Archive for April, 2009

Special Meeting: Wednesday April 22, 2009

April 21, 2009

The mayor has called a special meeting of the Marble Hill Board of Aldermen for Wednesday April 22, 2009 @ 9:00 in the Marble Hill City Hall.

The subject of this session is “personel matters”.

Advertisements

Letter to U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill

April 17, 2009

I was listening to a syndicated radio host who has been railing about the recent Department of Homeland Security on “Right Wing Extremism” defended by Director of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano.

The report defines possible right wing extremists as veterans coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan as well as those opposed to abortion and illegal immigration.

The talk show host asked everyone to send a letter, a fax and an email to their U.S. Representative and Senators demanding that Homeland Security Director Napolitano be fired.

The following is the Letter that I am sending to U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill…

U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill

United States Senate

Hart Senate Office Building, SH-717

Washington, D.C. 20510

 

Dear Senator Claire McCaskill,

 

I have not always agreed with your politics, but I have met you before and found you to be a good listener, who shows respect and concern for her constituents.

 

I voted for you in 2006 and have no regrets in doing so.  I trusted in you to do what is right for our State and our Country, it was a “leap of faith” if you will.

 

The reason for my correspondence is my astonishment of hearing the news of (and reading personally) about Director of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano.

 

In her report , entitled, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment”, Director Napolitano states:

 

Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical election as a recruitment tool. Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms”

 

Napolitano also issues a blanket defacto indictment against our veterans by stating:

 

The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of

military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.

 

One of the focal points of your 2006 campaign was veterans’ rights, can you, with a clear conscience let Director Napolitano’s  shameful remarks against them go without taking disciplinary action against her?

 

I am asking that Janet Napolitano, Director of Homeland Security be relieved of her position immediately. 

 

Respectfully yours,

Clint E. Lacy

 

 

Alderman, Ward I

City of Marble Hill, Mo

C

Notes from April 13, Board of Aldermen Meeting

April 15, 2009

Notes from City of Marble Hill Board of Aldermen Meeting April 13, 2009 

The City of Marble Hill Board of Aldermen met in regular session at the Marble Hill City Hall and the meeting convened at 6:00 p.m.

In attendance were Mayor Russell Masterson, Alderman James Sear, Alderman Clint Lacy, Alderman Tim McCain, Assistant City Administrator Gary Shrum, Public Works Director Chuck Kernan and City Attorney Stephen Gray. 

Citizens attending were Sandy Horton and Mr. and Mrs. Mitch Miller. 

The meeting began with the reciting of the Pledge and was followed by the roll call. The Board then approved the minutes from the March, 2009 meeting, the City expenditures and the canvass of votes from the April 7, 2009 municipal election. 

Afterwards Alderman Tim McCain (Ward I) and Alderman James Sear (Ward II) took the Oath of Office to serve another two years in the City Council. 

Presentations to the Board were made by Sandy Horton and Mr. Mitch Miller. 

Mrs. Horton (who was representing Mr. Norman Slinkard) discussed the City’s policy on water deposits and how they apply to the relationship between renters and landlords. Mrs. Horton suggested raising the water deposits so that landlords would not have to settle the bill if their renters move without paying their last month’s water bill stating that Mr. Slinkard had to pay for his former renter’s water bill using his water deposit. 

Mr. Shrum stated that it seems Mr. Slinkard paid the deposit for his renter and suggested requiring future renters to pay a security deposit. 

I stated that it was my understanding that the issue between Mr. Slinkard and the City had been resolved to which Mayor Masterson responded by saying that the call he received from me was that the City was about to cut Mr. Slinkard’s water off. 

“That’s not the case”, Mayor Masterson stated, “That is not going to happen. The rental property is another story”.

I stated that in my conversation with Mr. Slinkard, I did not get the idea that Mr. Slinkard had paid the renter’s security deposit and asked why he would have to pay a former renter’s water bill with his security deposit. 

Assistant Administrator Gary Shrum stated that he would look into the matter. 

Mrs. Horton also addressed the Board regarding a dangerous hill on Englehart Ln and asked if any improvements could be made to make it safer. 

It was the general consensus of the Board that the City could not afford to widen the entire length of Englehart.  Possible solutions included making Englehart Ln. a one-way street, or widening the street in front of Mr. Mike Lincoln’s home in order to reduce the risk of accidents.  Assistant Administrator Gary Shrum said that he would talk to Mr. Lincoln to see if perhaps an agreement could be made to widen the street in front of his home. 

