A New Orleans police sergeant was charged this week with three counts of rape and three counts of incest.
A St. Tammany Parish grand jury on Wednesday indicted the 51-year-old Slidell-area man. All three counts stemmed from alleged incidents with his two stepdaughters and his stepson, authorities said.
The Times-Picayune is withholding the man's name to protect the identity of his victims. Authorities would not disclose the age of the victims, but cases in which a victim is under the age of 13 fall under the state's definition of aggravated rape.
Investigators began looking into the allegations in December after one of the sergeant's stepchildren told a teacher about the alleged incident, according to St. Tammany Parish Sheriff Jack Strain, who spoke to the press soon after the sergeant turned himself in on Jan. 15.
The sergeant, a 17-year veteran of the police force, was suspended on Jan 15 - the day of his arrest - but then was reinstated on Jan. 26 to administrative desk duty, where he is currently assigned, according to New Orleans Police Department spokesman Bob Young.
The NOPD's Public Integrity Bureau, which investigates police misconduct, has an ongoing investigation into the accusations, Young said.
The sergeant is expected to enter a plea of not guilty, according to Raymond Burkhart III, one of two private defense attorneys.
"The case is in its very early stages and we categorically deny the accusations being made," Burkhart said.
There is no indication the sergeant abused his position at NOPD to prey on others, Strain said.
The grand jury panel on Wednesday also indicted two other men on sex crimes.
Ryan Mitzell, 19, of Sun was charged with sexual battery for abusing a 7-year-old boy sometime between May 26 and June 1, 2008. The alleged abuse came to light after the victim, now 8, told a relative, who then told authorities, according to the district attorney's office.
In another case, a 20-year-old Covington man, was indicted with aggravated rape for allegedly abusing the five-year-old daughter of his girlfriend between July 20, 2006 and March 2, 2007.
Mississippi law enforcement officials uncovered the alleged abuse after investigating a separate alleged abuse of the victim's brother.
___________________________
http://blog.nola.com/tpnorthshore/2009/05/new_orleans_police_sergeant_ch.html
Sunday, May 31, 2009
California Federal Judge Rules Mandatory DNA Collection Constitutional
A California federal judge ruled Thursday that mandatory DNA collection for all individuals facing federal felony charges is constitutional, dealing a setback to civil liberties advocates.
U.S. District Court Judge Gregory G. Hollows upheld the DNA Fingerprint Act, a 2006 law which allows federal law enforcement officials to collect DNA from individuals "arrested, facing charges, or convicted" of federal offenses.
Previously, states throughout the country had a variety of different laws on the books regarding DNA collection---with most mandating testing only after a suspect had been convicted of a crime.
"The court holds that after a judicial or grand jury determination of probable cause has been made for felony criminal charges against a defendant, no Fourth Amendment or other Constitutional violation is caused by a universal requirement that a charged defendant in a felony case undergo a 'swab test,' or a blood test when necessary, for the purposes of DNA analysis to be used solely for criminal law enforcement, identification purposes," Judge Hollows wrote in his ruling.
Federal officials hailed the decision as a victory for law enforcement.
"We are very gratified with the ruling. DNA evidence has proved invaluable in both solving crimes and exonerating the innocent," said Acting United States Attorney Lawrence G. Brown.
At issue was the case of Jerry Albert Pool, a California man arrested in January for possession of child pornography. After his arrest, he refused to submit to a DNA test on the grounds that it violated his fourth amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure.
Hollows wrote that any individuals arrested upon probable cause has a "diminished expectation of privacy in his own identity." He added that DNA fingerprinting is a natural "technological progression" from the use of fingerprinting and photographs currently apart of the routine booking process.
But American Civil Liberties Union officials called Thursday's ruling "an incredible threat to civil liberties."
"We think this ruling is incorrect. It ignores the presumption of innocence and it does not pay enough attention to the protections of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution," said Michael Risher, staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California.
While the ACLU is not a party to the ongoing litigation, Risher says the organization is very concerned about the government creating a giant DNA database and using this law to falsely arrest individuals solely to obtain their DNA.
"This gives the police an enormous incentive if they are interested in somebody to simply arrest that person on pre-textual charges in order to get a DNA sample from them," he said.
"There is simply an enormous amount of information stored in our DNA," he added. "We don't know what the limits of that information are. What we do know is that technology is advancing and claims at least are being made that researchers can mine our DNA for an enormous amount of personal information about us."
In the ruling, however, Hollows said that increased DNA collection will actually "help to exculpate" individuals who were wrongfully convicted and said the 2006 law has adequate built-in protections to ensure that the DNA samples will not be improperly used.
_______________
Other Information: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/28/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5047829.shtml
U.S. District Court Judge Gregory G. Hollows upheld the DNA Fingerprint Act, a 2006 law which allows federal law enforcement officials to collect DNA from individuals "arrested, facing charges, or convicted" of federal offenses.
Previously, states throughout the country had a variety of different laws on the books regarding DNA collection---with most mandating testing only after a suspect had been convicted of a crime.
"The court holds that after a judicial or grand jury determination of probable cause has been made for felony criminal charges against a defendant, no Fourth Amendment or other Constitutional violation is caused by a universal requirement that a charged defendant in a felony case undergo a 'swab test,' or a blood test when necessary, for the purposes of DNA analysis to be used solely for criminal law enforcement, identification purposes," Judge Hollows wrote in his ruling.
Federal officials hailed the decision as a victory for law enforcement.
"We are very gratified with the ruling. DNA evidence has proved invaluable in both solving crimes and exonerating the innocent," said Acting United States Attorney Lawrence G. Brown.
At issue was the case of Jerry Albert Pool, a California man arrested in January for possession of child pornography. After his arrest, he refused to submit to a DNA test on the grounds that it violated his fourth amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure.
Hollows wrote that any individuals arrested upon probable cause has a "diminished expectation of privacy in his own identity." He added that DNA fingerprinting is a natural "technological progression" from the use of fingerprinting and photographs currently apart of the routine booking process.
But American Civil Liberties Union officials called Thursday's ruling "an incredible threat to civil liberties."
"We think this ruling is incorrect. It ignores the presumption of innocence and it does not pay enough attention to the protections of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution," said Michael Risher, staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California.
While the ACLU is not a party to the ongoing litigation, Risher says the organization is very concerned about the government creating a giant DNA database and using this law to falsely arrest individuals solely to obtain their DNA.
"This gives the police an enormous incentive if they are interested in somebody to simply arrest that person on pre-textual charges in order to get a DNA sample from them," he said.
"There is simply an enormous amount of information stored in our DNA," he added. "We don't know what the limits of that information are. What we do know is that technology is advancing and claims at least are being made that researchers can mine our DNA for an enormous amount of personal information about us."
In the ruling, however, Hollows said that increased DNA collection will actually "help to exculpate" individuals who were wrongfully convicted and said the 2006 law has adequate built-in protections to ensure that the DNA samples will not be improperly used.
_______________
Other Information: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/28/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5047829.shtml
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)