new york times

Tasers are used by 15,000 law enforcement and military bodies in the U.S. as an alternative to lethal weapons when force is necessary to subdue a person in a threatening situation.

However, recent criticism of police use of force has led to the scrutiny of police use of Tasers, and whether they are actually safer than guns and other weapons.

When fired, Tasers emit a 50,000-volt shock of electricity to the body, which overrides the central nervous system of whoever was struck, leading to an instant collapse as well as uncontrollable muscle contractions, according to a report by the Stanford Criminal Justice Center.

The fall, due to lack of muscle control, is often the cause of more serious injuries relating to the use of a Taser. In general, however, the company claims the shock doesn’t typically cause serious or lasting harm to the average person. Instead, the Taser International website says Tasers have saved more than 140,000 lives, and that injuries are reduced by up to 60 percent when alternative means of force are used.

This may not be true, however, for a significant number of people who are not considered average in terms of health.

For pregnant women and those who have certain health problems including cardiovascular issues, mental illness, heart conditions and high blood pressure, a Taser shock can cause serious injuries and death in some cases.

Dontay Ivy, an Albany man with heart problems and paranoid schizophrenia, died after being shot with a Taser and wrestling police to the ground earlier this year. The cause of death is still being investigated, but Ivy’s family plans to press charges for negligence, racial profiling and excessive force.

Others extreme cases, like that of South Carolina man Walter Scott, involve the use of a Taser in combination with other weapons as the cause of death. North Charleston police officer Michael Slager was fired and later charged with murder for using excessive force against Scott.

These cases bring into question whether Tasers are an acceptable method for police to control a situation, or if their use encourages unnecessary force.

Geoffrey P. Alpert, a criminology professor at the University of South Carolina who researches police use of force, said in the New York Times that Tasers could be effective tools when used properly, but he cautioned that many officers in the United States had come to rely on them excessively.

“Officers need to be spending more time de-escalating situations, instead of resorting to the use of this very convenient tool,” said Emma Andersson, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. “The jury’s still out on whether or not it’s lethal force, but it’s not nothing; it’s very dangerous.”

Others, like Taser International’s spokesman Steve Tuttle, who argues that they are no magic bullet, but they are “safe, effective and accountable” devices.

Currently, no extensive report on the use of Tasers exists, but it seems that all parties can agree that Tasers are dangerous, and must be used with caution. A guideline by the U.S. Justice Department from 2011 sets the standard, stating that Tasers are weapons, and should be used out of necessity, not convenience.

All eyes are on Colorado this year as it is the first state in the country to legalize recreational marijuana and the first location in the world to regulate weed from growth to sales.

In November 2012, 55 percent of Colorado citizens voted in favor of legalizing recreational marijuana, and on January 1, 2014, pot retail outlets opened their doors to thousands of Colorado natives and state visitors who lined up to be among the first to legally buy marijuana.

Other states are sure to follow. Washington also voted in favor of legalized recreational weed in 2012, but will wait to open retail stores until later this year.

The Details

Although it is now legal, regulatory marijuana laws do exist.

Those interested in buying marijuana must be at least 21 years old and may only purchase up to an ounce if they are from in state and a quarter ounce if they hail from out of state. Growing marijuana at home is legal as well, allowing no more than 6 plants per household that must be in a secure and locked area.

No public smoking is allowed due to Colorado’s Clean Indoor Air Act which prohibits smoking indoors, even in dispensaries, and will keep marijuana use out of public areas. Recreational marijuana use is legal only on private property with the permission of the property’s owner.

Similar to alcohol laws, driving under the influence of marijuana is illegal when more than 5 nanograms of THC, the drug’s active component, are present in the blood. THC levels are shown to wear off after three hours after use, but the effects of marijuana vary individually and should be used with caution, especially when both alcohol and marijuana are involved, according to the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws and CNN.

Underage marijuana use and possession is illegal in Denver and is punishable with fines and other consequences, but not jail time.

On a federal level, marijuana remains illegal, but instead of challenging Colorado state law, federal officials will, “focus on serious trafficking and keeping the drug away from children,” CNN said.

Why Legalize Marijuana

Recreational marijuana use will bring in millions of dollars in tax revenue to states that legalize retail pot, the New York Times said.

Retail marijuana in Colorado will have the usual state sales tax of 2.9% plus a 25-percent state tax, making it one of the most highly taxed consumer products in the state, resulting in an additional $67 million a year with $27.5 million of that amount designated to the construction of schools, CNN said.