Mitch Miller addressed the Board next and wanted to know how many dog licenses / tags had been issued recently, and the Mayor said his best estimate would be two. I checked the collectors report and stated that I thought this was an accurate number. 

In new business the Mayor stated that: 

“The Board had covered a lot of things this past year and that the General public for the most part does not how much we {the Board} does.” 

Mayor Masterson then made it clear that the City intends to strictly enforce nuisance laws this year (such as the cutting of tall weeds and grass and the removal of junk from properties) He also wants to pursue the idea of contracting out the service of mowing weeds and grass and generally cleaning up condemned properties. 

Attorney Gray indicated that Chief Willis could issue citations and file charges against violators and that solid waste disposal fees can be levied against property owners ( via a lien against the property). 

Attorney Gray continued by stating: 

“If the property is condemned through the courts, contractors will be hired to do so (which costs thousands of dollars), we try to encourage property owners to take care of any trash disposal and or demolition of buildings themselves”. 

Mayor Masterson then assigned the following aldermen to supervise the City’s various departments. They are as follows: 

Alderman Lacy:

      –     Police

Alderman McCain

–     Fire and Rescue

–     Humane (animal control)

Alderman Sear:

–     Streets

–     Parks

Alderman Southwick:

–    Water / Sewer 

Mayor Masterson said that the USDA had been out to conduct a pre-check of the City dog pound and they found that the improvements made thus far looked good and that the City of Marble Hill’s dog pound looks better than many larger towns. 

The Mayor stated that there are still a few items to complete but that the City would soon have its Department of Agriculture license. He also stated that he had been in contact with Mrs. Marylin Neville of the Bollinger County Rescue Project and that she will soon have her Department of Agriculture license as well. Once that happens the City will be able adopt the animals out to the Bollinger County Stray Project. 

(This is a good thing because upon looking at the Collector’s Report, the City had to euthanize three animals last month) 

In other new business Ward I Alderman Sear asked Assistant Administrator Shrum if the owners of Flood buyout properties were going to have to pay for the demolition of the properties that are being purchased. 

Assistant Administrator Shrum stated that, “No this is not the case. The demolition costs are added into the appraisal of the property” 

I had several items for discussion under “new business”. They were as follows: 

– What is the progress on the storm drain on Central Avenue?

I was told that the project is completed and that the City is waiting for the dirt to settle before it can be graded and seeded. The Mayor stated that the new storm drain is diverting alot of water that used to run onto resident’s properties. 

Alley @ 104 Lutes St. (Behind the residence of Nick Nanny) is in rough condition. Is there any way the City can grade it, possibly add more gravel and clear gravel off of surrounding neighbors properties?

I was told by Public Works director Chuck Kernan that a work order has been written to fix the problem.

 

The tennis courts located in Pelligreno Park have fallen into disrepair, are we taking steps to fix them?

I was told by Assistant Administrative  Gary Shrum that the new nets have been ordered and that a brace needs to be made to fix and stabalize one of the poles that holds the nets. 

– The entrance to Third St. at the corner of Third and Englehart ( that the City paved last year) is suffering from erosion and I fear that it will soon start to affect the new pavement that we put there last fall. Is there anything we can do to fix this problem?

Assitant Administrator Shrum said he will look at the problem and see what can be done. 

– A citizen who lives on Opossum Creek Road asked if the culverts for the drainage ditches can be cleaned out because water is not draining like it should.

Public Works director Chuck Kernan and Assitant Administrator Shrum said that they would try and get the culverts cleaned out. 

Have we heard from the Missouri Department of Transportation on the possibility of changing the speed limit on Highway 34 West?

Assistant Administrator Shrum said that the City had not heard from them. ( I will follow up on this) 

Has officer Mullehey recieved his pay increase following his probationary period after being hired by the City?

Yes. 

Last but not least, I addressed the Board about my concern over the recent Missouri Information Awareness Center. The report specified that the State Highway Patrol was to pay special interest to motorist that supported political “third parties” (such as the Constitution Party or the Libertarian Party) the report also singled out supporters of U.S. Congressman Ron Paul (a Republican candidate for President in 2008) also included in this report was a section entitled “political paraphernalia” which included U.S. flags, U.S. Civil Flags and U.S. Historical Flags. 

I informed the Board that Missouri Lt. Governor Peter Kinder recently condemned the report and called for an investigation regarding it, as well as putting Missouri Department of Public Safety Director John Britt on Administrative Leave. 

Continuing to address the Board on this issue I stated that the Missouri Highway Patrol has stopped distributing the report and that the Missouri Legislature had amended the budget to insure that any similar reports are not funded by the State of Missouri. 

