Aidpage

      The recommendations contained in this report are in response to concerns about sex offenders moving into the Payne-Phalen neighborhood, and the recent Eastside rapes at the hands of multiple sex offenders.
       I like to warn the readers who live in the Payne-Phalen neighborhoods there are no legal monitoring models in use that will provide 100 percent protection from predatory sex offenders. Besides, people must think about their morals and ethics for balancing the civil rights of convicted sex offenders between the greater good of public safety and its costs.
      Many legal analysts give their support and opinions that low-level sex offenders might clog the sex offender monitoring programs, in which case the current science of sexual offender risk assessment is faulty. Abner (2006) is a Justice Public Safety Analyst who writes “Waging War on Sexual Crimes” in the April 2006 issue of State News about the new police supervision role for monitoring and interacting with high-risk sex offenders (p. 13). Currently, Ramsey County uses the “Weed and Seed” program, which can screen high-risk sex offenders from moving into the Payne-Phalen neighborhoods.
       The U.S. Department of Justice's developed the Weed and Seed program to demonstrate an innovative and comprehensive approach to law enforcement and community revitalization, and to prevent and control violent crime, drug abuse, and gang activity in target areas. The program, initiated in 1991, attempts to weed out violent crime, gang activity, and drug use and trafficking in target areas, and then seed the target area by restoring the neighborhood through social and economic revitalization. Weed and Seed has three objectives: (1) develop a comprehensive, multi-agency strategy to control and prevent violent crime, drug trafficking, and drug-related crime in target neighborhoods; (2) coordinate and integrate existing and new initiatives to concentrate resources and maximize their impact on reducing and preventing violent crime, drug trafficking, and gang activity; and (3) mobilize community residents in the target areas to assist law enforcement in identifying and removing violent offenders and drug traffickers from the community and to assist other human service agencies in identifying and responding to service needs of the target area.
       “Weed and Seed” can help in the sex offender’s rehabilitation from their offense until they are unlikely to reoffend. In which case, Ramsey County and the St. Paul Police can work together for using Abner’s idea with Scotland’s supervision model by working with trained police inside appointed sex offender units enforcing sexual offense prevention orders, and supervising sex offenders (Scottish, 2005).
      Scottish (2005) posts their police model, which has a successful working partnership with community social service agencies (p. 1). Each offender has caseworkers, probation officers, and law enforcement assigned to him or her for the long-term goal that helps them assimilate back into society. In addition, Abner (2006) recognized that “in execution of such duties the police may, on occasion, act in an encouraging advisory capacity…” (p. 19). The police must help sex offenders regain public trust and self-control. Until then, court orders are the first line of defense.
       Court orders restrict offenders, for example, not to frequent public parks, playgrounds, child-care, or certain public events where vulnerable people may be present. The St. Paul Police must enforce any court order violations made by high-risk sex offenders. Barring a mistake, sex offenders should have three warnings before using GPS or civil commitment.
       Ramsey County can copy the Scottish Concordat agreement, which proposes that Eastern District police and others involved in monitoring teams should undertake nationally provided training on overseeing sex offenders and risk assessment. Law enforcement can learn to reassess the priority allowed to work with sex offenders, and evaluate contributing sex offending intelligence to wider crime prevention and detection databases (Scottish, 2005).
       However, there are problems with supervising sex offenders and enforcing laws in the Payne-Phalen area that I will discuss.
        First, the lack of community budget to pay overtime costs for St. Paul patrol officers to “baby-sit” sex offenders. To offset these costs, the City can apply for money at the Department of Justice Sex Offender Management Grant Program (CSOM, 2007). In addition, the sexual predator can help pay for his or her monitoring program through community service or by some other incentive programs.
       Second, many offenders leave their “zones” without registering or updating their information. This is where frequent monitoring by the Eastern District needs to verify if the offender is compliant. Finally, most offenders are using the Internet at home, which limits public scrutiny for monitoring the offender’s computer activities.
       With having said that, the Payne-Phalen neighborhoods want sex offenders to have proper supervision that identifies any changes of the offender, which could increase the risk of harm to others.
       The Eastern District police can help their sex offenders develop techniques for self-risk management through supervision and guidance with the help of frequent home visits by police units, social workers, and probation officers.
        On each compulsory interview, 1) the sex offender must receive a copy of the registration requirements; 2) asked to verify if his or her information is still valid and record any changes; and 3) have the right to choose a Sex Offenders Co-coordinator to link with and be a link for other police colleagues and proper agencies (Scottish, 2005).
        Following the Scottish lead, new requirements in the sex offender’s release agreement must allow the Eastern District police officers to use laptop computers with tracking software. The new computer software allows the police officer to preview any material stored on the offender’s personal computer during the home interview, which each program costs $35 and charged to the high-risk offender (E-School, 2002). Computer software tracking gives St. Paul police new investigative abilities for watching high-risk sex offenders. Electronic monitoring can also include satellite monitoring by GPS or RFID.
       Global Positioning System (GPS) is a small unit, which police officers can use satellite tracking. GPS mapping of the community can aid officers track high-risk sex predators. The high-risk offender can help pay for the GPS service used with the home monitoring program.
       Each GPS bracelet costs about $2,000 and the cost for daily monitoring via GPS costs about $8; in addition, agents who monitor sex offenders need to have acceptable training and salary (Nelson, 2007). The GPS supervision program exists in Wisconsin, in which case it already cost $1 billion+ to Wisconsin taxpayers with looming budget cuts (Marley, 2007).
        However, bulky ankle bracelets cause the offender a public stigma and the bracelets are susceptible to tampering and removal, which thirty-three States have not yet voted if microchipping may be an alternative. I will mention the RFID to show people how far people are willing to go to give up their civil rights or infringe on others.
        RFID— I showed a PowerPoint presentation about RFID in my Critical Issues of Law Enforcement class. I told the class the RFID is a small passive or active microchip the size of a grain of rice implanted under the skin of the sex offender for tracking and identification.
        The group project highlighted the microchip has health and civil rights issues, in which case seventeen States banned microchipping humans following the passage of 2005 Wisconsin Legislative Law 482. The ACLU and many legal analysts argue that microchipping and using GPS on humans violate the 4th , 5th, 8th, 9th, and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution. Minnesota legislation currently does not ban the use of GPS or RFID, which tracking indigent sex offenders with 80-cent microchips are cheaper than GPS bracelets.
       However, problems will occur if a sex offender moves out of Minnesota into the other seventeen States that banned microchipping of humans. Many States adopted Wisconsin law 482, which punishes the entity who injected the microchip with fines of $10,000 for each day the microchip remains inside the resident.
       Therefore, I believe the cost of remote monitoring should not trade public safety for definitive police work that supports the civil rights of the sex offender and the community. Electronic monitoring is expensive and brands the offender with public humiliation until the next argument presents itself that new technology makes the GPS bracelet discreet. Public opinions to use electronic devices for monitoring sex offenders who “might commit a crime” infringes their Eighth Amendment guarantee from “Cruel and Unusual Punishment.”      
       Sex offenders can challenge their Constitutional rights or public laws all the way to the US Supreme Court at costs to taxpayers. I believe it is cheaper for the Eastern District to monitor offenders with consistent judicial and citizen supervision with verbal and written warnings, and then civil commitment to psychiatric hospitals or prison if there is noncompliance.
       Scottish (2005) writes, “police officers must have supervising powers similar to social workers and probation officers, which directs a sex offender to end specific activities or undertake others, such as health clubs, public activities involving vulnerable people… If the offender rejects such a warning and after a suitable time has elapsed (at the discretion and recorded by the police officer) then the police can issue the offender a final warning.”      
      The commanding supervisor must give his or her approval before disclosing the sex offender’s personal information. The Commander must find out if citizens have any prior knowledge of the sex offender before disclosing any information;
       Second, people must know about confidentiality laws and the use of such information for public protection and specific purposes only (Scottish, 2005). If the warnings do not stop the offender’s high-risk behavior, then by law, it is possible to commit the unresponsive offender indefinitely to a psychiatric hospital.
      The US Supreme Court ruling in Kansas v. Crane 534 U.S. 407 (2002) said, “States retain considerable leeway in defining the mental abnormalities and personality disorders that make an individual eligible for commitment; and psychiatry, which informs but does not control ultimate legal determinations.” Crane cited Kansas v. Hendricks 117 S.Ct. 2072 (1997) that it had set “forth no requirement of total or complete lack of control, but the Constitution does not permit commitment of the type of dangerous sexual offender considered in Hendricks without any lack-of-control determination.” The Court stated that Hendricks referred to the [Sexual Predator] Act as requiring an abnormality or disorder that makes it “difficult, if not impossible, for the [dangerous] person to control his dangerous behavior.” Id., at 358 (emphasis added). The Court defined the word “difficult” suggests the lack of control was not absolute. The Court admitted-- “an absolutist approach is unworkable and would risk barring the civil commitment of highly dangerous persons suffering severe mental abnormalities.”
       In Hendricks, this Court said, “It is enough to say that there must be proof of serious difficulty in controlling behavior.”
       The Center for Sex Offender Management at www.csom.org said sex offenders have recidivism rates of 52 percent in twenty-five years, in which case society must think about balancing the civil rights of convicted sex offenders between the greater good of public safety and its monitoring costs.      
        Sex offenders may face a stigma of public scrutiny because of changing legislation, routine judicial supervision, and the fear of civil commitment, especially for the low-risk sex offenders. Besides, new legislation somehow entraps people and ruins their lives until there is a Supreme Court decision. With having said that, educating people about sex offenders is the key for mutual civil existence.
        The biggest benefit is that ideas are coming directly from fully invested community members helping the sworn monitoring staff to understand the community’s perspective on what they want and need to know. Both the community and the police department benefit from an increased awareness of an offender’s assigned risk level and helping each other with keeping accurate registration information. Find a core community group that is reflective of the city’s demographics and encourage them to meet with police departments to learn about sex offender management. Citizen volunteers are a visual extension of the law enforcement presence in the neighborhoods; neighbors know that they can approach the sex offender monitoring team with questions and ask for information.
     Costs are small to the judiciary. A large network of community and federal organizations can absorb most of the costs, such as grants from Foundations, our Department of Justice, and the offender or other people. High-risk sex offenders can rehabilitate themselves when they contribute community service or personal finances to help pay for the continuing help provided in the sex offender monitoring program. The message to sex offenders is that police departments are enforcing public monitoring.
      In conclusion, the public can help a sex offender change for becoming a productive member of society, in which Scotland, so far, has a high success rate of assimilating sex offenders back into society. Sex offenders supervised by the police, probation offices, and concerned citizens will work.
       However, some people say that electronic monitoring by GPS must be the final solution for noncompliant sex offenders. Legal analysts argue that 24-hour electronic monitoring is unconstitutional. Many conservative people believe if the offender recidivates or has three warnings under the judicial supervision model, then off to court to judge whether he or she will spend an indefinite time at a State Hospital or prison.
       Until legislation changes, I believe that before anyone thinks about depriving the sex offender’s civil rights, people should not forget about the wide berth of Minnesota laws that can trap consenting--but unmarried adults--with arrests for illegal sex. Someday, you too might be a convicted sex offender.

