Durango 7 D-Pod Swot Analysis

Improved Essays
On 12/03/2016, at approximately 1953 hours, at the Durango Jail, located at 3225 West Gibson Lane Phoenix, AZ 85009, a radio call was made for additional officers to respond for a multiple inmate fight in Durango 7 D-pod. Officers Mendoza B2686, Delong B3125, Espinoza B3284, Serrano B3280, Larsen B2798, Sergeant Johanning A9075 and Lieutenant Leonard A6248 responded to regain control of Durango 7 D-pod, only to find that the fight had ceased and the combatants had locked down along with all the other Inmates in D7 D-pod. D-pod remained locked down while a knuckle check was conducted in an attempt to identify the combatants but the knuckle check was unsuccessful.

At approximately 2010 hours, while conducting a routine security walk I was
…show more content…
Inmate Mendez then quickly kicks off his sandals, pulls up his pants, and takes a combative stance before walking into the restroom off of camera view. As Inmate Sedillo, Francechi, and Mendez are coming in and out of camera view, (S7) Hardwick, Ronnel T316768 is seen looking into the restroom, and then actively begins to shove an Inmate standing near the door in an attempt to go and help out Francechi and Mendez.

I read Inmate Sedillo his Miranda rights from a standard Issue MCSO Miranda Rights card. I asked if he understood his rights, and he replied, “Yes.” I asked if he would voluntarily answer my questions. Inmate Sedillo replied, “Yes.” Inmate Sedillo then stated, “I wasn’t involved in a fight, I was assaulted.” I informed Inmate Sedillo that he was observed on the camera recording participating in the fight and earlier he free stated to me without being questioned that he was involved in the fight. Inmate Sedillo replied “I wasn’t fighting, I was assaulted.”

Inmate Sedillo was rolled up from Durango 7, offered protective custody but refused, and was re-housed in Durango 1 after signing an Administrative Segregation refusal
…show more content…
I read Inmate Mankel his rights from a standard Issue MCSO Miranda Rights card. I asked if he understood his rights, and he replied, “Yes.” I asked if he would voluntarily answer my questions. He stated, “Yes.” I asked Inmate Mankel what happened in the restroom. Inmate Mankel stated, “I was in the restroom exercising when I was approached by Inmate Sedillo. Inmate Sedillo tells that I needs to exit the restroom because they were about to ‘handle business’, then he began fighting with two other inmates that were in the restroom.” Inmate Mankel I didn’t have anything to do with the fight. I was just in the wrong place at the wrong

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Inmate Dalerio Case

    • 320 Words
    • 2 Pages

    On Friday, January 12, 2018 at approximately 1505 hours I was assisting in Department 11 of the Fresno County Superior Courthouse located 1100 Van Ness Blvd, Fresno, CA 93721. Inmate Dalerio (JID#7051330) started to talk back to Judge H. Chittick. Inmate Dalerio said to judge H. Chittick, “You are shady” and “you do not have any power.” There were another eight other inmates in the jury box and the gallery was full of spectators. The judge let inmate Dalerio say her statements and at this point she was walking out the jury box.…

    • 320 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    MOS Rubin's Case

    • 251 Words
    • 2 Pages

    • P alleges excessive force and false arrest. P alleges that he was walking on the sidewalk when MOS Rubin and Sgt. Calhoun approached him. P claims that MOS Rubin and Sgt. Calhoun grabbed him, threw him to the ground, and then banged his head into the sidewalk.…

    • 251 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    At approximately 1628 hours, I responded to 1890 N. Los Robles Ave., to assist with a Domestic Violence call. Upon my arrival, I made contact with handling Officer Sprague #8091, and he advised me there is an potential Domestic Violence victim at Marengo Ave./Montana St. Officer Sprague told me the victim’s name is Cindy Jordan DOB 07/29/73. I responded to the area of Marengo Ave./Montana St., and made contact with victim Jordan in front of 1940 N. Marengo Ave. Jordan told me the following in summary. Refer to my body worn camera for further details on Jordan’s statement.…

    • 702 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    D Pod Video Summary

    • 669 Words
    • 3 Pages

    I read Deaton his constitutional rights. At the conclusion of reading them to Deaton said he understood his rights and said he did not want to speak with me about the fight. I had detention deputies return him to his housing…

    • 669 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Great Essays

    Coyle was Mirandized once again before speaking with Trooper Frigon in the police station and completed a DSSP 105 Miranda Statement Form indicating he understood his rights. 31. Coyle admitted that he routinely consumed Oxycodone at least three times a week. When asked if he reached within the rear compartment of the vehicle prior to the stop, Coyle stated he could not remember. When asked if he put anything in the white backpack on the front passenger side floor, Coyle stated, “Um…I cannot speak to that.”…