I submitted a model ordinance that I had found on the Missouri Municipal League website which I slightly modified to prohibit the act of “political profiling” in the City of Marble Hill. 

I stated to my fellow aldermen that this is important to pass because the recent MIAC report singled out “radical Christians, those that opposed abortion as well as those that opposed illegal-immigration. 

I reminded my fellow Board members that we had all taken an Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution of the State of Missouri and the Constitution of the United States of America and told them I would very much appreciate their support regarding this resolution and that we all hold different political beliefs and have different political ideals, but part of upholding the Constitution was to uphold the First Amendment. 

City Attorney Stephen Gray stated that the majority of the model ordinance regarding traffic stops and frisking is already contained in the City’s police manuals and suggested that I could make a motion for the City to issue a Resolution that contained the language I had included in the model ordinance which prohibited “political profiling” which stated: 

At this point I made a motion to pass a resolution which was to state: 

“Enforcement decisions will not be based solely on known political affiliations, political beliefs or political symbols (such stickers); unless the officer is seeking an individual with one or more of those identified attributes.” 

The motion was seconded by Alderman James Sear and unanimously approved. 

I then informed my fellow Aldermen that I greatly appreciated their support in this matter. 

I want to emphasize that despite our differences it really makes me proud that they offered their support to this measure. I again want to thank them, for upholding their Constitutional Oaths and the Constitutional rights of the Citizens of Marble Hill. 

Update: I talked to City Attorney Stephen Gray today and he informed me that he had made some minor changes to the resolution and that we could vote on these changes during our next meeting.  I also talked to Mayor Russell Masterson today (04/14/2009) and he assured me that the Resolution did pass last night and that we would only be voting on the slight changes in wording by City Attorney Gray during our next meeting. 

At 8:08 p.m. the Board of Aldermen went in executive session to discuss personnel issues.

At 8:50 p.m. the Board reconvened into Regular Session. 

Upon reconvening the Board voted on and passed unanimously: 

Ordinance: 09-06 which set the rate of pay for the City Treasurer at $10.00 per hour.

Ordinance: 09-07 which set the rate of pay for the City Collector at $ 9.25 per hour.

Ordinance: 09-08 which set the rate of pay for the City Clerk at:       $11.00 per hour 

The meeting also resulted in a small “shake up” at City Hall, as the Board opted not to reappoint Carolyn Surface as City Clerk. 

The Board voted unanimously to reappoint Mellissa Armstrong as City Treasurer however there were no nominations made for the position of City Collector. This means that the City will be advertising and taking applications for this position.

The Board nominated and unanimously approved former City Collector Carla Watt to become the new City Clerk. 

In other news the Board voted to return the City’s old ordinance regarding barking dogs which means that it will be enforced from 10: 00 pm – 6:00 am. Residents will get one warning about barking dogs. 

The Board also voted to extend the amount of time that dogs are held in the City Pound from 5 business days to 10 business days. 

The Board approved a zoning  back variance in for Gary Lincoln to set a carport on his property at 202 Phelps St.

The City will also be accepting bids for industrial and residential trash pick up this year, the City’s current provider for these services is Waste Management. The advertisement will read: 

City of Marble Hill

Is accepting bids from responsible contractors for trash services for the City’s commercial and residential customers.

Interested bidders should contact City Hall

For bid specifications.

All bids shall be submitted by

May 1,2009 at 4:00 pm

Bids to be considered at the May 11,2009

Board of Aldermen Meeting.

The City reserves the right to accept or reject all bids.

Contact City Hall at: 573-238-3622 

No doubt I will probably look back through my packet and notes and find that I missed something. In the event that I have, I will publish additional information on this blog. 

Clint E. Lacy

Alderman, Ward I

City of Marble Hill, Missouri.

Proposed Directive Prohibiting “Political Profiling”

April 13, 2009

Below is my proposal  letter to the Board of Aldermen:

Honorable Mayor and fellow Board of Alderman Members, 

As you may or may not have been informed through the media or other sources, on March 12, 2009  Conservative talk show host, Alex Jones published a report written by the Missouri Information Analysis Center on the Modern Day Militia Movement which was published on February 20th, 2009. 

The report which was sent anonymously to Jones by a Missouri police officer attempts to associate the modern militia movement with political third parties and those that are considered to be radical Christian, anti-immigration and anti-abortion beliefs. The  report defines “political paraphernalia” as: 

“Constitution Party, Campaign for Liberty or Libertarian Party material” in addition the MIAC report on the Modern Day Militia Movement also lists a number of variations of U.S, U.S. Civil and U.S. Historical flags as “political paraphernalia”. 