                                                        References

Abner, Carrie. (April. 2006). Waging War on Sexual Crimes: States Target Sex  
             Offenders through Policy and Practice. [Electronic Version] State News.
             Retrieved from www.csg.org on February 25, 2007.

CSOM (Center for Sex Offender Management). (Feb. 2007). FY 2006 Comprehensive 
             Approaches to Sex Offender Management Grant Program Awards Announced.
             Retrieved from http://www.csom.org/whatsnew/new.html on February 26, 2007.

E-School News Staff. (Feb. 1, 2002). Probation officers use software to monitor sex   
             offenders. Retrieved from
              http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/showstory.cfm?ArticleID=3489 on February  
              25, 2007.

Harrington, St. Paul Police Chief John M. (Spring. 2007). LAWE 301, Community
              Policing Lecture notes Jan. 22, 2007. Metropolitan State University, St. Paul,
              MN.
Marley, Patrick. (Feb. 15, 2007). Doyle seeks less sex offender monitoring: Budget                                          
               retreats from parts of plan he OK'd last year. [Electronic version] Journal 
              Sentinel. Retrieved from             http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=566483 on February 25, 2007.

If you are like me and wondering why Americans are worrying about other nation's human rights when we are experiencing the same fate as undeveloped countries. Whether your opinions or allegence are political or enduring for freedoms of others, read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations. Yes, the United States is violating much of our rights long before the USA Patriot Act became in effect. Read on below and count your violations.

If you count the violations and your score is:  1-6= You have political influence.

                                                                    7-12= Average citizen.

                                                                   13-24= Did you immigrate from a Third-World country?

                                                                    25-48= I suggest booking the next flight to the Mir Space Station.

On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the full text of which appears in the following pages. Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories."
PREAMBLE
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

11/20/2005

Dear Council Members, Distinguished guests and Neighbors:

The question I ask is, Do the needs of human life outweigh our tax dollars?

I witnessed for the past years the problems I have written in the flyer, http://operation-save-our-streets-neighborhood-project.app-brighan-1.aidpage.com/operation-save-our-streets-neighborhood-project/.

