Category Archives: W

Wells Fargo

Wells Fargo

Wells Fargo

In line with Dorothy Moses Schulz

about Wells Fargo in the Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement:

Wells Fargo was not the first express company in the United States of America, but it became synonymous with the American (United States) West and with the fight against the robbers who called to drivers to “throw down that box,” the iron-bound green box that contained money, gold, mail, and whatever else people might need to send from one place to another. Despite its association with the West, particularly in relationship to law enforcement, Wells Fargo was formed in 1852 by two Easterners, Henry Wells and William G. Fargo, to serve the west by offering banking and express package delivery. In 1845, the two had previously formed Wells & Co.'s Western Express to provide express and package service west of Buffalo, Bigg Apple (New York), to Cincinnati, Ohio; St. Louis, Missouri; and Chicago, Illinois. Its modern equivalents would be the United Parcel Service and Federal Express.

Will v. Michigan Department of State Police

Will v. Michigan Department of State Police

Will v. Michigan Department of State Police as a Leading U.S. Case

Will v. Michigan Department of State Police is one of the leading United States Supreme Court decisions impacting law enforcement in the United States, and, in this regards, Will v. Michigan Department of State Police may be a case reference for attorneys and police officers. As a leading case, this entry about Will v. Michigan Department of State Police tries to include facts, relevant legal issues, and the Court's decision and reasoning. The significance of Will v. Michigan Department of State Police is also explained, together with the relevance of Will v. Michigan Department of State Police impact on citizens and law enforcement.

Citation of Will v. Michigan Department of State Police

491 U.S. 58 (1989)

Women

Women

Women in Federal Agency Law Enforcement

In line with Dorothy Moses Schulz

about Women in the Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement:

The modern history of women special agents in federal law enforcement agencies began in 1971, when President Richard M. Nixon issued Executive Order No. 11478. The order, Equal Employment Opportunity in the Federal Government, prohibited discrimination in employment at the federal level because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, or age and effectively ended the ban on employing women in the title of special agent. It also opened up to women positions in GS-1811 status, or criminal investigative positions, from which they had previously been barred. Agencies that hired women that same year included the Secret Service and the Postal Inspection Service. Others, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), did not implement this change until 1972.

Women in Federal Law Enforcement

In line with Dorothy Moses Schulz

about Women in the Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement:

Women in Federal Law Enforcement (WIFLE) began in 1978 as the Interagency Committee on Women in Federal Law Enforcement (ICWIFLE), a task forced formed by the United States Office of Personnel Management to study the reasons women were not becoming or remaining federal law enforcement officers. In 1983 its sponsorship was transferred to the Department of Justice and the Department of the Treasury, with each agency represented by a cochair. In June 1999, leaders of the group decided to achieve greater independence by incorporating outside the interagency committee and changed the group's name to Women in Federal Law Enforcement.

Whren v. United States

Whren v. United States

Whren v. United States as a Leading U.S. Case

Whren v. United States is one of the leading United States Supreme Court decisions impacting law enforcement in the United States, and, in this regards, Whren v. United States may be a case reference for attorneys and police officers. As a leading case, this entry about Whren v. United States tries to include facts, relevant legal issues, and the Court's decision and reasoning. The significance of Whren v. United States is also explained, together with the relevance of Whren v. United States impact on citizens and law enforcement.

Citation of Whren v. United States

517 U.S. 806 (1996)

Wildlife

Wildlife

Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Law Enforcement

In line with Katherine B. Killoran

about Wildlife in the Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement:

The mission of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is to conserve, protect, and enhance fish and wildlife. This involves managing ecosystems, saving endangered species, protecting migratory birds, preserving habitat, and promoting wildlife conservation. The FWS is also responsible for enforcing laws, regulations, and treaties that relate to wildlife resources. In 2003, the service received an annual budget of approximately $1.27 billion with a proposed increase in 2004 of $25 million. To support the service's mission, the Division of Law Enforcement (DLE) investigates wildlife crimes (there is more information about criminal law in the American Legal Encyclopedia and about crimes and criminals vocabulary), regulates wildlife trade, improves public understanding and compliance with wildlife protection laws, and collaborates with international, state, and tribal law enforcement agencies to conserve and protect wildlife resources. To fulfill this mission, the DLE is involved in investigatory, enforcement, educative, and monitoring functions.