This will be new revenue for Colorado. Medical marijuana has been around as early as Nov. 2000 when Amendment 20 effectively legalized limited amounts of medical marijuana for patients and primary caregivers, but medical marijuana patients are not charged with extra taxes.

Although both retail and medicinal marijuana establishments are legal in Colorado, the two entities remain separate with different laws and regulations. For example, a personal license and physician recommendation are required for medical marijuana patients.

Community Perspectives

The state Marijuana Enforcement Division mailed out 136 recreational marijuana licenses in December to shops in Denver, and at least 37 of those were able to get past the lengthy legal process to open on Jan. 1, according to the Denver Post and the Gazette.

Most locations were sold out within the first several hours of opening, and despite initial concern, the Denver Post reported police and government officials said crowds were very calm and unproblematic.

Jan. 1 was an exciting day for many. Iraq war veteran Sean Azzariti had campaigned for marijuana legalization and was the first to legally buy recreational pot.

Michael Eymer is benefiting from “cannabis capitalism” with his pot tours that take paying customers to dispensaries, shops and restaurants around Colorado for the full recreational weed experience, CBS said.

Other Colorado communities, however, are not as thrilled.

The cities of Colorado Springs and Greeley are exercising their power to prohibit marijuana commerce, and have chosen not to welcome retail weed to their communities.

The widespread participation and constant availability of social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and MySpace is practically yesterday’s news.

Social media has had such a great presence for several years now, constantly evolving to find a place in society’s daily activities. Most social media apps and sites allow users to communicate with others, upload photos and check into locations at any moment both privately, for friends’ eyes only, and publicly for the entire internet to see.

What is notable about social media’s growing establishment in everyday behavior is the impact these sites are having on law enforcement, acting as both a help and a hindrance.

Locational information as well as public photos and comments have provided police, prosecutors and investigators with new forms of evidence that can act as catalysts to punish criminal behavior.

Many suspected offenders have been caught with the help of social media that was intentionally used as a platform to document their crimes, like a Vietnamese man who surrendered to Ho Chi Minh police shortly after confessing on Facebook that he killed his girlfriend, or a Delaware woman whose vehicular manslaughter sentence was increased due to incriminating photos and messages that portrayed her glamorizing alcohol abuse, The New York Times reports.

Many other cases exist where social media has proved helpful to law enforcement, and with 80 percent of an estimated 500 agencies using social media in criminal investigations, according to a 2013 survey by the International Association of Police, it would seem as though the vast amount of available information social media provides is a crime fighting miracle – but there’s a catch.

Social media is just as challenging for law enforcement as it is helpful.

The expansive amount of online information is overwhelming. Anyone with internet access can have an online identity, and with credibility on the web still a developing phenomenon, investigators must learn to work with false tips and anonymous online confessions that could turn a case upside down and cost agencies time and money for information that may or may not be of value.

There’s also the issue of the Fifth Amendment, which gives citizens the right to not incriminate themselves. Judges and jurors are supposed to base their conclusions on evidence that is, “authentic, reliable and relevant,” said law professor and social media expert for Chicago-Kent Institute of Technology, Lori B. Andrews in The New York Times.

Sometimes posts and comments on social media are taken out of context and misunderstood, resulting in unfortunate outcomes for those involved. For example, Andrews said that photos of people jokingly flashing gang signs have been used by courts to prove actual gang affiliation, and sexualized photos of women have been used against them in divorce and child custody cases.

What’s even more difficult to manage is the use of social media by jurors and those involved in investigations and cases.

In the past, lawyers have been known to hire private investigators to research jurors in order to create a more persuasive and well tailored argument. Today, social media is an online biography displaying personal information making it easy for lawyers to evaluate a jury.

Jurors themselves are increasingly causing issues in court due to their social media use while serving jury duty. Restrictions banning or controlling technology use while in court vary from state to state, so instances of live tweeting during testimonies and Facebook updates revealing highly sensitive information have resulted in mistrials, appeals and overturned verdicts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/sunday-review/social-media-a-trove-of-clues-and-confessions.html?_r=0

In the United States, individuals who are suspected of a crime are supposed to remain innocent until proven guilty. But what happens when the evidence used to convict faces its own scrutiny years later?

That question will once again take center stage in Arizona this year as an Arizona mother is re-tried for a highly publicized crime committed almost 24 years ago.

On January 18, 1991, Debra Jean Milke was sentenced to death for her involvement in the conspiracy to murder her four-year-old son, Christopher. Milke was convicted and sentenced to death based on a verbal confession she gave to a police detective – a detective whose own actions would be called into question years later.

