Stalking affects 6.6 million people in the United States each year and every day, in courtrooms throughout the country, stalking victims recount the fear and distress they have experienced as a result of this crime. Stalkers create and exploit vulnerabilities in their victims, relying on technology and manipulation of the justice system to conceal their crimes and cast doubt on their victim’s credibility. This article provides an overview of stalking and the modern technology stalkers use. The article emphasizes the importance of using a collaborative approach between law enforcement, victim advocates and prosecutors to assist victims and hold offenders accountable.
Routine Strip-Searches Upheld for Intake into Jail’s General Population
In Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, the Court held that correctional institutions may conduct routine strip-searches of all detainees upon admittance to the general population of the institution, even those arrested for the most minor offenses. The decision also concluded that such searches do not violate the Fourth Amendment. However, the Court’s decision did not address the question of whether such searches would be constitutionally justifiable without reasonable suspicion if the detainee were not to be admitted to general population, leaving open the possibility of limitations on such searches where alternatives to placement in the general population exist. This article reviews the facts of the case and analyzes the Court’s opinion. It highlights the need for clear legislative or regulatory guidance delineating the circumstances under which strip-searches may be conducted. The article emphasizes the need for a solution that will provide institutional security crucial to the safety of all inmates and staff, while minimizing the need to conduct searches that may traumatize detainees.
Routine_Strip_Searches_Upheld_for_Intake_into_Jails_General_Population_Issue_15
Supreme Court Upholds DNA Collection of Arrestees
In Maryland v. King, the U.S. Supreme Court held that states may obtain and test DNA samples of defendants arrested for violent crimes. This decision resolved conflicting holdings in state and federal courts and clarified that this procedure does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. It also sanctioned the expanded use of arrestee DNA profiles to solve cold cases in which there is DNA evidence that can prove the identity of a perpetrator. This article reviews the case facts and its impact on DNA collection laws.
“I Hear You Knockin’ But You Can’t Come In [At Least While I’m Here]” Fernandez v. California: Third-Party Consent Search After Arrest of Objecting Suspect-Occupant
Does a suspect’s refusal of entry prevent the police from later, in the absence of the objecting occupant, obtaining the consent of an adult co-occupant to enter and search the premises without a warrant? In its recent decision in Fernandez v. California, the United States Supreme Court answered that question in the negative—at least where the police have, in good faith, removed the objecting suspect by arresting him or her. This article reviews the facts of the case, state court proceedings, the US Supreme Court’s opinion, and the gang connection and witness intimidation involved. The article ultimately concludes that the Fernandez decision will facilitate prompt and efficient evidence collection in many crimes involving domestic violence while simultaneously empowering victims to consent to reasonable investigative requests that will facilitate holding their abusers accountable.
Keep Calm and Understand Elonis v. U.S.
The decision of Elonis v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2001 (2015), in which the United States Supreme Court reversed the defendant’s conviction for posting on Facebook threats to harm his wife and others, has caused a good deal of concern among prosecutors, civil attorneys representing victims in protective order proceedings, law enforcement, and advocates. This article analyzes the Court’s opinion, breaks down its meaning for the investigation and prosecution of cases involving online threats and stalking, and explains why the Elonis decision is not cause for alarm. The article suggests strategies for charging and presenting evidence in cases involving threats or stalking on public forums, such as Facebook, to maximize the likelihood of a conviction that will stand up on appeal.
The Internet & Intimate Partner Violence: Technology Changes, Abuse Doesn’t
Although intimate partner abuse and harassment perpetrated through technology can look different than in-person abuse or harassment, the goals and motives are still the same: power and control. Technology allows an abuser to assert that power and control by keeping tabs on their partner – by knowing who the survivor talks to, what they do, and where they go. This is a key aspect of control. Because so many people live their lives on the Internet, it is a treasure trove of information, allowing abusers to stay informed and in control of their victims. This Strategies Newsletter provides an overview of online abuse and offers solutions for documenting the abuse, supporting survivors, and holding offenders accountable.
The-Internet-and-Intimate-Partner-Violence-Technology-Changes-Abuse-Does-Not-Issue16
AEquitas: Established to Promote Justice in Violence Against Women Prosecution
The criminal justice system is a critical resource for victims of sexual assault, domestic violence, stalking, and dating violence. As experienced prosecutors recognize, the concept of justice must also consider the victim’s safety, experience, and perspective. In order to provide the nation’s prosecutors with the support, information, training, mentorship, and resources necessary to objectively evaluate and constantly refine the prosecution of violence against women, several former prosecutors, a forensic nurse, and two national technical assistance providers created AEquitas: The Prosecutors’ Resource on Violence Against Women.
Williams v. Illinois and Forensic Evidence – The Bleeding Edge of Crawford
The application of Crawford principles in the context of forensic evidence continues to plague the criminal justice system. The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Williams v. Illinois raises more questions than it answers about when and how an expert may testify to conclusions based upon the opinions or work of other (non-testifying) experts or technicians. This article reviews the relevant case law, and explores how trial prosecutors can present a case involving forensic testing conducted by a multitude of technicians and experts. It also addresses Williams’ impact on cold cases, in which original experts who performed autopsies and other forensic examinations and testing are no longer available for trial. The author provides practical suggestions to trial prosecutors who must balance limited resources against the need to secure convictions that will withstand confrontation challenges on appeal.
Williams-v-Illinois-and-Forensic-Evidence-The-Bleeding-Edge-of-Crawford-Issue-11
Integrating a Trauma-Informed Response in Violence Against Women and Human Trafficking Prosecutions
This Strategies Newsletter describes a trauma-informed approach to responding to these crimes and discusses practices where such an approach has already been incorporated, highlighting areas where continued, additional integration is necessary. This article also identifies gaps in the application of the approach, specifically in reference to other co-occurring, violence against women and human trafficking crimes, and suggests strategies to more effectively integrate trauma-informed investigative and prosecutorial practices.
Integrating-A-Trauma-Informed-Response-In-VAW-and-HT-Strategies
The Prosecutors’ Resource on Crawford and its Progeny
There are many barriers to victims’ participation in the prosecution of their abusers. When prosecuting a domestic violence case with a non-participating victim (one who either is not in court, or who is in court but is unavailable by reason of refusal to testify, exercise of a privilege, illness, or incompetency) the prosecutor must anticipate a challenge under Crawford v. Washington to the introduction of the victim’s out-of-court statements. Crawford and its progeny are landmark cases that address the admissibility of out-of-court statements in light of an accused’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. This Resource focuses on interpretations of the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause under Crawford. The prosecutor must be aware, however, of the simultaneous need to satisfy state evidence rules concerning hearsay. This paper places Crawford in its historical context, presents a framework for analyzing admissibility of out-of-court statements under the Crawford rules, and provides resources, sample questions, and strategy suggestions to assist the prosecutor in satisfying the confrontation requirements under the Sixth Amendment.