Witness Protection

Witness Protection

Federal Witness Protection Program

In line with Kimberly Collica

about Witness Protection in the Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement:

The Federal Witness Protection Program, also known as the Federal Witness Security (WITSEC) Program, was authorized by Congress as part of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. This program, which was implemented in 1971, is proclaimed to be the government's best tool in combating organized crime, drug-related crimes (there is more information about criminal law in the American Legal Encyclopedia and about crimes and criminals vocabulary), terrorism, and other serious law violations. Witnesses receive protection from the United States Marshals Service from the time they testify before a grand jury until the trial is completed. After the trial, witnesses and their family are relocated, given new identities, and provided with monthly stipends. The United States Marshals Service assists protected witnesses in obtaining such services as housing, medical care, job training, and employment. Ninety-seven percent of these witnesses have criminal histories but their recidivism rate is only half of the national average.

State Witness Protection Programs

In line with Kimberly Collica

about Witness Protection in the Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement:

With witness intimidation on the rise, the need for states to adopt a formal witness protection program (WPP) has become increasingly important. However, only a handful of states have done so. Some states have tried to model their program after the Federal Witness Security (WITSEC) Program but have been unable to replicate it because of financial deficits. Whereas WITSEC has the United States Marshals at its disposal for safeguarding protected witnesses, most states must rely on local law enforcement for protection. Moreover, whereas WITSEC received an estimated $61.8 million in 1997 from the government, most states are struggling to find money to implement and/or maintain this costly endeavor. States lacking formalized programming may have some counties that have been able to implement small-scale WPPs. Unfortunately, these programs are not under guidelines set forth by the state. They are managed and under the discretion of local law enforcement.

Warden v. Hayden

Warden v. Hayden

Warden v. Hayden as a Leading U.S. Case

Warden v. Hayden is one of the leading United States Supreme Court decisions impacting law enforcement in the United States, and, in this regards, Warden v. Hayden may be a case reference for attorneys and police officers. As a leading case, this entry about Warden v. Hayden tries to include facts, relevant legal issues, and the Court's decision and reasoning. The significance of Warden v. Hayden is also explained, together with the relevance of Warden v. Hayden impact on citizens and law enforcement.

Citation of Warden v. Hayden

387 U.S. 294 (1967)

Winston v. Lee

Winston v. Lee

Winston v. Lee as a Leading U.S. Case

Winston v. Lee is one of the leading United States Supreme Court decisions impacting law enforcement in the United States, and, in this regards, Winston v. Lee may be a case reference for attorneys and police officers. As a leading case, this entry about Winston v. Lee tries to include facts, relevant legal issues, and the Court's decision and reasoning. The significance of Winston v. Lee is also explained, together with the relevance of Winston v. Lee impact on citizens and law enforcement.

Citation of Winston v. Lee

470 U.S. 753 (1985)

Welsh v. Wisconsin

Welsh v. Wisconsin

Welsh v. Wisconsin as a Leading U.S. Case

Welsh v. Wisconsin is one of the leading United States Supreme Court decisions impacting law enforcement in the United States, and, in this regards, Welsh v. Wisconsin may be a case reference for attorneys and police officers. As a leading case, this entry about Welsh v. Wisconsin tries to include facts, relevant legal issues, and the Court's decision and reasoning. The significance of Welsh v. Wisconsin is also explained, together with the relevance of Welsh v. Wisconsin impact on citizens and law enforcement.

Citation of Welsh v. Wisconsin

466 U.S. 740 (1984)

Weapons

Weapons

Nonlethal Weapons

In line with Steve Ijames

about Weapons in the Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement:

Today, police officers are being called upon more often to resolve dangerous situations outside of their conventional training and technology. The incidents that challenge traditional problem-solving capabilities vary, and include such things as People who call for police “assistance” when attempting suicide Noncompliant armed subjects who do not create a direct threat Historically, officers facing such tactical dilemmas had few options between verbal challenges and deadly force. As a result, police agencies have begun adopting a variety of tools to assist in such endeavors, and three of the more common are pepper spray, impact projectiles, and electromuscular disruption systems. Since 1923 and the creation of the first civilian chemical munitions company, law enforcement has sought out methods, tools, tactics, and techniques to assist with subduing violent individuals through “less than deadly” force. During the turbulent 1960s, President Lyndon Johnson created a Blue Ribbon Commission to study crime and violence.

Weapons

In line with Lois Pilant Grossman

about Weapons in the Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement:

There is a peculiar axiom that has driven the development of weapons and the tactics of war, and it is that each advance will far exceed its predecessor in size, complexity, or ruthlessness. Thus is weapons development an asymmetrical activity, invariably going far beyond what one imagines will be the next incarnation, and appearing to break all of the written and unwritten rules of engagement. This has been true throughout human history, as stone weapons gave way to metal, and metal ceded the field to firearms, which laid the foundation for the nuclear bomb. Weapons development began even before the beginning of civilization, when humans had yet to appear and animals were either born with or developed the ability to attack and defend themselves. Humankind was no different-creating and refining the ability to survive through the development of weapons and the means to defend against those that were developed.