The main issue this evening is the high-speed traffic in the alleyway to Walfoort Liquor. My neighbors and I tried to curb the traffic by our presence and telling nonresidents of the traffic laws with their ignoring of our actions when passing through the alley. Tonight, I am giving the City proper notice on record of the dangers to our property and personal safety connected to the businesses on the alley between Magnolia and Jessamine Avenues. We need to close off the alley, install speed bumps, or make it undesirable for nonresidents to traverse the alley near our homes.

History shows the City’s plan outweighs the needs of the neighborhood. There are precedents when people tried to stop unnecessary traffic and the evaluation plan already conducted in the neighborhood. Don Telin of 835 Magnolia Avenue states, “We have tried to stop people in the neighborhood since the 1970’s. The City received complaints and they did their traffic studies with nothing done to solve the problem [because of discretionary immunity].” The result is the City is lucky that people did not suffer serious injuries or property damage since giving notice to the City in the 1970’s.

Today, the City will incur civil liability, God forbid if someone injures or kills a child or damages property because the City of St. Paul does not enforce the Traffic statutes or by correcting the problem permanently. I will cite the authoritive cases of Nusbaum v. Blue Earth Co., 422 N.W. 2d 713 (Minn. Ct. App., 2004); Minn. §466.01 (2004) (The City must protect its citizens from harm that is able to cure-quoting  Hansen v. City of St. Paul, 214 N.W. 2d 346 (Minn., 1974) (Constructive notice given to the City of public safety hazards of stray dogs running loose and biting people)).

The City will not have the defense of discretionary immunity from liability because of policy decisions about public finances, impact, or planning ruled in Nguyen v. Nguyen, 565 N.W. 2d 721 (1997), which relies on Minn. § 466.02 (1976) and Minn. § 466.03, Subd. 6 (2002), (Discretionary acts for investigative planning or fiscal determinations).

In this case, discretionary immunity from torts [Civil Lawsuit] does not apply. Minn. § 466.03, Subd. 5 (2002) is an exception that forbids immunity from tort liability for any injuries suffered or personal property damage (Section 466.03, Subd. 8 (2002)) after already given the City notice of the public safety issues and the City’s failure to enforce legislative traffic statutes.

Therefore, the Court can construe liability when the City failed to enforce mandated public safety statutes and the City Council can fail in their claims that discretionary immunity applies because of planning. Consult with an attorney before taking action.

Solutions that I present tonight are cutting the alleyway off from the businesses to the rest of the neighborhood. Examples of local precedent’s are Forest and Orange is a dead-end residential alley. Hyacinth and Wheelock Parkway has blocked off traffic except for emergency traffic. Magnolia and Arcade Street at the Hmong-American Partnership cuts the alleyway with a one-way sign.

Another solution is to reform the alleyway with speed bumps designed to allow the water flow into the storm sewers. Or;

Volunteers armed with radar guns can rotate and record license plates with the speed driven and warning notices delivered to the offender of their possible liabilities. If the City fails the neighborhood, then the next election will reflect the differences of opinions.

One neighbor on the 800 block is a paralegal and offers to remind the public the following:

“The Minnesota Criminal statutes and Traffic laws of 2005 state:

 **Minn. § 169.14, Subd. 1. (1997). Duty to drive with care. No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway [roadway is defined as a highway, §169.01, subd. 31] at a speed greater than is reasonable for becoming and remaining aware of the actual and potential hazards then existing on the highway and must use due care in operating a motor vehicle. In every event speed shall be so restricted as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person, vehicle or other conveyance on or entering the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to use due care.

**Minn. § 169.01, Subd. 67 (2000). Alleyway. “Alleyway” means a private or public passage or way located in a municipality  and which (1) is less than the usual width of a street (2) may be open to but is not designed primarily for general vehicular traffic (3) intersects or opens to a street, and (4) is primarily used for the ingress and egress or other convenience of two or more owners of abutting real properties.

** Minn. § 169.14, Subd. 5c. (2003). Speed zoning in alleyway. Local authorities may regulate speed limits for alleyways as defined in section 169.01 based on their own engineering and traffic investigations. Alleyway speed limits established at other than ten miles an hour shall be effective when proper signs are posted.”

The regulated speed for our alley is 10 MILES AN HOUR.

Therefore, the alleyway belongs to the residents of 800-block close to Walfoort Liquor store and excessive speeds, drunk driving, littering, and criminal activity associated with nonresident patrons endanger our property and children of the 800 block neighborhood.

The businesses on Arcade Street have an agreement [a promise to avoid from becoming a nuisance] with the neighborhood or have penalties imposed on the business.

If you have complaints, solutions, or extra comments to share about enforcement of unwanted traffic and criminal activity associated with nonresidents abusing the alleyway and our property, please respond by writing or calling to:

Dan Bostrom, Council President Ward 6: (651) 266-8660
Scott Renstrom, Legislative Aide to Dan Bostrom: (651) 266-8661.
E-Mail: ward6@ci.stpaul.mn.us

Leslie McMurray with District 5: (651) 774-5234. Her e-mail is: d5-director@visi.com

Write to: City Council Offices        
                310 City Hall
                15 W Kellogg Blvd., St. Paul, MN  55102                                                 

12/8/2005

Dear Honorable Citizens:
 
Thank you all for your response at the December 6, 2005 CPED meeting on this alleyway issue.
 
Monica Beeman is working with me in resolving the issues of high-speed traffic in the alleyway connected to Walfoort Liquor store. She will be doing her traffic count this winter and again in the summer. I, myself, will collect license plate information from offending parties.
 
The issue now is continued enforcement of mandated traffic statutes in the neighborhood and to teach others of the dangers of pedestrian and property damage liabilities and its legalities.
 
However, I lost some sleep in thinking about how the City is liable for tort actions for injuries or personal property damage resulting from the City's lack of remedy to cure the problems once given the notice to resolve the issues.
 
I am also disheartened to imagine that impoverished absentee landowners and homeowners must pay up front out of personal pockets for any traffic signage or devices to be placed on City alleyways or property. Would it not be more difficult to obtain money and signatures for the petition from absentee landowners? Also, what about people such as myself lacking funds to pay for this needed project; resulting from the lack of foresight of the City of St. Paul?
 
I thought the City has the responsibility to protect its own citizens under public safety statutes. If not, where can we apply for a foundation grant to pay for traffic devices installed whereas the City of St. Paul is supposed to be responsible?
 
I would like to ask the aid of any Legislative Official in helping to untangle this web of bureaucracy in saving our citizens and property.
 
Below is a copy of the e-mail from Monica Beeman and Shannon Wadding for the State Legislature and Attorneys to mull it over. I request help in this matter for a successful resolution. I have posted my letter and notice on http://aidpage.com in hopes of finding charitable funding or advice.
 
Thank you for your help and concern.
***************************

Bob,
 
Last night, December 6, 2005, I attended the Payne Phalen District 5 Planning Council as the Public Works representative to hear and help address the concerns voiced by Shannon Wadding regarding traffic in the alley directly behind his house, bounded by Arcade, Mendota, Jessamine and Magnolia.,  Mr. Wadding and one other neighbor spoke to District 5 about speeding in the alley, a high volume of traffic using the alley including those he thinks that are cutting through the alley, and many poor driving behaviors/activities.  Much of the traffic activities he traces back to the Walfoort liquor store, which has access to the alley and fronts on Arcade. He is concerned with safety to children and property in the neighborhood.
 
I did not have any speed or volume information to share with the group but suggested that both pieces of information would be helpful in determining the best course of action and the level of concerns. Unfortunately, with winter conditions automated data collection is difficult so I did agree to collecting data in the alley from 6-8pm on a week night to see what conditions are out there. 
 
I explained that Public Works does regularly address such concerns in alleys and has a petitioning process where by neighbors can work together, agree on an approach, collect signatures and install signs or other devices to address different traffic issues. The cost of the signs and other devices are the responsibility of the abutting property owners, and is collected up front (not assessed) before installation. I also requested that Mr. Wadding call so that we might speak more specifically to concerns and observations he has made.
 
We spoke this morning. He and I both had an opportunity to mill over what was said and might be added. I spoke very frankly to Mr. Wadding as I grew up living in north Minneapolis behind a liquor store with our garage abutting the alley connected to the liquor store parking lot. As a kid I saw many of the things he was trying to describe including people who regularly used the store who were heavily inebriated traveling the alley to avoid city streets. As a result my suggestion is this. No amount of signs or devices can be fully effective if the underlying issue is alcohol, drugs or crime, so, we should: 
• collect the initial data we need,
• then try to do some heavy enforcement to address the underlying issue
• then we can regroup and see what can be done for alley traffic with signs and devices knowing that all require petitioning for overall agreement and have an associated cost to bear. 
I told Mr. Wadding I would also try to look at what might be worked out in cooperation with the liquor store that could reduce the cost burden or restriction to residents but that might address the issue just in a different manner.

Monica M. Beeman, PE
City of St Paul
Department of Public Works
Traffic Engineering
800 City Hall Annex
25 West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, MN  55102-1660
(651) 266-6214

"You must be the change you wish to see in the world"  Gandhi
_______________________

                                          Memorandum

Date: 12/7/2005
Time: 9:35-10:35 AM

RE: Telephone conversation about the neighborhood alleyway safety and traffic with St. Paul Traffic Engineer, Monica M. Beeman and Shannon Wadding (resident).

Dear Monica:

Thank you for the City apology and your response to the concerns of our neighborhood safety. I tried to enlist the aid of City government and neighborhood organizations for the longest time for preventive action.

We have strong-arm robberies, thefts, prostitution, drug dealing, reckless driving, trash, and nuisances from nonresident foot and automobile traffic threatening the neighborhood public safety and peace. According to the phone call this morning, we agree the neighborhood needs a police officer to deter crimes related to the foot and automobile traffic with the business “Fronts” around and including Walfoort Liquor store. This is a continuing problem and now more important because of new families with naive, younger children are moving into the neighborhood.

However, as a good citizen, I must remind the City of St. Paul that it has constructive notice to enforce these Minnesota Legislative Traffic Statutes, section 169.14, Subd. 1 (1997)- Duty of care when driving, and Subd. 2 (6) (2003), Speed zoning -residential alleyways are 10 miles an hour. Any studies or planning of this issue does not resolve the City of any liabilities for personal or property damage.  Nusbaum v. Blue Earth Co., 422 N.W. 2d 713 (Minn. Ct. App., 2004); M.S.A. §466.01 (2004) (The City must protect its citizens from harm that is able to cure-quoting  Hansen v. City of St. Paul, 214 N.W. 2d 346 (Minn., 1974) (Constructive notice given to the City of public safety hazards of stray dogs running loose and biting people)). The neighborhood residents adjoining the alleyway are aware that they must contact an attorney before moving on any legal action against the City of St. Paul.

Our police officers can use the latter traffic laws and Minnesota Statutes Annotated, section 169.13, Subd. 1 (1984), Reckless driving; and Subd. 2, Careless driving (1984) (Speeding in a residential alleyway) to issue drivers traffic violation citations. These traffic violations can construe probable cause to detain the driver for further investigation of public safety and statute violations. In doing so, we agree this action may resolve some of the traffic issues to Walfoort Liquor store.

I think, and I hope that this crime prevention measure of using law enforcement presence in traffic enforcement “stings” in the winter and summer will work. However, complacency and habit is a hard teacher and this fact, I fear, will only be a temporary solution and the problems returning later. I do hope that I am wrong, but I stood outside with my neighbors and watched the neighborhood since 1999 and I fear the revolving renters and nonresident citizens will need consistent traffic enforcement.

At the CPED neighborhood meeting you have stated that no traffic reports are existing. However, I did not think that my neighbor, Don Telmin of 835 Jessamine Ave E, was in any way deceitful to me. Don lived in this neighborhood since the 1970’s. In criminal law, after 15 years, Court clerks destroy old records for storage concerns. We agree that this is the same administrative action to why the Traffic Engineering Department could not find any records of traffic studies. The traffic may decrease during the winter months, but I would not bet on this assumption. During the week from 6-8 PM, Friday and Saturday from 12:00-10:00 PM is common for traffic violations in the alley. However, speeding occurs at all hours of any day in the alleyway.

In conclusion, I fear that if the City becomes involved in a civil action our property taxes will rise, again, to cover any compensatory judgments. I do not want to see anybody harmed or lose property in this impoverished neighborhood. Many absentee landowners have neglected properties and they are collecting Section 8 benefits from their renters. They do not care about rising property taxes because welfare picks up the rest of the rent, while other homeowners are struggling to keep their homes.

The owner of Walfoort Liquor is a temperamental man and he bans service to neighbors that criticize about these problems. I think he fears about losing his store by violating any more laws. There is a tough balance between tort actions by injured people in the alley and the tax revenues gained by the City of St. Paul. All it takes is one death or collision with personal property to set the legal wheels in motion.

Thank you for your time and interest spent in finding a permanent solution into this matter of our need to enforce mandated traffic statutes in the alleyway between Arcade and Mendota Avenues. I will continue to work with the City of St. Paul to find a permanent solution, which is still the idea of speed bumps or closing off the alley.

I would like to have a copy of your telephone conversation report sent to the District 5 Planning Council for clarity.

Sincerely,

Shannon Wadding
846 Jessamine Ave E
St. Paul, MN  55106-2612

CC: File
        The Neighborhood Block Watch, Ward 5&6; Council Member Dan Bostrom 
        with Ward 6; Leslie McMurray with District 5; Mayor of Saint Paul.

