Arrest Warrant Case 2000

* Arrest Warrants Search Engine *

Try one of the most accurate and safe
Arrest warrants Search Engine...

Enter first and last name of the person you want to search...

First Name:

Last Name:

Choose a State (USA)


Arrest Warrant Case 2000
Accused carjacker indicted, arraigned

The judge transferred her case to Judge Bill Hamrick, and set a pre-trial conference on Jan. 7, 2014. … According to arrest warrants, Evans hit the officer, as well as his K9 police dog, "ramming them into a wire guard rail" near mile marker 9 on I …
Read more on Times-Georgian


arrest warrant case 2000

(PRWEB) December 7, 2003

Pottstown, PA ? In early 2002, after a countywide cooperative development and hands-on beta testing, the Wyomissing Police Department of Berks County, Pa. officially and successfully launched the first C.O.B.R.A.-based regional access records network. So, while most law enforcement agencies across the nation still aspire to regional data sharing, the 44 provincial police departments of Berks County are experiencing it.

The immediate goal of the project was to provide municipal police officers across the county with access to valuable county incident, want, warrant and arrest files in “real time” through a single point of contact.

“To be able to have all of the police departments in the county, who prior to this had never shared information, now actually share and look at each other?s database and get information is a good tool for investigation,” says Chief Michael J. Spear, Central Berks Regional Police Department, headquartered in Reading, Pa.

Mike Spear, along with Chief Theodore (Randy) R. Cole, Kutztown Borough Police Department, Kutztown, Pa. and Wyomissing?s Sgt. Robert (Rob) F. Johnson, spearheaded the project. “Access to county-wide information is a tremendously powerful investigative tool because you need to know what?s been going on. You need to be able to review incidents. You need to go back and check what had occurred and who was involved,” Chief Cole says.

The system also provides a quick link to vital statewide warrants, NCIC, JNET and other information.

“Before this there was no ability to share information other than by word of mouth, or by attending a monthly county crime meeting,” says Sgt. Johnson. “So we sort of took the bull by the horns and said, let?s do this together and it might work out better.”

Cooperation at the Command Post

However, an auxiliary, yet equally important effect of the project is the spirit of accomplishment and camaraderie that evolved throughout the fulfillment of the project. After all, this first-of-its-kind connection would never have been built without an unprecedented level of communication and cooperation between people representing law enforcement, government, civilian and commercial communities. And that cooperation didn?t come easy because from the outset there were challenges, hurdles, roadblocks, objections and questions.

In fact, a plethora of questions arose. How can we maintain system and data security over a wide network? Can we ensure that information from individual departments is not co-mingled into a single database? What about any disparity between records management systems in different departments? How do we connect departments that don?t have an electronic records management system? Will the solution accommodate county-wide growth and expansion? And perhaps the most challenging question of all: Who?s going to pay for it?

Relentlessly, like dogged detectives on a difficult case, the trio of officers stayed the course until, at last, each argument was systematically approached, addressed and answered to everyone?s satisfaction.

“The biggest problem we had after we came up with the concept was, how do we connect everybody?” says Sgt. Johnson. “Nobody had deep enough pockets to make the connectivity thing work. We knew what we wanted to do. We knew the vendor had the technology to do it. We just had to figure out how the connectivity was going to be accomplished, and the county stepped in and provided that for us when it created the records server. It?s a little bit different of a configuration than I had envisioned, but it?s free, and free is good for municipal government.”

An Idea Is Born!

The project was, indeed, burdened with questions from the outset. In fact, the story begins with a question.

Berks? bold trek towards county connectivity got its foothold in the late 1990s when, like other counties across the country, its local law enforcement and government agencies were faced with the dreaded “Y2K problem” ? the knowledge that their computers and software were not going to be supported once the calendar turned-over to 2000. Several police departments throughout the County initiated system upgrades, which, at the same time presented the opportunity to upgrade their records management systems.

It was after one of those departments completed its own system upgrade that the idea of sharing was first proposed. “We were looking at ways to limit some of our department?s costs,” recalls Sgt. Johnson, “and I suggested to my chief that we should see if it was technologically feasible to have a few departments around us work off one of our servers.”

With a nod from the chief, Sgt. Johnson followed up on his idea and called Dave Heffner, president of CODY Computer Services. The CODY RMS package (see sidebar article) was the choice of the majority of the departments throughout the county, including Wyomissing. CODY would surely know if the idea were feasible or not.