In response to this report, Missouri 5th District State Representative Jim Guest wrote an editorial entitled: “Are you a Militant?” in it Guest stated: 

“It is profiling to the highest degree to identify citizens of this country who display bumper stickers or other labels as being part of a modern militia movement. This includes members of any 3rd party, such as, the Constitution Party or Libertarian party. The idea that free speech and free press are under surveillance by our law enforcement is in violation of the 1st amendment.” 

The MIAC report was also later condemned by Lt. Governor Peter Kinder. In a report published in the Southeast Missourian newspaper on Wednesday  March 25,2009 ( “Lt. Governor, Highway Patrol leader criticize controversial report”) , Kinder stated that:

 “The report is unfair because it mentions anti-abortion and anti-illegal immigration groups but does not include domestic terror groups associated with fundamentalist Muslims or extreme environmentalists.”

Kinder also called for the Missouri Department of Public Safety , John Britt to be put on administrative leave pending an investigation regarding the report. 

In addition to Lt. Governor Kinder, the same Southeast Missourian news story reports that:

“The outcry prompted James Keathley, the superintendent of the Highway Patrol, to stop distributing the document to law enforcement officers” 

On Thursday March 26, 2009 the Southeast Missourian newspaper published a story ( “Nixon blames ‘Overzealousness’ for Militia Report” which states that: 

“Overzealousness” of a Missouri State Highway Patrol unit is to blame for a report drawing intense opposition from conservatives because it links various right-wing organizations with the modern militia movement. 

In addition the March 25, 2009 issue of the Springfield News-Leader reported that:

“In response to a controversial report profiling political beliefs of militia members, the Missouri House of Representatives has barred the Department of Public Safety from spending any “state or federal funds for political profiling.”

On a voice vote, the Republican-controlled House adopted an amendment to the budget bill for Department of Public Safety, forbidding that state agency from funding reports like the Missouri Information Analysis Center’s recent Feb. 20 “modern militia movement” report.

The Department of Public Safety has apologized for the militia report, which links fundamentalist Christians, strict followers of the U.S. Constitution and people who oppose taxes, abortion and illegal immigration as possible members of militias.

Earlier today, the Missouri State Highway Patrol retracted the militia report and admitted errors in the way the report was distributed without getting reviewed by top state officials, including DPS Director John Britt.” 

In accordance with the Missouri House of Representatives prohibiting future funding of any reports that encourage “political profiling”, the condemnation of Lt. Governor Kinder of such reports and the retracting of the distribution of the recent MIAC report on the Modern Day Militia Movement which profiles, Christians, those opposed to illegal immigration and those who hold pro-life views, as well as those who show support for political “Third Parties” and Constitutional views,  I am submitting the following directive for the Marble Hill Police Department which defines the scope and limits of law enforcement authority as it pertains to “the enforcements of laws, statues, ordinances and arrests”. 

I used a model racial profiling ordinance found on the Missouri Municipal League website and made some brief modifications so that it pertains to “political profiling”. 

I want to make it perfectly clear, that I do not believe that the City of Marble Hill’s police officers have engaged or would ever engage in the act of “political profiling”.  

That being said, I think it is wrong for anyone to be “profiled” for their political support or beliefs.  Such actions infringe upon our First Amendment rights to Free Speech and undermine the sacrifices made by our veterans both past and present. 

I ask that you, Honorable Mayor and Board members please review the proposed directive and consider giving it your approval. I also ask that you please disregard any past or present differences that we might have held for each other, before taking office, all of us swore an Oath to the Constitutions of the State of Missouri and the United States of America, it is our duty to make sure that the freedoms protected in these Constitutions are guaranteed to the citizens that we represent. 

Thank You,

Alderman Clint E. Lacy

Ward I

City of Marble Hill.

Proposed Directive:

 

I PURPOSE

The purpose of this directive is to define and elaborate on the scope and limits of law enforcement authority as it pertains to the enforcement of laws, statutes, ordinances and arrests.

II. DEFINITIONS

A. CONTACT – A contact is a face-to-face communication between an officer and a private person under circumstances where the person is free to leave.

B. FRISK – A frisk occurs when an officer makes contact with the outer clothing of a person, using a feel and/or pat down methods to detect whether a concealed weapon or dangerous instrument is being carried.

C. PERSONALLY INVOLVED: Where the off-duty officer, a family member, or a friend becomes engaged in a dispute or incident with the person to be arrested or any other person connected with the incident.