Any charitable grants and donations are greatly appreciated and I would ask for any help or informative advice directed towards: 

Monica M. Beeman, PE
City of St Paul
Department of Public Works
Traffic Engineering
800 City Hall Annex
25 West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, MN  55102-1660
(651) 266-6214

*********************

                                                        MEMORANDUM

(There are Three Pages to this Memorandum).

RE: Saint Paul Traffic Engineering Department placed a traffic-counter in the alleyway but, Would it have an accurate traffic count?   

January 24, 2006

Today, 01/24/2006, my neighbor told me that he witnessed a man in a white truck placing the traffic-counter in the alleyway.

On January 23, 2006, I faced a shorthaired blonde, Caucasian man with clear blue eyes, weighing around 210 lbs. He asked me strange questions and that he knew me as the paralegal for “Save Our Streets.” The only way he knew was from the Internet postings, from the Traffic Department, or law enforcement.

The man dressed in a new jogging outfit stood out from the neighborhood and I thought he was either the police or somebody bound for trouble. He commented about his observation there is not any distinct traffic lately.

I answered the “word” got around and people are behaving themselves so far, and it will get worse in the summer, in which his reply was—“It is almost summer out!” This is my memory of what the traffic counter jogged.

I have taken photos below of the pathways and the traffic counter on 1/25/2006. (See Attached Pictures #A-C). I noticed the counter and the sensors stretched across the alley (Picture #A). In addition, I want your attention to the vehicles bypassing around the sensors and trespassing onto personal property (Picture #A & B).

This response concerns me with questions:
• What standards of administration law does the City Traffic Engineer follow?
•  How long will the Saint Paul Traffic Department be recording the alleyway traffic data?
•  Will the City of St. Paul Traffic Department consider the January 24-27, 2006 traffic count as the summer traffic study?
•  Will the traffic count continue during the summer months when people are racing to Walfoort liquor store to quench their thirst with a buzz?
•  Does anyone value or devalue the 800-block neighborhood concern of threats to children and property? Feedback is helpful.
 
Last winter’s traffic count by the Traffic Engineering Department on January 20, 2006 lasted for a single evening of observation with a faulty radar gun. Then, I posted my thirteen days of observations on the web and a copy given to the Saint Paul Payne & Arcade Enforcement Unit. I did not witness any increased presence of traffic enforcement in the back alleyway during the rush hours for Walfoort liquor store. However, there is a strong police presence on Arcade, Maryland, and 7th Avenue lately.

I am concerned about any enforcement action of the decades-old alleyway traffic nuisances. I noticed the traffic-counter gone on noon of Friday, January 27, 2006. I know different City departments are aware of these traffic patterns. The forty-eight hour traffic count did not count traffic associated with the most important hours of Walfoort Liquor; namely, Fridays and Saturday evenings, and especially on the first of the month. These are the riskiest times to public safety.

Shannon Wadding,
Paralegal AS
Save Our Streets Neighborhood Project

Picture #A

Picture #B
 
Picture #C

4/26/2006

      To the authorities of the City of St. Paul:

      Below are some photos of property damage to 847 Magnolia E., St. Paul, MN caused by reckless driving in the alleyway sometime after 10:00 PM on 4/25/2006. I am concerned about the police pursuing a stolen vehicle without apprehending the perpetrator. Please at what cost does selective law enforcement provide if there is disregard for safety or the lack of police presence in this infamous alleyway? The police and I are aware that people covertly use the alleyways to hide from law enforcement. I commend the efforts of St. Paul’s law enforcement officers.

      However, on 11/20/2005, I gave constructive notice at the District 5 Planning Council meeting about the dangerous traffic and criminal activity in the alleyway bound by Mendota and Arcade Street between East Jessamine and Magnolia Avenues. The City will incur civil liability when there is property damage, injury, or death because the City of St. Paul does not enforce nor comply with the traffic statutes by correcting the criminal nuisances permanently. 
     Again, I must caution the City of St. Paul of its hazards citing the legal case of Nusbaum v. Blue Earth Co., 422 N.W. 2d 713 (Minn. Ct. App., 2004); Minn. §466.01, in which the City must protect its citizens from harm that is able to cure (quoting  Hansen v. City of St. Paul, 214 N.W. 2d 346 (Minn., 1974) constructive notice given to the City of public safety hazards of stray dogs running loose and biting people)).

     The City will not have the defense of discretionary immunity from liability ruled in Nguyen v. Nguyen, 565 N.W. 2d 721, which relies on Minn. § 466.02 and Minn. § 466.03, Subd. 6. (Discretionary acts for investigative planning or fiscal determinations).

     Here, discretionary immunity from torts does not apply. M.S.A. § 466.03, Subd. 5, is an exception that forbids immunity from tort liability for any injuries suffered or personal property damage (Section 466.03, Subd. 8) after already given the City notice of the public safety issues and the City’s failure to enforce legislative traffic and criminal statutes.

    Therefore, the Court can construe liability when the City failed to enforce mandated public safety statutes and the City Council can fail in their claims that discretionary immunity applies. Please consult with an attorney about the current laws.

Thank you.

Shannon Wadding
846 Jessamine Ave E
Neighborhood Watch
wadding@usfamily.net
 
 
  Skid marks leading into damaged property.
 ***********************

Dear Shannon:
 
We hope you are continuing to communicate with Monica Beeman of Traffic Engineering on the traffic speeding issue and possible solutions. As we all discussed, Ms. Beeman will be invited back to a CPED Land Use meeting to discuss findings and possible solutions. At the neighborhood's request, it made sense that a traffic study be conducted over the summer months when people report that the problem increases.  We'd advanced the idea of putting out lawn signs in the alleyway with traffic calming messages. This requires the agreement of people on your block. Not much enthusiasm was registered for this idea.  If you feel this would be helpful, please ask your neighbors if they are willing to post a sign and we'll get some printed up for your alley.
 
Was a police report filed on the incident that you photographed? If you have the number that would be helpful. Feel free to contact me at any time at 774-5234.  I am copying A.L. Brown who is chair of District Five's Community Planning and Economic Development Committee and Monica Beeman, who you have worked with previously.  Thank you for your concern about safety in our neighborhoods.
 
Leslie McMurray
Executive Director/Organizer

District 5 Planning Council

1014 Payne Avenue

Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 

d5-director@visi.com

Phone: (651) 774-5234

Fax: (651) 774-9745

www.neighborhoodlink.com/stpaul/payne-phalen

To improve our Payne Phalen District Five neighborhoods by engaging, educating and empowering all residents in our diverse community.

.

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Renstrom [mailto:Scott.Renstrom@ci.stpaul.mn.us]
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 11:28 AM
To: wadding
Cc: Beese, Bruce; Choi, John; Martinez, Bill; McMurray, Leslie
Subject: Re: In need of traffic enforcement in our alleyway.