“We floated our idea to the CODY people,” Sgt. Johnson continues, “and they said, ?Yes, we could do that. But wouldn?t it be a greater thing if we had something in the county that everyone could share??”

Sgt. Johnson?s agreement was all the motivation the software engineers at CODY needed. They seized the opportunity to develop the new technology while working intensely with a task force that included representatives of the local police departments, the Berks County Chiefs Association, and the Berks County Communications Center.

“We met for months, probably a year and a half, before we went to the county commissioners,” Chief Spear recalls. “And I actually used the Y2K issue. That was my ace in the hole.”

Who Said It Couldn?t Be Done?

The solution that finally made this networking possible is a unique and highly specialized encryption and search engine called C.O.B.R.A. (CODY Online Basic Regional Access), developed for this project by CODY Computer Services, Inc., Pottstown, Pa. CODY Computer Services has more than two decades of experience in providing integrated Windows-based software systems used by regulatory agencies and law enforcement departments across the country to organize, track, and manage sensitive information.

The basic concept behind C.O.B.R.A. is data encryption and replication over a dedicated link between a county-central server and the records management system at each local department.

Ideally, records query communications are made directly from a patrol car through a wireless connection to the county server, either through a laptop computer or an MDTs. But that connection left a critical sector out of the loop ? those departments, especially smaller ones, who did not yet have mobile communications.

This was overcome by building a wide area network (WAN) that connects each department to the central server, says Fred Hershey, who, as project manager for the Berks County IT department, included among his responsibilities serving as liaison between the County, CODY Computer Services and AT&T in the installation of the appropriate circuitry. “It?s basically a hard-wire frame relay network with an electronic processor, or router, on each end that allows communications across telephone lines,” Hershey explains. “We have a protected network because it is not a public telephone line, but a direct connection that ensures a great measure of security.”

With this solution, each police department, large and small, can maintain its own records database. Self-selected data is automatically encrypted and replicated, through the C.O.B.R.A. software, to the central server where it is accessible to every other department in the county. Now, any local department can quickly search not only its own files but the replicated files, as well.

“C.O.B.R.A. has significant implications for enhancing investigative work,” says Hershey. “It gives investigators across the county the ability to determine if crimes of similar nature are occurring within the county.”

Objection Overruled!

Once the logistics of universal connection were determined, other concerns arose only to be conquered. One such apprehension concerned data security. But C.O.B.R.A. software provides secure encryption of highly sensitive police data so that it can be safely transmitted over the wireless or wide area network, securing data transmissions to and from the county server.

Moreover, the C.O.B.R.A. software has universal translation capabilities and operates independently of other software products in the network. With the proper interface, C.O.B.R.A. can communicate with virtually any records management software package available today. This was a critical point. While 28 of the 44 departments in the county upgraded to CODY RMS, there was still a variety of technologies being utilized by the other departments.

Another early issue was data privacy. Yet individual records are still secure in their respective departments through C.O.B.R.A. software. Each department controls which data is replicated to the county-central server, where each department has its own dedicated server space. This means the data is not co-mingled into one file. This was particularly important because of rules spelled out by the Pennsylvania Attorney General?s office about not co-mingling data.

“We own our own records,” says Sgt. Johnson. “It?s not like we?re giving them up. It?s the records server that is queried when you do a C.O.B.R.A. search, not our departmental records.”

No RMS System? No Problem!

Of special concern were the County?s smaller departments whose Y2K upgrades were made simply to desktop PCs without records management software or a private server. To complete the communications loop between all agencies across the county, a solution was needed that would be compatible with the wide variety of technologies employed.

These smaller departments were brought into the network as “satellite” users. Their local PCs were connected to the central server through special CODY RMS software. This allows them to interface with the county?s server as though it was their own. Their data is stored directly on the county server rather than being replicated to it. Now, through the WAN connection, they are able to share their data with other departments throughout the county and, importantly, they are able to perform data searches directly from their desktop PCs.

“I think it?s important to point out,” says Hershey, “that because of special software developed by CODY, the central server is available to all of our police departments whether they yet share data. They can search the warrants database or they can search to see if there?s any history on a person or vehicle.”

Because Criminals Know No Boundaries

Today, Berks County has a central server that unifies law enforcement agencies across the county. Access to those centralized records is available to every department in the county, enhancing incident and criminal investigations and virtually eliminating investigative redundancy. Yet each department maintains its autonomy and independence.