D. REASONABLE OFFICER: A reasonable officer can be defined as one who acts as other similarly trained and experienced officers could be expected to act, under similar circumstances. The reasonableness of an officers actions will be reviewed based on the facts and circumstances known to him at the time of the action.

E. REASONABLE SUSPICION: A police officer has reasonable suspicion to detain a citizen briefly for purposes of investigation when the officer, in light of experience and training, is aware of articulable facts or circumstances which could lead a reasonably prudent person to believe that a crime has occurred, criminal activity is going to occur, or someone is otherwise in need of police assistance.

F. REASONABLE SUSPICION TO FRISK A police officer has reasonable suspicion to frisk a citizen during an investigative detention when the officer is concerned for their personal safety and in light of experience and training, is aware of articulable facts or circumstances which could lead a reasonably prudent person to believe that the citizen may be armed with a weapon.

G. STOP – A stop is a temporary detention of a person for investigation. A stop occurs when officers use their authority either to compel a person to halt, to remain in a certain place, or to perform some act (such as walking to a nearby location where the officer can use a radio, telephone, etc.). Both pedestrians and persons in vehicles may be stopped.

 

III. POLICY

It is the policy of this department to investigate suspicious persons, incidents and other activities which officers encounter on patrol. It is also the intent of the department to respect and protect the constitutional rights of all individuals during law enforcement contacts and/or enforcement actions. The department encourages its officers to initiate citizen contacts as a means to stay informed about activities and concerns of persons in the community.

IV. RULES

A. For purposes beyond a mere contact, officers should realize that they must be within their jurisdiction or have statutory authority.

B. For purposes beyond a mere contact, non-uniformed officers will identify themselves if circumstances require.

 

V. CITIZEN ENCOUNTERS

A. Contacts

1.       Officers are encouraged to initiate contacts with individuals in the community in order to gain knowledge of their patrol districts and the community.

2.       A contact is different from a detention or arrest in that it does not involve the seizure of a person within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The officer does not need reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or any other specific display of criminal activity in order to initiate a contact.

3.       Officers may feel the need to investigate the activities of a person when they do not possess sufficient information to make a stop or arrest. In such a case, the officer may initiate a contact with the person in any place that the officer has a right to be.

4.       Unless an officer concludes that an arrest should be made or that a stop is justifiable and appropriate, communications with a private person should begin with a contact.

5.       Although no legal cause need be present for the officer to initiate a contact, the persons contacted may not be halted, detained, or frisked against their will. They may not be required to answer questions or to cooperate in any way if they do not wish to do so. If they refuse to cooperate, they must be permitted to go on their way, unless the officer has developed reasonable suspicion to escalate the contact to a stop or has developed probable cause to arrest. If it seems appropriate under the circumstances, however, the person may be kept under surveillance. Since a contact is not a stop or an arrest, and those persons contacted may be innocent of wrongdoing of any kind, officers should take special care to act in a restrained and courteous manner.

 

B. Stops

1.       If an officer reasonably suspects that a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit any crime, the authority to stop that person exists. The officer may exercise this authority in any place that the officer has the right to be. Both

 

 

pedestrians and persons in vehicles may be stopped. A stop is warranted if there is a reasonable suspicion by the officer that some activity out of the ordinary is or has occurred, some indication to connect the person under suspicion with the unusual activity, and some suggestion that the activity is related to a crime.

2. Factors to consider in determining whether reasonable suspicion exists for a stop.

a. Appearance – Does the person generally fit the description of a person wanted for a known offense? Do they appear to be suffering from a recent injury or to be under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or other intoxicants?

b. Actions – Is the person running away from an actual or possible crime scene? Are they behaving in a manner indicating possible criminal conduct? If so, in what way? Were incriminating statements or conversations overheard?

c. Demeanor – Is the person responsive to questions during the contact; were their answers evasive, suspicious, or incriminating? Were they excessively nervous during the contact?

d. Officer’s Prior Knowledge – Does the person have a prior arrest or conviction record, or are they known to have committed a serious offense? If so, is it for offenses similar to one that has just occurred, or which you suspect is about to occur?

e. Area – Is the person near the location of a known offense soon after its commission? Is the person in an area known for an unusually high incidence of a particular criminal activity? If so, is it the kind of activity the person is thought to have committed, be committing, or is about to commit?. If reference is made to the area of the stop, officers should be able to articulate specific facts concerning that area (i.e., four commercial burglaries during the past week and within several blocks of the stop).

f. Time of Day – Is it usual for people to be in the area at this particular time? Is it the time of day or night during which criminal activity of the kind suspected usually occurs?

