WHAT SHOULD POLICE DEPARTMENTS BE DOING DIFFERENTLY WITH THEIR LINE-UP PROCEDUES TO IMPROVE THE ACCURACY OF EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY?
204500
I think that one thing that might help them to improve would be to have the witness view the line-up as soon as possible.  Every minute they wait makes it that much harder for a witness to make a positive identification.  They only time I have been asked to view a line-up was 1 1/2 months after the incident.(I didn't do it because I wasn't sure)
616517
I don't know the policy of any police department.\n\nHearing is still impaired even when a hearing aid is worn, and if the device is dislodged in an altercation you are worse off.  The same is true for vision correction (glasses or contacts) so if they allow them, I think they should allow hearing aids.\n\nhttp://www.co.ba.md.us/Agencies/police/careers/minimum_requirements.html  -- This page just says:\nApplicants must be able to safely perform the duties of the position without posing a threat to the health and safety of themselves or others as determined by a test of physical ability. In addition, after accepting an appointment to a position within this classification, all candidates will be required to pass a physical examination.\n\nhttp://www.co.ba.md.us/Agencies/police/careers/application_and_testing_process.html   -- This page says:\nMedical/ Physical Examination  - Candidates will undergo a full medical screening and examination, by a certified physician designated by the Baltimore County Police Department.  Candidates will undergo vision and hearing tests as well as periodic drug screening.\nVisual Standards: All candidates must have binocular vision.  Corrected vision shall be at least 20/30 in the weaker eye and shall be for both eyes together.  The uncorrected standard shall not be worse than 20/100 in the weaker eye (20/180 if soft contacts are worn regularly and consistently for vision correction).\n -- It doesn't give audiometric criteria, so you may have to contact them directly.
578988
The police honestly think that they are above the law and \ncan therefore break it with impunity
16089
I would disagree with the paranoid among the crowd ("the police will get you if you complain about one of them") but to each his own...and I'm sure it has happened in some places.  \n\nCertainly you can file a complaint with the officer's agency.\n\nYou can probably also file a complaint with the prosecutor's office.\n\nYou can hire a lawyer and pursue a 1983 action.  Hope you've got buckets of money, or a generous lawyer.\n\nWhat's more important to me, and what would really make the whole issue moot, is the issue of whether or not the officer "made up false charges."  Is this your opinion?  You may not know the law well enough to make that determination.  If it's an incident that you have no personal knowledge of, you may not even have all the facts.  \n\nIt's also entirely possible that the officer relied on information given to him/her by a witness or a victim.  If someone comes to me and claims to be a rape victim, I have to give them the benefit of the doubt and begin an investigation.  Given enough probable cause to make an arrest based on my investigation, I may arrest the suspect...even though he may eventually be proven to be factually innocent.  That doesn't mean I made anything up, it simply means there was enough information to justify making an arrest...and nobody will ever tell you (nobody that knows what they're talking about) that just because an arrest was made and the suspect was later proven to be innocent, that the officer absolutely had to be wrong about the arrest.  Sometimes things come to light after the arrest that shows the suspect didn't commit the crime after all...but that does not necessarily mean the officer made anything up.\n\nDo cops lie?  Sure...I hate to think so, but I know they do, just like doctors, lawyers, judges, auto mechanics, plumbers, dope dealers and garbage collectors.  I'd like to think we take steps to weed out liars, but I'm not about to say we (as a group) never do it...just as I would never say any one particular group of people does anything.  \n\nIf this is something you'd like to talk more about in email, I'm happy to help shed some different light on it for you or help point you in the direction you might want to go (though I'm not suggesting you should only listen to what *I* say).  If you'd like to talk about it, you can send an email to my nickname at yahoo.com.\n\nNo way will I say the officer in whatever case you're talking is not lying, but I don't know what the facts are and I'm certainly hoping there's another explanation for what you seem to be claiming is dishonesty.
44449
It is hearsay, but the general rule is that a person's own statements to a third party can be used against them in court (both civil and criminal cases).  \n\nSo, if the perp tells you something, you can testify about what he said.  But if you tell the cops, the cops can't testify b/c the statment isn't from the perp himself.
254020
Yes, the several things are in the wrong order.A few steps left out (initial appearance, bond forfeiture hearing, initial pre-trial conference, etc).  If this is your lawyer's flow chart you are in big trouble.
364443
No it's not OK, These people are as supposed to work FOR the public, If they haven't got any evidence, they shouldn't be trying to fabricate some.\n\nIt is no excuse that they believe a person is guilty, that is their opinion, and is often wrong. \nThe pressure to "solve" cases does not excuse corrupt policing.
447329
You need to discuss the issue that police forces seem to be trying to improve their public image - what people think of them, that they are trying to improve how they interact and get along with the public, and that some people or factors may be making this difficult.  There is an effort to make police forces more "people friendly".\n\nI hope this helps a little.
4667
In most instances, what is generally considered as profiling by law enforcement is wrong.  \n\nThe biggest problem I have with it is: if you put any one group under a microscope, you will catch more of the members of that group doing things, thus "verifying" your profile and removing resources from pursuing other groups.\n\nMany people say things like, "if I haven't done anything wrong I don't care if they need to search/stop me to catch the bad guys."\n\nThe problem with that thinking is it ignores the realities of the impact and embarrassment felt by those stopped/searched/scrutinized, and the chances of someone being wrongly accused of things, which does happen.  Remember Richard Jewell?
