I was dispatched to Foxcroft Apartments as a backup unit for Ofc Eagan in reference to a domestic dispute. As I came on scene Ofc Eagan saw Rodney Russaw leaving from the apartment and became involved in a foot pursuit with the suspect. Ofc. Eagan and I pursed Russaw down Henderson St into the wood line. Ofc Eagen placed Russaw under arrest for trespassing, and transported Russaw to Troy City Jail. I then made contact with the complainant, Jamelia Andrews at Apt 8.As I came to the door of the residence it had been forcefully kicked in and the door frame was broken to the point the door could not be secured. Andrews advised that her cousin had dropped off some of Russia's cloths at her residence. She stated that Russaw had told her by
On 11/6/2017 at 1400 hours, I Officer Graves, responded to 735 E Haggard Ave Elon, NC 27244 in reference to an assist. Upon arrival Detective Turney, Lieutenant Sweat, and Officer Peters were at apartment K executing a search warrant. I was requested to remain outside of the residence at the front door. At 1426 hours Captain B. Tillotson entered the residence and left at 1441 hours. At hours Officer Peters released Jacy Loshin from the premises after issuing a citation. At 1455 hours Officer Chavis entered the residence and remained until the search warrant execution was completed at 1530 hours, when all remaining officers cleared.
On 08/18/2015, Barbara Feeman contacted Pasco Sheriff`s Office by telephone to report a Petit Theft.
The United States Court of appeals ruled that the suppressed evidence is purely impeaching evidence and no defense request has been made, the suppressed evidence is material only if its introduction probably would have resulted in acquittal. Given a minor role of Phillips' testimony and the limited impact that Phelps statement had on the jury's assessment of Phillips credibility, Maddox could not demonstrate that so the evidence probably would have resulted in an acquittal. Also, the evidence was immaterial under United States V.Blasco; the defendant filed a joint motion to suppress all physical evidence gathered by the officers and any statements made by the defendant. The magistrate found that the defendant did not have to raise a fourth amendment challenge and its suppression did not violate his (Maddox’s) due process right. For ongoing reasons, the district court's dismissal of Maddox's habeas petition was affirmed.
On this date worker visited the residence of Mr. John and Claudia Peterson, for the purpose of making first victim contact. When worker arrived, Mr. Peterson was standing outside. He greeted worker and stated, "Something is wrong with her." According to Mr. Peterson, Mrs. Peterson does not do anything around the house except watch TV. She has a history of being verbally abusive, throwing the remote and dishes at him, and she has threatened to kill him before. The last time she threatened to kill him she was placed in Senior Care. However, Mr. Peterson checked her out AMA because the doctor would not talk to him. When asked about her behavior prior he stated, "She has always been like this just not this bad." Mrs. Peterson has no family or friends
* Jim Jones shouted his threat at Bob Black at the hockey game in front of
3. How could a section 1983 action be brought where an officer in the locker room preparing for off duty accidentally discharged his revolver, striking a custodian? What would be the justification for a lawsuit in this case? The officer was wrong in this accidental discharge. Police are responsible for the fire arm and even if the officer didn’t shoot someone you are supposed to be able to control the fire arm. This was an accident not meant to hurt someone but if you can’t control a gun you shouldn’t be able to carry one. Negligence like this could kill someone on accident. Officers should treat every gun as they are dangerous because like shown in this case they can hurt someone. He could say it was an accident but if I was the custodian
Lisa Levan 231 Rasberry St. Bethlehem, Pa. 18018 (610) 442-6327 was advised of the identity of Investigator Sean P. Brennan and of the confidential nature and purpose of the interview, Levan, provided the following information:
On the evening of January 5, 1993, Tracie Reeves and Molly Coffman, both twelve years of age and students at West Carroll Middle School, spoke on the telephone and decided to kill their homeroom teacher, Janice Geiger. They agreed that Coffman would bring rat poison to school the following days so that it could be placed in Geiger's drink. After that , they would steal Geiger's car and drive to the Smoky Mountains. On the morning of January 6, Coffman placed a packet of rat poison in her purse and board the school bus. Coffman told another student, Christy Hernandez, of the plan and show her the poison. Hernandez went and informed her homeroom teacher, Sherry
As Privy Council held in the case of "Wagon Mound (No 1)" that a party can only be held liable for damage that was reasonably foreseeable, the defendant should not be responsible for losses that are ‘too remote’ from the breach. It is obviously that the university could foresee that Brad have to quit his job to finish the degree and also need to pay for the fees.