g. Prior Police Training and Experience – Does the person’s conduct resemble the pattern or modus operandi used in particular criminal offenses? Does the investigating officer have experience in dealing with the particular kind of criminal activity being investigated?

h. Police Purpose – Was the officer investigating a specific crime or specific type of criminal activity? How serious is the

 

 

suspected criminal activity? Might innocent people be endangered if investigative action is not taken at once?

i. Source of Information – If the basis of the officer’s reasonable suspicions is, in whole or in part, information supplied by another person, what kind of person was involved? Were they a criminal informant, a witness, or a victim of a crime? How reliable does the person appear to be? Have they supplied information in the past that proved to be reliable? Are they known to the officer? Did the officer obtain the information directly from that person? How did the person obtain the information? Was any part of the information corroborated prior to making the stop?

 

3. Every officer who conducts a stop, as opposed to a contact, must be prepared to cite those specific factors which led the officer to believe that the stop is justifiable.

4. Proper justification for a stop does not permit unreasonable conduct during the stop. All police activity during a stop must be done in a reasonable manner, because each phase of the stop will be considered by the courts in determining whether the stop was reasonable and, therefore, lawful. Enforcement decisions will not be based solely on known political affiliations, political beliefs or political symbols (such as bumper or window stickers); unless the officer is seeking an individual with one or more of those identified attributes.

a. A person stopped pursuant to this Directive may only be detained at or near the scene of the stop for a reasonable length of time. Officers should detain a person only for the length of time necessary to obtain or verify the person’s presence or conduct, or an account of the offense, or otherwise determine if the person should be arrested or released.

b. Officers must act with as much restraint and courtesy towards the person stopped as is possible under the circumstances. Non uniformed officers making a stop shall identify themselves as law enforcement officers as soon as practical after making the stop. Prior to termination of the stop, the officer shall give the person stopped an explanation of the purpose of the stop.

c. Officers may direct questions to the detained person(s) for the purpose of obtaining their name, address, and an explanation of their presence and conduct. However, absent probable cause for an arrest, the detained person may not be compelled to answer these questions (even that of identity) except as required or mandated by applicable state law.

d. Refusal to answer questions does not by itself establish probable cause to arrest, but such refusal may be considered

 

 

along with other facts as a factor to be considered in determining whether the investigation would be continued.

e. Officers shall use the least compelling means necessary under the circumstances to effect the stop of a person. The compelling means may be a verbal request, an order, or the use of physical force. If circumstances exist that create probable cause to arrest, the officer may use that amount of force reasonable and justifiable to effect a full custody arrest. The officer may use that amount of force responsible and justifiably for self defense.

 

5. Each officer upon stopping a person or vehicle will complete documentation containing the following information;

a. The age, gender and race or minority group of the individual stopped;

b. The traffic violation or violations committed, which led to the stop;

c. Whether a search was conducted as a result of the stop;

d. If a search of the person, their property or vehicle is conducted; the officer shall document the probable cause and the duration of the search;

e. The searching officer(s) shall document any contraband or evidence found during the search;

f. Warnings or citations issued as a result of the stop;

g. Any arrests resulting from the stop or search, to include charges;

h. The location of the stop.

 

C Frisks

1.       An officer may frisk any person who has been stopped when the officer reasonably suspects that the person is carrying a concealed weapon or dangerous instrument. The frisk may be conducted immediately upon making the stop or at any time during the stop whenever a reasonable suspicion to frisk develops. During traffic stops the officer may frisk both the driver and any passengers if the above conditions are met.

2.       Reasonable suspicion for a valid frisk is more than a vague hunch and less than probable cause. If a reasonably prudent officer, under the circumstances, would believe the officer’s safety or that of other persons in the vicinity is in danger, because a particular person might be carrying a weapon or dangerous instrument, a frisk is justified.

 

 

3. An officer who conducts a frisk must be prepared to cite those specific factors which led the officer to conclude that reasonable suspicion existed before the frisk began. Factors to consider are:

a. Appearance – Do the clothes bulge in a manner suggesting the presence of any object capable of inflicting injury?

b. Actions – Did the person make movements as if to hide a weapon when they were approached? Are they nervous during the course of the detention? Are their words or actions threatening?

c. Prior Knowledge – Does the officer know the person to have a record for weapons offenses or assaultive behavior? Does the officer know if the person has a reputation for carrying weapons?

d. Location – Is the area sufficiently isolated so that the officer is unlikely to receive immediate aid if attacked?

e. Time of Day – Is the confrontation taking place at night? Does this contribute to the likelihood that the officer will be attacked?

f. Police Purpose – Does the officer’s suspicion of the suspect relate to a serious and violent offense? An armed offense? (If so, those same factors justifying the stop also justify the frisk.)

g. Companions – Has the officer detained a number of people at the same time? Has a frisk of a companion, to the suspect, revealed a weapon? Does the officer have assistance immediately available to handle the number of persons stopped?