Dear Mr. Wadding,
 
I've taken the liberty of forwarding all three of your e-mails to our City Attorney's Office for review.  With that in mind, I encourage you to continue working with and through District 5 and the Saint Paul Public Works, and Police Departments on the  steps you've outlined to help resolve the situation in your alley.
 
If you feel that your property was damaged as a result of the City's actions or inactions, please contact our Citizen Service Office at 266-8989 and request a claims form.  Our staff will review your request and act accordingly.
 
If this office can be of further assistance, please don't hesitate to contact us.
 
Respectfully yours,
 
Scott Renstrom
Legislative Aide to Councilmember Bostrom

TERMS

Selective Incorporation – The judicial doctrine, first pronounced in Palko v. Connecticut (1937) in which Justice Cardozo expanded certain guarantees in the Bill of Rights by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the states. Only the Second, Third, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth amendments incorporate the guarantees in part or fully for the “nationalization in the implicit idea of ordered liberty.” Selective incorporation provides for the one aspect of the amendment guarantees to protect you from the Federal government but not the state government.

Total Incorporation – A judicial doctrine never accepted by most of the US Supreme Court, which holds the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the entire Bill of Rights and applied it to the states. Primary supporters of this view were the first Justices Harlan and Black. Justice Black in his dissent from Adamson v. California (1947) wanted to use judicial restraint of the fourteenth Amendment to overturn the Barron v. Baltimore precedent. The individual justices used their unlimited whims to dictate the equal protections of the individual liberties between the states and the federal government. Justice Marshall sided with the states the Fifth Amendment does apply as a national character of the US Constitution without any limits of the states. The Total Incorporation plus, used by Justices Goldberg and Douglas in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) holds the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause contains liberties beyond those of the first eight amendments.

Barron v. Baltimore (1833) – The case stemmed from the water redirection project the City of Baltimore, Maryland directed. The City of Baltimore violated the specific guarantee to avoid from interfering with Barron’s use of his wharf by the silt deposit buildup from the waterway redirection. The argument was for the state protection of depriving Barron’s Fifth Amendment rights about his property for public use without just compensation. During 1789-1870, the states did not incorporate the Bill of Rights that includes the Fifth Amendment. Justice Marshall refused to hold the provisions of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. Incorporating the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, the Court overturned the Barron v. Baltimore precedent when the Palko v. Connecticut (1937) ruling gave the citizens of each state they live the protections of the Bill of Rights and the Due Process Clause.

Gitlow v. New York (1925) – The earliest case heard about the national incorporation of the Bill of Rights. The US Supreme Court recognized “for present purposes” the freedoms of speech and the press as “preferred freedoms” guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The judicial activism precedent ruling opened the future of incorporating the Bill of Rights amendments. The reason of the prior restraint rests on the burden of proof of “clear and present danger” before the prior restraint may attach.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961) – The Justice Clark quoted the Mapp ruling as “common sense to incorporate the Fourth Amendment.” There must be an equal footing to perform the same constitutional standards for search and seizures between the Federal and state governments. Illegally gained evidence violates the Constitution and it is inadmissible in court. Thus, evidence got through an illegal arrest, detainment, or confessions are inadmissible in the court of law. The exclusionary rule under the Fourth Amendment protects individuals of coercive and overzealous practices of law enforcement agencies. However, there is still opposition to the limits of the exclusionary rule of the Fourteenth Amendment in the courts.

Probable Cause – When the police detain a person, the suspect has the protection of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the State and U.S. Constitutions. Police can examine for further crimes if the officer has reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is the required basis in belief the suspect has committed or is committing a crime. The requirements must meet the standard of reasonable suspicion that a crime occurred before proving probable cause. Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 85 S.Ct. 223 (1964); Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973). Probable cause is a reasonable belief of finding seizable items in a particular place at the time the conducted search. There is a “two-pronged” test standard identified by balancing the degree of intrusion on individual privacy against the interest of the government’s importance for the intrusion. The officer satisfies the probable cause when he or she uses evidence gained from the plain view doctrine, information from a confidential informant, another police officer, or witnesses. Without the “plain view doctrine” or firsthand knowledge from informers, or from another police officer is lacking facts for probable cause for a warrant or a warrantless search.

Plain View - The “plain view doctrine” rule allows the seizure of objects falling within the police officer’s physical senses where the officer is legally to be in the place where he or she is standing. Limiting the “plain view doctrine,” the officers must believe that those items detected are contraband before seizing them. Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990). For example, seizing evidence from a protective sweep of a home or viewing contraband in the car. If the officer needs a warrant to search and seize the legitimate observation, it will provide grounds therefore. Raising the officer’s senses with developing technology causes protests of unwarranted intrusions by infrared and contraband detection sensors.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) - The Miranda law is the Procedural Due Process of protecting individuals Constitutional fundamental rights under the “rational basis test” in the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment. Miranda is, “Warning the suspect that he or she has a right to remain silent, that any statement he or she makes can be used as evidence against him or her. The suspect has a right to a presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed, when in questioning.” Miranda safeguards come into play whenever a person in custody subjects to either express questioning or its equivalent. The term “Interrogation” under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions by the police--other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody. The Miranda protection also helps a suspect when the police should know that they are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. The latter portion of this definition mainly focuses on the views of the suspect rather than the intent of the police. This focus reflects the fact the design of Miranda safeguards were to vest a suspect in custody with an added protection against inherently coercive police practices, without regard to objective proof of the underlying intent of the police. Therefore, the clause requires structured police interrogation practices to secure and protect the defendant’s right of free and rational choice when to speak. The Miranda law has effect only when a person is in “custodial interrogation.” Custodial interrogation is any questioning by the police while investigatory detention or in protective custody. Whether a person is “in custody” is an objective test. The suspect assesses in the terms of how a reasonable prudent person would realize his or her freedom to leave; and a police officers’ undisclosed subjective view of interrogating the suspect doesn’t apply to the Miranda purposes.  
   In Duckworth v. Eagan (1989), the US Supreme Court ruled the police may depart from reading the Miranda warning word for word.
   In Dickerson v. United States (2000), Chief Justice Rehnquist put to rest the ”Stare Decisis” issue of the Miranda warning precedent as a part of the national culture and an irrevocable right of the detained suspect.

Near v. Minnesota (1931) – The US Supreme Court reviewed for the first time the issue of prior restraint of the press. The 1925 public nuisance laws passed by the state legislation outlawed publishing “malicious, scandalous and defamatory” newspapers, magazines or other periodicals. J.M. Near owned The Saturday Press, which published articles accusing the Minneapolis public officials of corruption. A state court filed an injunction against Mr. Near and the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the conviction. The US Supreme Court struck down the state’s public nuisance laws as an unconstitutional restraint, in which future arguments based on Near v. Minnesota should appear in the court of law.