After spending 22 years in prison, Milke’s murder conviction was overturned earlier this year and she was ordered to be released. Less than three months later, a retrial of Milke’s case was ordered.

As defense attorneys and former prosecutors, we know that a retrial is difficult in a case like this simply because so much time has passed. People move away or die, and original evidence can sometimes be unusable. This case will be especially difficult because of the lack of evidence against the defendant when the case first went to court. Factor in the changed circumstances and motives for other witnesses and the ability to win a retrial becomes even harder.

A trip to visit Santa

According to court documents, Milke and her four-year-old son, Christopher, shared an apartment with James Styers. While Milke worked at an insurance agency, Styers watched Christopher.

In September 1989, shortly after beginning a new job, Milke took out a $5,000 life insurance policy on Christopher as part of her employee benefit plan. The policy named Milke as the beneficiary. Sometime between the time she bought the policy and the time of Christopher’s death, Milke and Styers discussed the policy and the benefits.

On Saturday, December 2, 1989, Styers, with Milke’s permission and use of her car, took Christopher from the apartment. Styers told Christopher they were going to Metrocenter so Christopher could see Santa Claus. Styers then picked up Roger Scott, and the two men and Christopher had lunch and ran some errands.

Later, Styers told police that he first dropped Scott off and then took Christopher to Metrocenter to see Santa Claus. Styers told the police he had to use the restroom, so he took Christopher into the men’s room at Sears and had him wait outside the stall.

According to Styers, that’s when Christopher disappeared. Styers reported this scenario to Metrocenter security; eventually the police were called. In this initial testimony, Styers claimed that he met Scott outside of Sears while looking for Christopher, that Scott told him that he had come to Metrocenter with a friend named Phil, that Styers and Scott looked for Christopher, and that Styers eventually walked Scott to the bus stop and Scott went home.

The Phoenix police interviewed Scott. His first story coincided with Styers’, but ultimately Scott led police to Christopher’s body. After that, a Phoenix police detective interviewed Milke. She was told that her son had been found shot to death in the desert and that she was under arrest.

Milke told police that she did not have a $5,000 life insurance policy on Christopher, but her father did. She denied that insurance money was her motivation, but admitted that it may have been Styers’ and Scott’s because Styers knew of the policy. Milke was taken into custody.

A question of evidence

A lack of physical evidence pervaded Milke’s case and trial. The only evidence that could provide motive for the murder were the inconsistencies in her testimony about Christopher’s life insurance policy: Milke initially denied having a life insurance policy on Christopher, which later changed. Milke later admitted to purchasing Christopher’s life insurance policy.

The inconsistencies of Milke’s statement lead the trial court to believe the insurance policy was the motive behind killing Christopher.

According to an article written by the New York Times, Phoenix police Detective Armando Saldate said Milke confessed to plotting the boy’s death in an unrecorded conversation while they were alone. Milke denied confessing, making his account of what happened a case of he said, she said.

Based on this testimony, Milke was convicted of ordering Christopher’s death to claim a share of the insurance policy she had taken out on him.

“The credibility of Armando Saldate should have been called into question before now,” said an attorney. “Saldate has a documented record of perjury and tainting confessions, who is to say that Saldate’s account of Debra Milke’s unrecorded confession was accurate?”

Another source, Injustice Anywhere, states the warning signs that Milke was wrongfully convicted as defined by the Michigan Law University and Northwestern Law:

Co-Defendant Confessed (CDC) – A co-defendant of the exoneree, or a person who might have been charged as a co-defendant, gave a confession that also implicated the exoneree.

False Confession (FC) – The exoneree falsely confessed if (1) he or she made a false statement to authorities which was treated as a confession, (2) the authorities claimed that the exoneree made such a statement but the exoneree denied it, or (3) the exoneree made a statement that was not an admission of guilt, but was misinterpreted as such by the authorities.

Inadequate Legal Defense (ILD) – The exonoree’s lawyer at trial or on appeal provided obviously and grossly inadequate representation.

Official Misconduct (OM) – Police, prosecutors, or other government officials significantly abused their authority or the judicial process in a manner that contributed to the exoneree’s conviction.

Perjury or False Accusation (P/FA) – A person other than the exoneree falsely accused the exoneree of committing the crime for which the exoneree was later exonerated, either in sworn testimony or otherwise.

As Milke’s case goes back to trial, she faces being sent to death row once again. And the questionable confession used to convict her almost a quarter century ago will once again be called into question.