4. A frisk is a limited search for the purpose of protection only. Reasonable suspicion to frisk does not permit a full scale search.

5. General Conduct of a Frisk.

a. Items in possession of the subject to be frisked (i.e., purses, shopping bags, or briefcases) should be taken from the person. The object may then be inspected visually and by pat down of the exterior. If there is further cause to believe the object contains a weapon, then the officer may look inside.

b. Prior to beginning the frisk, the officer should advise the person that they are going to conduct a frisk. The frisk should begin in those parts of the clothing most likely to contain a weapon or dangerous instrument.

c. Frisks are a limited pat down of the person’s outer clothing, unless:

            The outer clothing is too bulky to determine if a weapon is concealed underneath. In this case the outer clothing may be opened.

            The officer has a reasonable belief, based upon reliable information or knowledge and observations, that a weapon or dangerous instrument is concealed at a particular location on the person, such as a pocket, waistband, or sleeve. If so, the

 

 

officer may reach directly into the suspect area. (Note: the officer must be able to explain the precise factors leading to this exception.)

d. The officer may also frisk or secure any areas within the detained person’s immediate reach, if the officer reasonably suspects that such areas might contain a weapon or dangerous instrument.

 

6. When an officer conducting a frisk, feels an object which the officer reasonably believes is a weapon or dangerous instrument or may contain such an item, the officer may reach into the area and remove the object.

a. Weapons or dangerous instruments – Determine if the person’s possession of the instrument is licensed or otherwise legal, or if it is unlawful. If the instrument is legally possessed it should be secured away from the person’s location for the duration of the detention. If a weapon, dangerous instrument, contraband or seizable items are discovered by the officer and the possession is unlawful, then appropriate search and/or arrest procedures should be followed.

b. Contraband or seizable items – The officer may seize the item and consider it in determining if probable cause exists to arrest the person. (If the person is arrested, then a full custodial search is proper.)

c. An object which could reasonably contain a weapon or dangerous instrument – with reasonable suspicion the officer may look inside the container and briefly examine its contents. If a weapon, dangerous instrument, contraband or seizable items are discovered by the officer and the possession is unlawful, then appropriate search and/or arrest procedures should be followed. If none of the above are located, return the object to the person.

d. If a container could not reasonably contain a weapon or dangerous instrument, or the officer does not have a reasonable belief that it contains such an item, then the officer may not look inside it. The item should then be returned to the owner or treated as a separable item.

7. If removal of the suspected object simultaneously discloses a second object that itself is a seizable item, the officer may lawfully seize the second object. The second object should then be considered in determining whether probable cause exists to arrest the person. If so, the officer should tell the person they are under arrest and proceed with a full custodial search incidental to the arrest.

8.Under the “Plain Feel Doctrine”, an officer may take reasonable steps to examine an object or article if, while conducting a frisk:

a. the officer feels an object which the officer does not believe to be a weapon or dangerous instrument, but

b. does believe to be contraband, based upon

1.       the properties of the object determined by “plain feel” through the subject s clothing (such as size, shape, or consistency); and

2.       the officer s experience and the totality of the current incident.

 

Upon confirmation that the object or article is an illegal object, the officer may appropriately seize the object, and arrest and charge the suspect.

VI. COMPLIANCE

Violations of this policy, or portions thereof, may result in disciplinary action.

VII. OFFICERS ASSIGNED TO OTHER AGENCIES

Officers of this department assigned to or assisting other law enforcement agencies will be guided by this policy.

VIII. APPLICATION

This order constitutes department policy, and is not intended to enlarge the employee s civil or criminal liability in any way. It shall not be construed as the creation of a higher legal standard or safety or care in an evidentiary sense with respect to third party claims insofar as the employee s legal duty as imposed by law.

Some thoughts about Tuesday’s Election

April 8, 2009

Things did not go as I had hoped. Josh Andrews was defeated in his attempt to unseat Marble Hill Ward I alderman Tim McCain.

First of all, I want to state that I am very proud of Josh and was honored to campaign by his side a few weeks ago.

I needn’t have to say that I obviously thought that Josh was the better qualified candidate on many levels.

