Police chiefs’ and students’ attitudes about the Miranda warnings

Several studies had concluded that the police subculture holds values and attitudes that are distinct from the rest of the population. Among these values is a focus on law and order. While researchers agree that police tend to hold different values, they disagree on the source of the attitudes. Some had argued that the attitudes reflected differences regarding who was recruited for law enforcement careers while others said that the differences reflected changes that occurred to individuals after becoming officers. This study examined whether police officers and students enrolled in criminal justice/sociology classes held similar or different attitudes towards the Miranda warnings. The findings suggested that in some ways, the two groups perceived the warnings in dramatically different ways, while in other ways their differences were simply a matter of degree. Implications are provided.     

Soilwater Conductivity Analysis to Date and Locate Clandestine Graves of Homicide Victims

In homicide investigations, it is critically important that postmortem interval and postburial interval (PBI) of buried victims are determined accurately. However, clandestine graves can be difficult to locate; and the detection rates for a variety of search methods (ranging from simple ground probing through to remote imaging and near‐surface geophysics) can be very low. In this study, simulated graves of homicide victims were emplaced in three sites with contrasting soil types, bedrock, and depositional environments. The long‐term monthly in situ monitoring of grave soil water revealed rapid increases in conductivity up to 2 years after burial, with the longest study evidencing declining values to background levels after 4.25 years. Results were corrected for site temperatures and rainfall to produce generic models of fluid conductivity as a function of time. The research suggests soilwater conductivity can give reliable PBI estimates for clandestine burials and therefore be used as a grave detection method.     

Civil Liberties and the Korean War

This article addresses the unsuccessful attempts to suppress free speech during the Korean War, and in particular explains the attempts to silence three reporters of alleged atrocities by United Nations forces. In the absence of carefully targeted legislation, the three individuals – Alan Winnington (a journalist), Monica Felton (a women's movement activist) and Jack Gaster (a solicitor) ‐ were threatened with or investigated for prosecution for treason or sedition, and Winnington was unable to renew his passport until 1968. Drawing heavily on archival sources (including MI5 files, which unusually fail to redact the identity of one of the lawyers who was reporting to Special Branch about Gaster's activities), the article explores the threat to civil liberties from the administrative as well as the legislative and the judicial power of the state. The article concludes by drawing contemporary parallels, and highlighting the continuing relevance of the writings of Winnington, Felton and Gaster.     

(Non‐)Enforcement of Directors’ Duties in Corporate Groups: Goh Chan Peng v Beyonics Technology Ltd

Corporate groups, a ubiquitous feature of modern business, pose formidable challenges for common law courts relying on traditional corporate law doctrine. Arising out of a corporate group's recent bid to recover millions of dollars in lost profits from a former director and CEO who had diverted a core business, Goh Chan Peng v Beyonics Technology Ltd raised thorny issues of separate legal entity doctrine, single economic unit theory, and reflective loss shared by common law legal systems. Despite finding that the defendant had breached his duties to the ultimate holding company, the Singapore Court of Appeal absolved the faithless director from most of his liabilities, relying on limited domestic precedent to the exclusion of a rich body of Commonwealth jurisprudence – including the House of Lords’ landmark Johnson v Gore Wood decision. This note explores the paths not taken by the court, and highlights the pitfalls of a narrow, autochthonous approach to problems of common law doctrine.     

The Complications of Colocation: What the Federal Communication’s Rule Making May Mean for Your Community

Abstract

You did it. You successfully worked with a wireless service provider to find the ideal spot for its new wireless tower. The tower is positioned perfectly—in the heart of downtown, yet safe, hidden, completely undisruptive. The provider is happy. The community is content. It’s a win‐win. Fast forward a month. The provider is back with a new idea: To support the latest technology and to enhance its revenues, it will add not one, but four 20‐foot extensions for new antennas. The extensions would make the otherwise hidden facility visible. They would reach across and over the sidewalk and street, presenting safety risks. And the provider would also add four new equipment cabinets and an equipment shelter. Your answer is easy: Absolutely not. We can find a better solution. But this time the provider is not asking, it’s demanding. It says that because it is not proposing an initial facility but a colocation, you must approve its requests. Whether the provider is correct may turn on how the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) resolves a pending rule making. This article describes the proceeding, key issues it raises, and what the proceeding may mean to you and your community. As a planner, you can influence the proceeding by meeting with the FCC to discuss the proposed rules and by responding to industry claims that local requirements are delaying deployment.     

Is a Local Government’s Decision ‘In Writing?’:The U.S. Supreme Court to Rule

Abstract

An application to place a 108‐foot‐tall cell tower in a residential neighborhood. An outpouring of opposition. A public hearing. A denial—by unanimous vote on an oral motion. And a letter to the applicant stating that the application had been denied and referring to the hearing’s minutes, which reflect reasons why the board may have denied the application. These are the key facts of T‐Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell, No. 13‐ 975, a case that the U.S. Supreme Court will consider this fall. The case’s central legal question is also straightforward. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 states that “ [a]ny decision . . . to deny a request . . . shall be in writing. ” The Court will decide whether it is sufficient for a city to state in writing that it has denied the application and to refer to the record, or whether the written denial must also describe the reasons for the city’s decision. The case could have significant impacts on how local zoning boards function and on the form their decisions must take to survive legal challenge. It also could lead to effects on local governments well beyond the narrow issue presented here.