“Criminals do not know boundaries of municipality,” says Sgt. Johnson. “We?ve been able to pool all our resources to hopefully recognize that another area may be having a similar problem, such as a pattern of burglaries with the same M.O. Rather than several departments doing their own investigations, they can now work together. The inability to do this before created multiple investigations, probably about the same individual. C.O.B.R.A. has created, in a sense, a county-wide police department without all the hoops and things we would have had to jump through to become one agency.”

While the immediate benefits of this approach are obvious ? quicker and broader access to valuable incident and investigative information ? perhaps best of all is a fostering of cooperation between county government and what had once been 44 friendly but fractionated police departments.

“I?ve seen municipal government for a long time,” says Sgt. Johnson. “And this is probably the first time the government at all levels ? borough, county and all the other municipalities involved ? actually worked together to create a fantastic product. It?s the way it should work.”

And while this approach has fostered communication, collaboration and cooperation within the Berks County law enforcement fraternity, its implications are more far reaching. From small-time crooks with more mobility to terror threats and inter-state kidnappings, the need for more open, regionalized sharing of data between agencies is clear. The days of isolated police departments with provincial databases are numbered.

For more information, please contact CODY Computer Services, Inc. at 610.326.7476 or sales@codycomputer.com.

Note to Editors:

Be sure to visit the ?News? section of the CODY web site for continuous company news and updates. Go to http://www.codycomp.com/corpnews.htm.

###







Do I need their consent if the are in a public place?

Need this put in simple terms, yes or no and the simple reason.

Answer by xn?????p
you need the permission of ANYONE before you record them, legally speaking.

and recordings of people are inadmissible in court if the person is not informed they are being recorded.

i don’t LIKE these rules myself, but there are a lot of “our rules” that i personally think need an overhaul, so i may be biased on that…

Answer by Freedom
I Quote:
“Recording police with your smartphone is a Constitutional right, says DoJ” (Department of Justice)

http://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/recording-police-is-a-constitutional-right-says-doj/

“In his complaint, Mr. Sharp alleged that on May 15, 2010, Baltimore City Police Department (“BPD”) officers seized, searched and deleted the contents of his cell phone after he used it to record officers forcibly arresting his friend.” “On January 10, 2012, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in this matter. In that statement, the United States urged the Court to find that private individuals have a First Amendment right to record police officers in the public discharge of their duties, and that officers violate individuals’ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they seize and destroy such recordings with out a warrant or due process.”
“First Amendment principles and federal case law “unambiguously” establish that private individuals possess “a constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying out their duties.”); Smith v. Cumming , 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000)

http://www.pixiq.com/sites/default/files/united_states_letter_re_photography_5_14_2012_0.pdf

“Supreme Court rejects plea to ban taping of police in Illinois”

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-11-26/news/chi-supreme-court-rejects-plea-to-prohibit-taping-of-police-20121126_1_cook-and-crawford-counties-police-officers-enforcement

Chicago resident Tiawanda Moore was arrested in 2010 when she attempted to use her cell phone to record officers in a Chicago police station.
(Tiawanda) Moore had come to the station to report a sexual assault committed by a Chicago cop, and says she became frustrated when internal affairs officers allegedly bullied her and attempted to talk her out of filing the report. (Tiawanda) Moore was eventually acquitted.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/supreme-court-recording-police_n_2201016.html

“Judge enters permanent order allowing recording of police”

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2012/12/judge-enters-permanent-order-allowing-recording-of-152651.html

“Last week the City of Boston agreed to pay Simon Glik $ 170,000 in damages and legal fees to settle a civil rights lawsuit stemming from his 2007 felony arrest for videotaping police roughing up a suspect. Prior to the settlement, the First Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that Glik had a “constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying out their duties in public.” The Boston Police Department now explicitly instructs its officers not to arrest citizens openly recording them in public.”

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/7-rules-for-recording-police_042013

These are just a few examples, and whilst none are specifically from W. Virginia, the protections granted to citizens by the U.S. Constitution, and the list of Rights acknowledged in the Bill of Rights, supersede any W. Virginia state law that would seek to curtail the powers of the People.

Answer by Vinegar Taster
In a public place you have no expectations of privacy. You can film away as long as you don’t get in the way.