In his candidate profile which was published online and in print by the Southeast Missourian newspaper Josh mentions that he is employed by the BNSF railroad as well as the National Guard.

Perhaps he was too modest to admit that he spent a year in Iraq where he not only performed the duties of a chaplain, but some very dangerous engineering work as well.

Back home he splits his time between his duties on the railroad and one weekend a month for the National Guard.  With little time left for his family, Josh was willing to serve his community to an even larger extent to help bring attention to water problems in his neighborhood and give back to his community.

Above all, Josh was truthful in his candidate profile, which is more than I can say for the incumbent , Tim McCain who stated in his candidate profile (also published by the Southeast Missourian) that:

“When anyone has come to me with a problem, I have tried to handle it or make sure I put them in touch with who could take care of it. Then I always follow up to make sure it was addressed. Some issues take longer to deal with than others, but I never give up working on a solution. ”

This is not the same Alderman McCain that I have come to know over the past year in my duties as an alderman.  In fact when I brought Mr. Andrew’s complaints about a leaking fire hydrant in his neighborhood for the fourth time I stated, “As an alderman it is my job to bring the citizens complaints to City Hall” to which Alderman McCain responded by saying, “Yes, but it is also you job as an alderman to make the citizens understand why it is taking so long to resolve their problems”.

As it turns out the issue of the leaking fire hydrant, which I was led to believe would be a major undertaking, was resolved in about 30 minutes, ironically a couple of weeks after Josh filed to run as an alderman.

Josh Andrews, trainman, veteran guardsman husband and family man has set an example of what can be accomplished when someone decides to take an active role in their community.

Thank You, Josh, for your service both home and abroad.

Clint E. Lacy

Alderman, Ward I

City of Marble Hill

Marble Hill Ward I alderman Clint Lacy endorses Challenger

April 6, 2009

From today’s Southeast Missourian newspaper:

It is my honor to endorse the candidacy of Josh Andrews for Ward I alderman, City of Marble Hill.

Josh is an honest, principled man who will stand with and for the people of Marble Hill. His candidacy has already made a positive impact for the citizens in his neighborhood.

One of the reasons Josh decided to run for office was the fact that a fire hydrant had been leaking near his home for over 7 months. I had taken his complaints to City Hall for the past 6 months and was led to believe that it would be a major undertaking to fix it.

Ironically it was fixed this week , the total time of the repair was approximately 30 minutes.

Last year I ran my campaign on a platform of making improvements to the City and being a true representative of the citizens.

I enjoyed limited success in these endeavors, partly because I am outnumbered 3 to 1 on the Board of Aldermen.

The election of Josh Andrews to Ward I Alderman this Tuesday will bring much needed help and a greater representation for the citizens of Marble Hill.

Please vote for Josh Andrews April 7th

April 5, 2009

It is my honor to endorse the candidacy of Josh Andrews for Ward I alderman, City of Marble Hill.

Josh is an honest, principled man who will stand with and for the people of Marble Hill. His candidacy has already made a positive impact for the citizens in his neighborhood.

One of the reasons Josh decided to run for office was the fact that a fire hydrant had been leaking near his home for over 7 months. I had taken his complaints to City Hall for the past 6 months and was led to believe that it would be a major undertaking to fix it.

Ironically it was fixed this week , the total time of the repair was approximately 30 minutes.

On Tuesday April 7th (THIS TUESDAY) please vote for Josh Andrews for Ward I alderman, City of Marble Hill.

From the April 2, 2009 Southeast Missourian…

(Photo)
Joshua Andrews

Joshua W. Andrews

Date of birth: June 22, 1974

Place of birth: Poplar Bluff, Mo.

Spouse, children: Wife Ami Andrews; children, Ashley, Phillip, Isaac

Occupation: BNSF Railway conductor; staff sergeant, Army National Guard

Employer: Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway; Missouri National Guard

Businesses owned, all or part: None

Previous offices held or sought: None

What is the most important issue facing Marble Hill?

One of the main issues facing Marble Hill is the water works system and the fashion in which it is handled, such as the timeliness and completeness of jobs being done.

What in your education or background makes you qualified for this office?

My life experiences, civilian and military alike. Being a conductor for BNSF railway I must be able to communicate with others easily and work well in a team situation. I am also in the National Guard where I have received excellent training and have been given the opportunity to work with a diverse group of people. This experience will benefit me as I work with the other aldermen and the people of Marble Hill.

Why are you better qualified than your opponent(s)?

There are changes that need to be made, and I feel I have a lot to offer as an alderman and would be good for the city of Marble Hill.