On 08/22/2017 Adrian and his siblings were returned back home of parent, however Adrian was returned under the condition that his parents find suitable placement for Adrian to live. Since Adrian was ordered home of parent, parents have attempted to place Adrian with different relatives, however his stay is only limited in their homes, as the relatives express that they are unable to look after Adrian because they work full time., and Adrian’s behavior are out of control. Family members fear the consequences of caring for Adrian due to his behaviors, and gang affiliation. Adrian has been residing in different family member’s homes, and most recently his parents Mr. and Mrs. Perez are not able to provide CSW
I returned Ms Dunlap call. She said wants to place a formal complaint against the CPS worker Miranda Larson because she illegally removed her children based on false accusations. She stated that Miranda, like the entire CW are doing criminal activities. She then asked me if I had talked to her attorney? What was my conversation about, What did I disclose to them? What did they told me about her? "Be honest" she said. I informed her that I do contact her attorney because in one her DHS 0170 form the Discrimination Complaint form, she provided us her attorney's phone number and my conversation was about how can we contact her. She said that we should not be talking to her attorney because she just fired her.
By which became a contract on 11/28/2010 we were charged $2500 for legal services but the contract states deposit is not refundable under any circumstances. My first payment started on 11/12/2010 for the total amount of $1,020.00 when I made my first payment I took all my required documents to fill out all the packets I was given for immigration to send them, the benefited are Rogelio Medina and Norma Medina. The request was from our son Jesus Medina. On 7/21/2011 I was sent an appointment for my finger prints before that I received receipts of payments which I made on 6/15/2011 for the amounts of $420 and $1,070 plus $1,000 on 9/6/2011 for the total amount of 2,490 I was also charged and extra 1,250 for his service making the grand total
In the Lethbridge, Mock Court trial the charged that was laid, and was to prove by the Crown took place under Section 445 (1) (b) of the Criminal code that entails, everyone who willfully and without lawful excuse places poison in such a position that it may easily be consumed by dogs, birds or animal that are not cattle and are kept for a lawful purpose (Justice Laws Website, 2018). The elements the accused satisfied within the offence consisted of, willfully and without reasonable cause, which directly relates to accused establishing the mens rea, one of three points to prove needed by the crown to successful convict the accused (Murray, 2018). The next element the accused was arraigned with, is placing poison in a position that is easily accessible for consumption by animals other than cattle (Murray, 2018). In addition, this establishes the actus reus of the actions the accused took in undertaking this offence. Identify was established through oral testimony, by the questions raised by the Crown (Murray, 2018).
All these three concepts explained why Simon is not motivated. For instance, the lack of job enlargement. Simon’s task was easy and boring, which he did not seem to do well because of repetitions. His job scope was too tight or too little which resulted in boredom. In terms of job rotation, Simon wasn’t trained in different sections of a building inspector. This is because of his lack of qualifications. On the other hand of job enrichment, what made Simon not feeling motivated is because the fact that the job wasn’t the job that he really wanted in the first place and the job wasn’t really his passion.
I arrived upstairs when I was directed inside the apartment. I saw a tall male in a white shirt holding a firearm. I directed the male (later identified as Neil Weekly (property manager)) to drop the weapon. Neil handed me the firearm. I secured the weapon from Neil. Neil stated they were fighting and he came in to the apartment to see Clarence Morris with a gun. Neil stated that the female was in the room. I heard a female yelling and sobbing from the bedroom. I went into