Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 3:22 am
Time: 3:22 am
Results for arrests and apprehensions
5 results foundAuthor: Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Urban Affairs Title: Racial Disparities in Arrests in the District of Columbia, 2009-2011: Implications for Civil Rights and Criminal Justice in the Nation's Capital Summary: At its founding in 1968, the Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs sought to address issues of racial discrimination and their associated causes. Our work started with efforts to address issues of discrimination and poverty identified by the Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (known as the Kerner Commission) as the root causes of the riots that had erupted in cities across the country throughout the 1960s. Forty-five years later, the Washington Lawyers' Committee has developed a wide range of litigation and advocacy programs and projects addressing a broad range of civil rights and poverty concerns, including criminal justice reform and prisoners' rights. In 2006 the Committee joined forces with the DC Prisoners Project to make prisoners' rights a formal and major part of its work. The Washington Lawyers' Committee has long been concerned by the impact of the drug laws and drug policies on the population it serves, and the Committee's view has been that drug abuse and addiction are most appropriately treated primarily as public health concerns rather than criminal matters. While litigation efforts to win judicial recognition of this principle were unsuccessful in the 1970s, the Committee's pilot program at that time demonstrated the importance of legal support and expanded treatment for addicted individuals. This report grows out of increasing concern that broader aspects of our local and national criminal justice systems - even beyond questions relating to drug policies - reflect significant racial disparities that raise important questions of public policy and civil rights concerns. In order to further explore these issues, the Committee convened a panel of senior and retired judges, and enlisted the support of a team of attorneys at the firm of Covington & Burling LLP, to obtain and analyze a comprehensive set of arrest data for the District of Columbia covering the years 2009, 2010 and 2011. Together, the Washington Lawyers' Committee, Covington & Burling LLP, and the judicial review committee have analyzed and reviewed the data. While we leave it to readers to draw their own conclusions, it is the view of this report's authors and advisors that the statistics contained here should serve as a wake-up call to Washington, D.C. residents and policymakers. These findings speak to the need for residents and policymakers to take a deeper look at some of the civil rights implications of our drug, public health and public safety policies. Details: Washington, DC: The Committee, 2013. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 10, 2017 at: https://www.washlaw.org/pdf/wlc_report_racial_disparities.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.washlaw.org/pdf/wlc_report_racial_disparities.pdf Shelf Number: 129381 Keywords: Arrests and ApprehensionsDrug EnforcementDrug PolicyRacial DisparitiesRacial Profiling in Law Enforcement |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey Title: Unequal and Unfair: New Jersey's War on Marijuana Users Summary: New Jersey's marijuana laws are failing us. Law enforcement has unsuccessfully tried for more than 80 years to arrest marijuana use out of existence, but support for making it legal is greater than it's ever been. Each year, New Jersey police make increasingly more marijuana possession arrests, yet the state has little to show for it. Prohibition has failed. It's time for common sense. New Jersey's arrest practices for marijuana possession illustrate the failure of marijuana enforcement. They have a devastating impact of aggressive, costly, racially disparate punishment for use of a drug that for adults is less dangerous than alcohol. For the first time ever, the analysis in this report takes a deep dive into New Jersey's marijuana possession arrest practices. What it finds is deeply troubling: New Jersey is making more arrests for marijuana possession than ever in a manner that is more racially disparate than ever. Indeed, our marijuana arrest problem is getting worse, not better. Key findings of the report include: - New Jersey is making more arrests for marijuana possession than ever before. In 2013, New Jersey law enforcement made 24,067 marijuana possession arrests, 26 percent more than in 2000, when police made 19,607 arrests. Between 2000 and 2013, New Jersey police made nearly 280,000 total marijuana possession arrests. - Police make a marijuana possession arrest in New Jersey on average every 22 minutes. This plays out with varying frequency around the state. Cape May was the county with the highest per capita arrest rate in 2013, and the 28th Legislative District, represented by Senator Ron Rice and Assembly members Ralph Caputo and Cleopatra Tucker, was the district with the highest per capita arrest rate that year. Seaside Park in Ocean County had the highest per capita arrest rate of any community in the state. - Racial disparities in New Jersey marijuana arrests are at an all-time high. The racial disparity in marijuana possession arrests reached an all-time high in 2013. That year, Black New Jerseyans were three times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites, despite similar usage rates. In 2000, Blacks were 2.2 times more likely to be arrested than Whites, an increase of 34 percent. In 2013, Blacks were 11.3 times more likely to be arrested than whites in the 21st Legislative District. And in Point Pleasant Beach, Blacks were 31.8 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites in 2013 - the highest racial disparity of any municipality included in the study. - New Jersey wastes more than $143 million per year to enforce our marijuana possession laws. Adding up the cost of police, courts, and corrections, New Jersey expends tremendous resources to implement and enforce marijuana prohibition. Indeed, throughout the past decade, New Jersey has spent more than $1 billion to enforce these laws. These are resources that could be invested in treatment, education, prevention, or