Prior Restraint – The government restricts the distribution or expression of information before releasing it to the public. Getting approval from the government for expression before publication presumes the information is harmful to society and it prevents the individual from judging its value. The British government used prior restraint to limit the press in Colonial America by issuing licenses to control spreading religious, political, and personal thoughts that may threaten the British rule of government. The British invaded the businesses and homes destroying the printing presses and papers confiscated because of treason. Prior restraint on the press is an extreme measure that is allowable in extreme circumstances. There are some instances for using prior restraint if there is a risk to the national security or public safety. Gitlow v. New York (1925)
  Near v. Minnesota (1931) was the first decision of the US Supreme Court disallowing the states to put prior restraints on the free press when other methods of holding the press accountable for their legal torts. In the New York Times v. United States (1971), the US Supreme Court denied the federal government to put the prior restraint on the Pentagon Papers study. The government must prove its justification for prior restraint on the “clear and present danger” doctrine on national security grounds.

ESSAY #1

      Barron v. Baltimore (1833) is important for giving the publicity and the attention to the Bill of Rights about protecting the state’s citizens from the federal government but not from the state government itself. The precedence of the case opened the area for the US Supreme Court to become judicially active in providing for incorporating the Bill of Rights protections equally to each citizen. During 1789-1870, the individual states did not incorporate the federal Bill of Rights to protect its citizens with the Fifth Amendment. Justice Marshall’s use of the restraint power refused and held the provisions of the Bill of Rights are nonapplicable to the states. The state’s citizens were to look at the state’s own constitution and Bill of Rights. After the civil war, State Representative John Bingham fought for the equal guarantees of the fundamental rights of the Fourteenth Amendment given to the newly freed slaves. The Fourteenth Amendment rights for Due Process and the dual citizenship rights of the states and the federal governments are similar to the federal Bill of Rights Fifth Amendment. Incorporating the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, overturned the Barron v. Baltimore precedent when the Palko v. Connecticut (1937) ruling gave the citizens of each state the equal protections of the Bill of Rights and the Due Process Clause of the federal government.
      The Palko v. Connecticut (1937) decision about the judicial doctrine of selective incorporation settled as the first case in which Justice Cardozo provided for expanding certain guarantees in the Bill of Rights. The US Supreme Court granted the states the Fifth Amendment by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The individual states selected to incorporate only the Second, Third, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments in part or fully for the “nationalization in the implicit idea of ordered liberty.” Selective incorporation provides for the one aspect of the fundamental amendment rights to protect you from the Federal government but not the state government.
       The U.S. CONST. Amend. IV, § 6 secures the rights against searches and seizures without a warrant, except on probable cause supported by Oath describing the search. The warrant issued must describe the place, time of the search, and the area of the search. However, Minnesota Constitutional law protects its citizens’ privacy in automobiles. The Constitutional Law term paper, “The Erosion of the Fourth Amendment” incorporates the warrant exceptions and abuses of searches among automobiles, National Borders, Hot pursuit, Stop and frisk, consent, plain view doctrine, and good faith. (See attached paper for reference) Police do not need probable cause or, articulable suspicion for searching the person or their belongings with consent given. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974). The selective incorporation of the Fourth Amendment quickly changes into the wholesale nationalization of the guarantees of the Bill of Rights when public opinion sways the legislators and the superior courts. The Supreme Court obviously dislikes the exclusionary rule, which releases the guilty rather than convicting an innocent person. The exclusionary rule under the Fourth Amendment protects individuals of coercive and overzealous practices of law. As described by one historian, abuses and misuses of search warrants were prevalent. By 1914, in Weeks v. United States, the prosecutors excluded all evidence gained by an officer violating the Fourth Amendment. In 1920, the Court extended this rule to exclude both; illegal evidence found, but also information gained from the illegal search. In 1949, Wolf v. Colorado incorporated the exclusionary rule as an equal mechanism used by the federal government after seventeen states used the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause for its citizens. Then, in 1961 in Mapp v. Ohio, illegally gained evidence violates the Constitution and it is inadmissible in court. However, there are exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule, the court created a “good faith” exception if discovering the illegally gained evidence would have been “inevitably” and gained by the police using lawful means, the evidence will be admissible at trial. (Nix Vs. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 104 S. Ct. 2501 81L.Ed. 377) Note: This is a strong precedent if we allow the police to evade the probable cause law to hold an arrest based solely on “common knowledge” without the burden of proof, and without justifiable evidence and conformation. The selective incorporation terms of Mapp brought the wholesale nationalization of nearly all the remaining guarantees of the first eight amendments. Thus, evidence got through an illegal arrest, detainment, or confessions are inadmissible in the court of law. The Mapp ruling nationalized the Fourth Amendment for the state and federal governments to follow the same search and seizure rules. In New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985), administrative searches conducted by the school Principal made constitutional precedence. The Court allowed warrantless searches performed by the school faculty in the best interest of preserving a safe learning environment in the school and upholding public safety policies in the schools. On June 11, 2001, Justice Scalia delivered the 5-4 reversed opinion of United States v. Kyllo, 121 S.Ct. 2038 (2001) against thermal imaging intrusion into the citizen’s homes. The Court allows a search without a warrant if the surveillance equipment was equally available to the public. Therefore, looking down from an airplane is permissible, but eavesdropping is not.
       The Fifth Amendment guarantees the rights of the individual the due process of the law of indictment by a grand jury; fair payment for property taken for public use; forbids compulsory self-incrimination, and double jeopardy. Writing the Fifth Amendment with the same guarantees as the Fourteenth Amendment selects the incorporated protection of the federal government and not the states. The selective incorporation of the Fifth Amendment guarantees three areas of equal protection from the state and federal government, -Double Jeopardy [Benton v. Maryland (1969)], Self-Incrimination [Malloy v. Hogan (1964)], and Just Compensation [Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Ry. V. Chicago (1897)]. The lone unincorporated provision is the Grand Jury Clause of the Fifth Amendment that guarantees “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.” Not all states require grand jury indictments and instead use the prosecuting attorney’s information affidavit of evidence to justify a trial. In Benton v. Maryland (1969), the US Supreme Court Justice Marshall held that Benton’s conviction cannot stand on a “watered down version of the Palko decision of the Fifth Amendment double jeopardy standards.” The use of the double jeopardy clause in the landmark state case of Benton gives the Fifth Amendment its nationalization. However, the Double jeopardy clause is slowly disappearing as the federal government gains constitutional powers over the states.
       Of the eight distinct rights presented in the Sixth Amendment, the Warren Court incorporated only six amendments. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused in a criminal case the right to a speedy trial by a verdict from an neutral jury and with counsel. In Smith v. Hooey (1969), the Texas court held an accused man for more than six years in a federal prison before dropping the charges. In 1974, Congress passed the Speedy Trial Act providing for a maximum of one hundred days from the date of the arrest and trial. If the required period lapses, the charges against the accused must be dropped with prejudice, but nonprejudiced charges could be refilled with the court to begin anew. The accused has the right to cross-examine witnesses against him or her and to call for testimony from witnesses in his or her favor. In Duncan v. Louisiana (1968), the right to a jury trial by a serious crime classified as an offense that has a prison term of more than six months could warrant a jury trial under the Fourteenth and Sixth Amendments. In Colgrove v. Battin (1973), the Court ruled that a six-person jury did not violate the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in a civil case. However, in Ballew v. Georgia (1978) the Court held the jury could not be fewer than six people. In Apodaca v. Oregon (1972), the Court held the right to the Sixth Amendment’s trial by jury rules “must be identical in every detail” in both federal and state courts. Selecting the jurors is the most important part of the criminal trial for the accused. In Battson v. Kentucky (1986), the Court held the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause forbids the prosecutor’s use of perementory challenges to remove potential jurors solely because of their race. The later cases following Battson forbid perementory strikes to exclude racial groups of a different race from the defendant. The case of J.E.B. v. Alabama (1994) involved a civil jury trial for the paternity and child support against the accused. The state had used its perementory challenges to excuse jurors based on their gender that had turned the verdict against the defendant. The Court held the Equal Protection Clause outlaws discrimination in the jury selection based because of gender, or on the assumption that basing the individual’s bias on whether that person is a man or a woman.
      The US Supreme Court incorporated the right to confront witnesses in Pointer v. Texas (1967) when the court read the witness’s deposition and convicted Pointer of his crime. The appellant claimed that he was denied the right to cross-examine the witness in Court and the Court agreed. Incorporating the compulsory right to secure witnesses for the benefit of the accused in Washington v. Texas (1967), struck down a Texas statute that banned a co-defendant from testifying for the accused. However, if calling for the co-defendant witness to testify, then the accused cannot refuse to take the Fifth Amendment right of self-incrimination when cross-examined by the prosecution on the witness stand. Nonetheless, some of the communications and testimony offered have remained restricted to the privilege clause and not subjected to the testimonial requirements, most notably husband-wife and certain lawyer-client privilege.
      Finally, incorporating the remaining Sixth Amendment guarantee for the aid of counsel in Gideon v. Wainright (1963) reversed the decision in Betts v. Brady (1942) for the right to counsel as a fundamental right regardless of the financial status of the accused. In Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972), the Court extended the right of counsel to all cases, including misdemeanors, involving imprisonment. However, if a fine is imposed with the possibility of imprisonment, the right to counsel would not reverse itself for the lack of counsel. Extending the right to counsel in the pretrial and posttrial areas include:           
      First appeal after a felony conviction [ Douglas v. California (1963)]; Arraignment [Massiah v. U.S. (1964)]; “Accusatory” setting, preindictment [Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)]; Custodial setting [Miranda v. Arizona (1966)]; Post-Indictment lineup [U.S. v. Wade (1967)]; Preliminary hearing [Coleman v. Alabama (1970)]; Probation and parole revocation [Gagnon v. Scarpelli (1973)]. However, the right to counsel is not required in the areas of: Fingerprinting [Davis v. Mississippi (1969)]; Pre-Indictment Lineup [Kirby v. Illinois (1972)]; Mug shot session [U.S. v. Ash (1973)]; Second appeal after Felony [Ross v. Moffitt (1974)]. The Rehnquist Court ruled for the right for an indigent suspect to retain counsel for misdemeanor charges and paid for by filing in forma pauperous. Alabama v. Shelton (2002).