    • 2282 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Decent Essays

    On 02/23/17, at approximately 2050 hours, I was conducting security walks at Durango Jail, located at 3225 W. Gibson Lane, Phoenix AZ 85009 in D-4, C Pod. During my security walk, Inmate Balog, Tibor T341787 informed me that while exiting his bunk, he became dizzy/light headed and hit his head on the bunk next to his. Inmate Balog had blood in his left ear. Medical staff was notified. At approximately 2100 hours, Inmate Balog was escorted to Durango Medical Clinic.…

    • 283 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Subject was received into the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations (CDCR) on February 16, 2000 for burglary in the 1st as a third striker. Subject arrived at CCI on July 7, 2015. Subject will be housed in Administrative Segregation Unit (ASU) placement in Facility A Housing Unit 6 cell B 106L, for self-expressed safety concerns. Subject explained that he was assigned as a porter in Facility A Housing Unit 3, and that Officer Lopez caught him with a kite/note that he was supposed to take to Inmate with the aka of “Black” in A section cell 106.…

    • 878 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    While in interrogation Miranda wrote a confession claiming that he was making the “statement voluntarily and of my own free will, with no threats, coercion, or promises of immunity, and with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any…

    • 1451 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Miranda warning includes what rights we have when we are being arrested or interrogated. Police officers or other law enforcement officers must tell a person their Miranda rights during an arrest. After the warning is given to someone being arrested, the person also has the right to speak to an attorney. These rights became a part of the Fifth and Six amendments that already existed in our U.S. Constitution.…

    • 484 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    While at the officer's station in 2C3, I noticed Inmate Manley, Ryan #1730956 standing at the entrance into the restroom area talking with someone. I approached the area and ordered Manley to exit the area and he complied. While standing at the bathroom entrance, I looked into the shower area and noticed that there were two towels hanging up and two showers running but only one inmate (Butera, Jack) present in the shower. I observed and heard Butera moaning with his eyes closed while resting his head on the shower wall.…

    • 339 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Under the public safety exception, where officers engage in a custodial interrogation before Miranda warnings, and if reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety or the safety of the arresting officers, a suspect’s statements are admissible as evidence. (New York v. Quarles (1984) 476 U.S. 656 (holding that the need for answers to questions in a situation posing a threat to the public safety outweighs the need for the prophylactic rule protecting the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination).) In essence, an officer must have a reasonable need to protect the public or themselves from immediate danger. Id. Moreover, the applicability of the public safety exception is not dependent upon the subjective motivation of the questioning officer.…

    • 572 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Arizona (1966). This decision, generally speaking, defined the rights of the accused after an appeal was made on behalf of Ernesto Miranda. It said, among other things, that each person accused of a crime has the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney (Document 7). The tradition of these Miranda rights has become common knowledge in American society, despite the fact that some people believe that they are generally too lenient and often hamper the justice system’s ability to convict guilty criminals of their crimes (Documents 5a & 5b). The Supreme Court has failed to see adequate need for reversal of this decision, despite the dramatic odds that lie in favour of the accused as a result of the decision, and the fact that the victim is often left without help when the offender is not convicted.…

    • 832 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Miranda warning that arose from the U.S. Supreme Court's Miranda v. Arizona decision assures that officers assure that those arrested are aware of their rights that protect against self-incrimination prior to any questioning. The ruling in Miranda does fulfill the legal tradition of the promise against self-incrimination and protects against the pressures of authority. The Miranda rights fulfills the legal tradition of the promise against self-incrimination because they protect against wrongful punishment and torture employed by authorities. Authorities can abuse their power in order to gain info or prove their suspicions correct.…

    • 799 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In August 2013 a judge dismissed a marijuana cultivating and sales case after the accused defendant had been denied the right to speak with his attorney and the Sheriff violated several of the defendant’s rights. On August 02, 2012, Sheriff Riverro and other law enforcement personnel arrived at Defendant Frank Frazza grow site property where they removed 73 large plants worth about $600, 000. When the Sheriff arrived the defendant was on the phone with his attorney and at that time the Sheriff instructed him to get off the phone stating, “You don’t need to be talking to him, you need to be talking to me.” At this point the defendant should have been read his Miranda Rights and informed he had the right to remain silent and speak with his…

    • 621 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The People vs. Larry Flynt Americans value their freedom, most especially their freedom of speech and how their Constitution protects such freedom. Speeches like hate speech, speech plus, symbolic speech, seditious speech and the like are part of their freedom of speech. For the purposes of this paper, the film to be discussed is The People vs. Larry Flynt. This paper will also discuss the interrelationship between media, identities, and politics depicted in the said movie. Brief Summary of the Film…

    • 1543 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays