. Took the employee a good hour and a half to convince her on what four guns to buy, but she walked out the door with four of them and a red dot to throw on the rifle and competition handgun.Ex C: An older gentleman in a wheelchair walked in and requested to buy a half dozen handguns, all the same model, because the store had a large supply of them and were selling them for about $200 a piece. The employee was mildly concerned and asked him why he wanted a half dozen of them, and the guy told him he planned on using one for himself as a range gun while the other five would just sit in his house until his grandkids turned 21, since he planned on gifting them one each as a birthday present. Was it strange? Depending on the person, it was. But his background check came back clean, and he went on saying if he kicked the bucket before all his grandkids made it to 21 (apparently the youngest was 10), he was willing them to his son to gift them to the grandkids for him. So in the end, he rolled out the door with a half dozen Star pistols.Ex D: A young man walked into the shop and requested to buy 20 rifles, half of them Ruger .22 caliber 10/22 rifles and half of them Ruger .223 AR-15 rifles. All told I think the guy spent almost $10,000 after taxes for the whole lot if he bought them at the bulk prices the store offered. The employee called his manager over, which kindly asked for an explanation for what the rifles were going to be used for, and the man said he was starting up a youth target shooting program, and planned on teaching kids on the .22 rifles for the basics and once they had mastered the fundamentals and wanted more of a challenge he’d teach them on an AR-15. He was even giving them pamphlets explaining the program he was trying to get started. I walked out of the store before he concluded the sale, but confirmed it with one of the employees that the guy did indeed need help carrying 20 rifles back to his pick up truck later that afternoon.Of course, other circumstances might cause different people to be more suspicious, such as if you came back to the store multiple days in a row buying multiple guns at a time, as an example.The one sketchy example that I can recall leading to some kind of rejection wasn’t even for buying a gun, it was trying to sell one. A guy walked into a gun shop one day to get a revolver appraised, and he wanted to sell it, and apparently it was pretty valuable because it was a Colt 2nd Generation Single Action Army (aka Colt Peacemaker) that was valued at over $4000, but between his impatient attitude and his interest in selling it for cash because he needed to pay his rent and car bills in a few days, the employees waved him away. A cop showed up a half hour later asking about the guy and saying he was suspected of stealing the gun, and the shop informed him of the experience and that they’d give the department a call if he showed back up at the store again.But four rifles being bought at the same time? Sorry, but unless you live in a state that restricts how many guns you can buy at any given time, it’s definitely not something gun owning people would consider unusual.

Rules regarding "off the record" are notoriously blurry. There is no official handbook that codifies such things, and there is often disagreement on the finer points. Does an email disclaimer stating that the email is off the record automatically bind the recipient? (Don't count on it.) Can someone say "That's off the record" retroactively? (Some journos will honor it but some won't - ask Samantha Power.) Does the journalist have to *agree* that it's off the record? (I have learned to send an email getting that assent first, having been burned on this before.) If you put a Gchat off the record, and someone copies and pastes it into an email and then uses your quotes, are they breaking the code or just a jerk? And when you go on and off the record, who is supposed to keep track, the source or the reporter? (Or, if you put back beer after beer on a long bus ride with a reporter who doesn't drink, like in the case of McChrystal's crew back in April?)So yeah - this issue is murky. And it's especially murky here, because we don't know what the parameters of the interview was. The terms of on/off the record are usually determined before the interview (or when the subject comes up). But let's go back to the reasons for keeping things off the record: Literally, it means not for publication. It's meant to inform the reporter but the information is not meant to be published (this is more onerous than "not for attribution" where you can say "A source close to Jobs said that..."). So I think this one gets filed under "spirit of the law." What was the original purpose of keeping X off the record? Who was the off the record designation meant to protect? What was at stake? In this case, the information was clearly kept off the record - for 2 years - to hold back the information itself. If Jerry York had wanted that information to get out, he could have slipped enough to the writer to get it out there, been an anonymous source etc. That does not appear to have been the case. Here's what the writer, Doron Levin, said: "Under our agreement at the time, York wanted the facts of Jobs's treatment in Switzerland to remain out of the news. He didn’t say whether the board knew of it. (With York's death, the off-the-record agreement is no longer in place.)"In revealing this information, Levin directly went against the explicitly-stated will of the source. Furthermore, there seems to be no evidence that York changed his mind; he collapsed from a brain aneurism last March and died the next day. So - as far as the *agreement* is concerned - to not publish the information - I don't see why it is vitiated by York's death. Indeed, I think that is somewhat borne out by the fact that Levin died 10 months ago, and it's not like Jobs or his heath has not been germane since then. So - to me - it seems like an opportunistic bsignNow of privacy, promise and trust on the part of a journalist. BUT. For any broken agreement, there are two parts: What's agreed upon, and how it is enforced. In the case of an "off the record" agreement, what do you do when you're burned by a journalist? Usually you just get really pissed and tell anyone you know never to trust that douchebag again. Maybe complain to their editor, who will sanction them accordingly. If you are powerful, great - you can blackball someone. But - it's not like the journalist will go to jail (well, unless they *keep* the journalistic privilege, as Judy Miller knows. But that's another story). So in this case, there's the optimal/normative, and the practical - it's a blurry area, there are no hard-and-fast rules, and who is around to enforce it? It's a scoop on a big story that a lot of people care about, and there's even a public-good rationale for revealing it (Apple should be transparent about Jobs and his health!). Fortune and Levin made the call. We'll see how quickly Apple will talk to them next time.

This fall, my man-child took my car to see the movie Wonder Woman with his friends. En route, he noticed the tank was low on gas, so he stopped to fill it up for me. After the movie and dinner, he returned to my car.It wouldn't start.First he googled. Then he called me."Did you accidentally fill the Diesel engine with regular gas?" I anxiously asked."I'm pretty sure not."A security person tried to give it a jump, but the battery was fine. Per my friend's suggestion and with a neighbor's help, I arrived and added a bottle of HEET to clear the fuel line of any debris.Nada.I began to suspect he was mistaken."Are you *certain* you added diesel?""Yes. Definitely. Pretty sure."I fell asleep imagining the worst.At 9:00 the next morning, I enrolled in AAA. By 11 am, I'd bicycled 12 miles across town (and past three interstate ramps) to meet the tow truck."I fear that my well-meaning son may have added regular fuel to my diesel-engine," I began."Well if that's the case, I'll just tow it to the scrapyard."I tried the ignition."Hmmm..." he said.He tried the ignition.Then he tried it again."It wants to start," he muttered, cranking some more."I want it to start!"And finally, it caught. Curmudgeonly. Noisily. Painfully."I can smell the diesel," he began. "Your kid did no wrong. That sounds like the fuel injector."At which I almost cried.A decade ago, I would have overreacted and blamed my boy the instant I sensed his doubt, lashing-out and judging him...later doubling-back to shamefully apologize.That (long) weekend, I held my reaction inside: angry and fearful, questioning my parenting, holding my breath on the car's verdict.Outwardly, I told my boy how grateful I was that he'd filled the car's tank, proud that he'd known when to ask for help, pleased that he'd learned how to jump an engine...while quietly cringing that he may have destroyed my only vehicle at a time when I could ill-afford to replace it.My favorite teacher always says: "The difference which makes the difference is where we place our attention."I'm looking forward to the day when I can relax and trust that it's all unfolding as it should, that we are supported in exactly the ways we need, that all will be well. I feel like I'm on that path...but nowhere near the end of the trail.And that's ok.The view from here is better than it was a decade ago.