Accomplished Phi Theta Kappa pre-law student graduated from an American Bar Association approved college at Inver Hills Community College and Metropolitan State University. I am proficient in all areas related to the practice of pre-law for supporting legal staff and attorneys.

I am trained in multiple areas of pre-law; Criminal, Domestic Relations, Probate, Business, Contract, Real Estate, Constitution, Juvenile, Litigation, Civil, Family, Conciliation, and Landowner & Tenant Rights.

I am looking for help in employment and college tuition in St. Paul, MN. I want to help others within the local and global communities in helping myself to find my way to law school.

I have two children in need of support by their father to find work. I appreciate any attorneys in the Twin Cities to contact me at wadding@usfamily.net. Please do not e-mail me ridiculous things, such as penis enhancement pills.

       My civic duty is defending human rights, and curbing overzealous, law enforcement practices. My legal education and the internship with the Ramsey County Public Defenders Office provide the tools for upholding constitutional rights for the accused and their victims. I went to Metropolitan State University to expand my knowledge of conscientious thinking for needy individuals. I can make a difference by communicating their civic responsibilities through the continuing criminal, procedural laws and social education. People must learn to correlate their behavior patterns together as a responsible, unified community.
       My lifelong social and legal education goals will benefit society as well as me. I created my Legal Advocacy & Criminal Justice Degree, and I want to apply it towards the disadvantaged population. Many people are ignorant of the laws, and nobody is above the law. There is no excusable defense of ignorance when law enforcement intrudes on civil liberties without society intervening. Americans must practice their liberties without the government’s interference of exaggerated fears about security and policy. For example, the Patriot Act is dividing America by eroding the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights. The present political environment is remindful of the fascist qualities of J. Edgar Hoover’s administration in the 1950s, and Hitler’s in 1930s Germany. People must remember the US Constitution is a contract among the federal government reserving the power of its citizens to govern their elected representatives.
       The political divisions among Americans and their policies give the elected representatives the misperceived power over their voters. For example, educated people must take the civic accountability and initiative for teaching the younger generations of the misguided nature of American pop culture. Unresolved social problems reveal itself as a negative act of aggression looking for direction, and the national consensus wants misguided juveniles treated as adults and imprisoned. This “Idea of shame” existed during the Dark Ages with negative results. Thus, responsible people active in local politics must address America’s problems for solutions by organizing and educating the community.    
        My participation in politics, law, and community development is my way of learning for completing my Individualized Bachelor Degree. For example, I like to share my experiences of the volunteer project, Save Our Streets. It is a creative, continuing, neighborhood initiative for reducing criminal nuisances in the residential, alleyway connected to Walfoort Liquor store. The project posted on the web page is the result of my educational experiences and vocational goals for helping the public. More information of this project is at http://aidpage.com with comments and information. I even took part in Campus Camp Wellstone to learn about political organizing and leadership skills. I am hoping to draw the attention of attorneys employing my search for leading a better community.
        In conclusion, I am working to improve my social position and the community where I live. I am realizing the positive reinforcement from the faculty and administration offering me the chance for success. The Legal Advocacy & Criminal Justice Degree will provide me the skills for reaching my financial, educational, and self-realization goals. Thank you.

Here is a link for the St. Paul's Eastside Rallies at http://www.2fewcops.com/index.htm.