other community needs. - Nine out of ten marijuana arrests are of users, not dealers. In 2013, marijuana possession arrests made up 88 percent of total marijuana arrests statewide. In other words, nearly nine out of 10 arrests made for marijuana were not of dealers or kingpins, but rather New Jerseyans who possessed the lowest amount counted by New Jersey law. In Monmouth County, this number reached 95 percent. It was 97 percent in the 8th Legislative District. In 14 New Jersey communities included in the study, 100 percent of arrests were for low-level possession in 2013. These findings are particularly troubling when one understands the potential collateral: jail, loss of one's job, a criminal record for at least three years, driver's license suspension, up to $1,255 in fines and fees, and potential consequences for one's immigration status, financial aid eligibility, access to public housing, and the ability to adopt children. Indeed, many New Jerseyans' lives have been disrupted or damaged by marijuana arrests. This report features but a few of them. In one, Lee, a Newarker in his late 40s, was home with his wife one evening and saw officers on their porch, looking for a suspect. He asked if they needed help, and the officers barged in, forcing Lee and his wife on the floor. Lee told officers that they had a small amount of marijuana - less than an ounce. They arrested him for marijuana possession, traumatizing him and his wife in the process. Details: Newark, NJ: ACLU, 2017. 70p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 19, 2017 at: https://www.aclu-nj.org/files/6614/9744/1887/2017_06_14_mj_rpt.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.aclu-nj.org/files/6614/9744/1887/2017_06_14_mj_rpt.pdf Shelf Number: 146258 Keywords: Arrests and ApprehensionsDrug Abuse and Addiction Drug Enforcement Drug Policy Marijuana Racial Disparities |
Author: Muntingh, Lukas Title: Arrested in Africa: An Exploration of the Issues Summary: Recent research and advocacy efforts have drawn attention to the excessive use of and prolonged pre-trial detention in Africa. At any given moment there are roughly 1 million people in Africa's prisons. Far more move through prisons each year. Their stay in prison, regardless of duration, starts with being arrested. Substantially more people are arrested than those who end up in prison for pre-trial detention. Pre-trial detention figures are thus a poor indicator of contact with the criminal justice system. The purpose of arrest and subsequent detention of a suspect is essentially to ensure the attendance of the person in court or for another just cause. The police's powers of arrest are, in theory, curtailed to the extent that the arresting officer must be able to provide reasons for the arrest and continued police detention. Police officials have considerable discretion in executing arrests, especially when arresting without a warrant. This exploratory report focuses on arresting without a warrant and starts off with setting out the legal requirements in this regard by way of a case study. In order to understand current arrest practices, the report provides a brief description of the history of policing in Africa and concludes that much of what was established by the colonial powers has remained intact, emphasising high arrest rates, a social disciplinarian mode of policing, supported by myriad petty offences that justify arrest without a warrant. This combination enables widespread corruption and results in negative perceptions of the police. The report further argues that given the wide discretionary powers of the police to arrest without a warrant, it follows that not all people are at an equal risk of arrest, but rather that it is the poor, powerless and out-groups that are at a higher risk of arrest based on non-judicial factors. The report concludes with a number of recommendations calling for further research, decriminalisation of certain offences and restructuring of the police in African countries. Details: South Africa: Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative, 2015. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 29, 2017 at: http://acjr.org.za/resource-centre/Arrested%20in%20Africa%202.pdf/view Year: 2015 Country: Africa URL: http://acjr.org.za/resource-centre/Arrested%20in%20Africa%202.pdf/view Shelf Number: 146606 Keywords: Arrests and ApprehensionsDetentionPretrial Detention |
Author: San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Title: Arrests 2016: Law Enforcement Response to Crime in the San Diego Region Summary: The Criminal Justice Research Division of the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) functions as the Clearinghouse for regional criminal justice information. On an annual basis, the Division prepares a report on local criminal justice agencies' response to crime in the region, as measured by arrest statistics. Because arrest statistics include information regarding whether the suspect is an adult or juvenile, and include a greater variety of crime types than are reported in regional crime reports (e.g., alcohol/drugrelated offenses), this information provides an added dimension for understanding the nature of crime and another measure that can be used in justice system planning. This CJ Bulletin includes regional arrest rates per 1,000 for both the adult and juvenile population, as well as numbers of arrests by offense type. In addition, 42 supplemental tables, which include statistics for individual jurisdictions, are presented. Some points to remember when interpreting these numbers include the following: - Similar to how the FBI counts reported crimes, the offense or charge attributed to an arrest reflects only the most serious out of potentially multiple violations included in the arrest. - Arrests are documented by the location at which the arrest occurred and cannot be assumed to have any relationship to the location of the crime incident or the residence of the alleged offender. - Arrest and crime rates and numbers should not be compared to one another. One reason is that the two events may occur in two entirely different periods of time, with an arrest made months or even years after the related crime was reported. - For youth, even though contact with law enforcement is made and an arrest report is taken, diversion to a