53377
Ummm....judges, I'm fairly certain, cannot use tea leaves, crystal balls, or a roll of the dice to determine guilt or innocence.  Not sure why someone who claims to be an officer would suggest otherwise.\n\nGood luck on getting that trial transcript.  At least in California, traffic court is not required to have a court reporter.\n\nI disagree with the notion that the discovery process needed to be done earlier.  If the officer testified that the radar unit was calibrated, then the next logical questions would be when, by who, what were the results, etc.  If the officer didn't testify to the unit being calibrated, then the discovery request probably should have been made earlier if you wanted to know those things.\n\nThe judge may not have meant he and the officer were drinking/golfing buddies.  He may have meant the officer has been testifying before him for 13 years and because of his past testimony, the judge finds the officer to be very credible.  Since the judge does not know you, and perhaps has reason to doubt your side of the event, he may feel it's appropriate to take the officer's word over yours.  Judges or juries do that all the time...one witness is credible and can be believed, the other witness is not so credible and can be disbelieved.  \n\nI would not assume the judge's decision was based solely on the length of time the judge has known the officer.  The judge was maybe a little smart-assed when he said that (as recounted by you), but I don't know that I would just assume that's all he used to make his decision.
95680
Surveilance is what comes to mind-any GOOD cop (rarity) knows how. I had a buddy who was an MP in sunny SE Asia that could pick a VC out of a crowd just by the way the guy (or girl) looked at him.
616285
file a restraining order & waiver of cost, have policeman involve, witness and tape record it, video tape it more evidence the better
305334
Police reports are public record all you have to do is ask.\n\nPhotos and other physcial evidence are seldom keep more than a year or so, if a case is not going to trial and there is no need for it.  \n\nActually most departments would not even take photos, pleasse understand it does not happen in real life in most small town America like you see on those CSI shows on tv
124239
Just state the facts.  Don't elaborate, be as brief as possible. \n\nDo not mention anything such as "i saw so-and-so and he did not run the red light that he got the ticket for..." or, "the cop is wrong," or "he shouldn't have gotten a ticket."\n\nDon't give a hint to your opinion state ~only~ what you observed.  No more, no less.\n\n"Just the facts ma'am." ;)
435249
Your local Police Department SHOULD be able to assist you by looking up the address in their system & telling you the dates & officers names that responded to the call.  Then you'll probably have to get copies of each individual Police Report.  Call & talk to the Watch Commander at your local PD & tell them why you need the info...child welfare & safety.
468145
The problem with the justic system is that people lie a lot. The accused lie. Alleged victims lie. Cops lie. Attorneys lie. As a criminal defense attorney, I've had cases where I knew the victim was lying (and, in at least one case, was found out to be right when months after the case the "victim" was charged with the crimes for which I was sure he was lying about), but the District Attorney didn't believe me. He believed the cops version. The offer was probation and the down side was life in prison. It's all about avoiding risk, so, of course, the client takes felony probation to avoid life in prison. It's all about who you believe. DNA isn't perfect, but the public believes it is. Fingerprint analysis is not perfect either. There are no national standard for fingerprint analysis. Most analysts are not certified. But the public believes fingerprint analysis is perfect. (Look at the Oregon attorney whose finger prints were found to be very similar to prints connected to the terrorist bombings in Madrid, but who had never been to Spain and had nothing to do with the bombing.) The public thinks that cops never lie but they do. A couple ex-cop friends of mine tell me that cops lie regularly on the stand and in their reports to make sure that the courts find their traffic stops legal and to identify suspects. But who wins the credibility game beween a defendant and a cop? The cops always win unless they really mess up. The system is just too subjective. It relies too much on determining who is lying and who is not and one just can't really ever know when someone is lying.\n\nI suspect that most accused are guilty. The trouble is that many are not and go to prison for nothing. How many, I don't know. I suspect it is a lot. And prison just makes it worse. Most prisoners learn nothing but how to con more folks and commit more crimes. They get out and no one will hire them, because they are felons. And our get tough attitude in society make more and more people into felons. Stress on the outside makes felons turn to drugs and crime. Prison and branding people felons makes the situation worse.\n\nThe trouble is that I don't know what the solution is. More drug programs like Delancy Street in San Francisco. It has a 90% success rate. I'd rather see the government spend its money on that than on prison. But the prison guard unions (particularly the one in California) has too much power and would not go for that. More prisons are better for them as they don't want to solve the problem but want to get more pay for members and more members (as one can see by the union's lawsuit to stop California from exporting prisoners to out of state prisons to help on overcrowding, which solves the overcrowding problem but makes it less likely there will be more prisons and, therefore, fewer union members). Someone needs to figure out what we are going to do with the millions of people behind bars in this country. I wish I was smart enough.
326631
"Eyewitness testimony can be characterized as being highly faulty, as demonstrated through theoretical and experimental knowledge as well as through real life examples, and as this is the case, it should not be the only evidence upon which convictions are based."\n\n"Witness testimony is often presumed to be better than circumstantial evidence. Studies have shown that individual, separate witness testimony is often flawed and parts of it can be meaningless. This can occur because of a person's faulty observation and recollection, because of a person's bias, or because the witness is lying. If several witnesses witness of an event, it is probative to look for similarities in their collective descriptions to substantiate the facts of an event, keeping in mind the contrasts of individual descriptions."