community-based or other type of program or release to a parent or guardian may occur as an alternative to juvenile justice system processing. - The data presented here were provided by the California Department of Justice through a public records request. While these are official numbers reported to and by the State, it is important to note they may vary from other sources that could be available. Highlights - The arrest rates in San Diego County for both adults and juveniles were at ten-year lows in 2016, with a 23 percent drop for adults and a 66 percent drop for juveniles since 2007 (page 4). - In 2015, the year following the passage of Proposition 47 (Prop 47), which reduced certain property- and drug-related offenses from felonies to misdemeanors, the felony arrest rate decreased 28 percent and the misdemeanor arrest rate increased 11 percent. In 2016, the felony arrest rate decreased slightly from 2015 (-2%), but interestingly, the misdemeanor arrest rate declined also, and to a greater degree (-4%) (page 4). - San Diego County had the second highest adult and juvenile arrest rates of the five largest California counties in 2016, following only San Bernardino (page 5). - In 2016, 226 adult arrests and 15 juvenile arrests were made per day on average in the San Diego region (page 6). - Since 2007, the proportion of all adult arrests that were alcohol/drug-related decreased from around half (51%) to about two in five (41%). Over the same time, the proportion of property arrests that were at the felony-level decreased (from 73% to 45%), as did those in the alcohol/drug category (from 17% to 8%) (pages 7 and 8) Details: San Diego: SANDAG, 2018. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 29, 2018 at: http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_4478_23326.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_4478_23326.pdf Shelf Number: 149616 Keywords: Arrests and ApprehensionsCrime RatesCrime Statistics |
Author: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Evaluation and Inspections Division Title: Review of the United States Marshals Service's Apprehension of Violent Fugitives Summary: The Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000 directed the creation of fugitive apprehension task forces and encouraged the Department of Justice (Department) to focus on apprehending violent federal and state fugitives. In fiscal year (FY) 2001, the Department changed its strategic plan and shifted the focus of its fugitive apprehension efforts from all federal fugitives to violent federal and violent state fugitives. The United States Marshals Service (USMS), the federal government's primary agency for apprehending fugitives, is principally responsible for carrying out the Department's strategy. To apprehend fugitives of all types, Deputy Marshals in the 94 federal judicial districts (district) work individually or as members of warrant squads, district fugitive task forces, or Regional Fugitive Task Forces (RTF). The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) initiated this review to evaluate the performance of the USMS in apprehending violent fugitives. To evaluate the USMS's performance, we analyzed trends in fugitive apprehensions using data from the USMS's Warrant Information Network (WIN) from FY 2001 to 2004. We also compared the number of violent fugitives apprehended to the amount of time (measured in staff years) that USMS personnel spent on fugitive investigations. In addition, to examine the effectiveness of the RTFs, we compared the number of violent fugitive apprehensions in the 15 districts included in the 5 existing RTFs to the number of violent apprehensions in the other 79 districts. We also surveyed all of the USMS district offices about their violent fugitive apprehension efforts. The performance of the USMS in apprehending violent fugitives improved from FY 2001 to FY 2004. During that period, the USMS increased the number of violent fugitives it apprehended by 51 percent. We also found that the USMS became more efficient in apprehending violent fugitives. The number of violent fugitives apprehended per staff year increased from 18 violent fugitives in FY 2002 to 21 violent fugitives in FY 2004. We concluded that the USMS's performance improved primarily because the USMS increased the staff time dedicated to violent fugitive investigations by 21 percent and because the five RTFs created by the USMS were more efficient and effective at apprehending fugitives. Despite its improved performance, the USMS was unable to reduce the number of violent federal fugitives at large. From FY 2001 through FY 2004, the number of violent federal fugitives who remained at large increased by 3 percent to 14,419 fugitives. The Deputy Marshals we interviewed said that the number of violent federal fugitives sought by the USMS increased because the increased number of federal task forces throughout the country generated more federal fugitives. We found that the USMS also investigated more federal fugitives referred from other federal agencies, and that state and local law enforcement agencies requested more assistance from the USMS in apprehending fugitives. Although the increase in the number of violent federal fugitives is not fully within the USMS's control, we identified three factors within the USMS's control that, if addressed, would improve its effectiveness at apprehending violent federal fugitives. The factors are that (1) not all districts assigned violent federal fugitive investigations to the RTFs and other task forces; (2) the USMS did not fully change its focus from apprehending all federal fugitives to apprehending violent federal and state fugitives; and (3) most USMS districts did not enter data regarding their state fugitives in WIN when the investigations were opened so that the USMS could more effectively focus its resources on apprehending violent fugitives. Details: Washington, DC: Office of the Inspector General, 2005. 59p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 8, 2018 at: https://oig.justice.gov/reports/USMS/e0508/final.pdf Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: https://oig.justice.gov/reports/USMS/e0508/final.pdf Shelf Number: 150509 Keywords: Arrests and ApprehensionsCriminal InvestigationCriminalsFugitives from JusticeMarshalsUnited States Marshals Service |