Probation Transports

Can someone tell me please if your SO transports for P&P offices. We have just started to refuse because they are abusing our resources. DOC claims that every other SO transports, but a source inside P&P says you do not. Just trying to confirm. Thanks, stay safe.

Quite often the answer is YES.

if the subject has an active warrant, yes we will. If the probation officer wants to violate the subject on the spot and there is not an active warrant NO! Don't let them abuse you guys. Too many agencies and citizens already depend on LEO's to wipe their a$$es as it is....

Thanks. They have been abusing us. The Sheriff just put a stop to it and they are whining that "everybody" does it. The Sheriff also offered to give them cars and they said "no".

they want to carry a badge and a gun, they need to pull their own weight and transport their own prisoners. Just another group of people who could not make it on the streets.

To answer the officer from Broward who asked about transporting probation violaters: The Pensacola City Police Department does transport probation cases who are warrantless arrested at the probation office that is located within the city limits and they do a great job and have very good relations with the probation officers at that office, and they are much appreciated. Having said that, they also cover a much smaller area, and someone from the city can get to that office pretty quickly when needed. On the other hand, the county sheriff's office policy is that they will transport probationers who have an active warrant, but not probationers who are warrantless arrested, and there are three probation offices that are located in the county, not the city, so those criminals get to "walk" until the officer can get a warrant for violation of probation. That is the Sheriff's policy, and no one holds that against the deputies because they have to follow their boss's policy just like the probation officers have to follow Tallahassee's policy. Also, they have to cover a much larger area, and it is not as easy to get a deputy there as soon as one is needed. As for the numbnuts who made the comment about having the probation officers transport, let me tell you that they are not allowed to by the Department of Corrections, not because they are not willing to do it! They are not allowed to put any probationer in their vehicles because the Department of Corrections is afraid of the liability aspect. And I assure you that the Department of Corrections Administration in Tallahassee would have been the group that nixed allowing officers to transport even in cars that were loaned to them by the county law enforcement.
All probation officers carry a badge and many of them carry guns but they are very limited by their agency as to what they can and can't do, not because they just don't want to do it! But there are alot of things probation officers can do with regards to their probationers that would really help the cops if you would just ask. And believe it or not, there are a lot of probation officers who carry guns that don't want to be cops! But they are a big part of the criminal justice system and the last time I looked I thought we were all on the same side.

they want to carry a badge and a gun, they need to pull their own weight and transport their own prisoners. Just another group of people who could not make it on the streets.



You sound like someone who shouldn't be on the streets.

Blah, blah, blah I'm better than you.... blah, blah, blah... Why oh why do I keep reading this site. lol.

Santa Rosa will also transport as long as there are no calls holding. The probation office is generally pretty good about waiting until they have more than one at a time to cut down on time and manpower.

Escambia SO is the only agency in the 4 county First Circuit that will not transport for us on a direct arrest. They did a fantastic job for a long time but some Deputies got upset at the way they were on occasion treated at one office location. The problem was resolvable but had festered too much before it came to light.

Every offender we do a direct arrest on is a VIOLENT OFFENDER by policy. We do not direct arrest welfare fraud mothers who are $10 behind on their restitution payments. I would think any Sheriff would want Violent Offenders out of the neighborhoods the Sheriff is supposed to protect.

Many are not caught later, and those who are caught frequently get caught when they commit a new crime.

When we work together, everyone wins. When we bicker everyone and especially the new victim loses.

Shouldn't it be that if you have the power to make a "direct arrest" that you should have the power, or should I say equipment to transport a prisoner for yourself? I don't get it.

Kind of like the DJJ folks sitting over there. They are LEO, or at least some are considered such and they can't write a report or do a warrant when one of their kids gets out of hand and commits a crime while in their facility.

Philosophically we at the street level of both agencies agree. But we have to work with what "is" and make the best of it. DOC at the Central Office level never has wanted the responsibility or expense of cuffing and stuffing. I don't see that changing.

Sheriff McNesby should do what he can in the interest of justice. That is what a Sheriff is elected to do. ECSO has proved numerous times they can do an excellent job of providing the support we need. Response time to the office, and to field sites in some cases was excellent. On the few occasions you were backed up on calls the dispatcher let us know so we could adjust our plan accordingly. I thought we all felt good about it. I know I did.

Probation Officers lobbied for years for the authority to carry firearms using the argument that they deal with violent felons.

They also lobbied and were granted high hazard special risk 25 year retirement benefits that other full time law enforcement officers enjoy using the same argument.

It seems to me that your boss’s want you to have the benefits but do not want you to take the risks of the liability involved. Is that because they also want the lucrative retirement package while they enjoy their cushion jobs in Tallahassee and are riding on your coat-tails?

If you and you boss's are not going to take the risks that comes with the job, the legislature should rescind the law and place you back in the regular risk retirement package and take away you guns.

Your point about High Risk Retirement is well taken. Most of the risk in law enforcement comes with effecting arrests. That is a sore spot with some. But I would not want to go in Oak Tavern in Cantonment or the projects in Pensacola unarmed. I've been in both numerous times and was clearly an unwelcome party. So I'll stick to my guns on that one.

The bigger question is do you and I have to stop working together because the system is flawed beyond our control? Heck, we could both argue that the whole system stinks and probably agree.

Look inside your own, or any other agency. If there interdepartment finger pointing between patrol/warrants/dispatch/investigation/training?
Do you let that interfere with your commitment to do you own best?

Your badge can do things my badge can't. My badge can do things your badge can't. Put them together and there is nothing we can't do.

Your point about High Risk Retirement is well taken. Most of the risk in law enforcement comes with effecting arrests. That is a sore spot with some. But I would not want to go in Oak Tavern in Cantonment or the projects in Pensacola unarmed. I've been in both numerous times and was clearly an unwelcome party. So I'll stick to my guns on that one.


Get real; you are in no more danger at the Oaks or the “projects” than the guy who delivers the beer to the joint or who peddling insurance to tenants of the projects. You may not be welcomed with a hug, but for the most part, most there just want you to leave. Just because you are not liked or wanted, is no reason for needing a gun.

The local Solid Waste personnel who had their titles changed to “Code Enforcement Officers” used the same argument to con the County Commissioners into allowing them to carry guns to do garbage inspections. The claimed they were threatened by taxpaying citizens when they tried to give them a citation because their grass had higher than the county code allows. They need guns less than the crime scene personnel who go about their duties unarmed most of the time without the presence of a deputy. Same applies to you.

Start making arrest, and transport the arrestee, then you do need to be armed!

[Paladin]

I would not deliver pizza there. I doubt many of you would, or would allow your other family members to do it.

Your badge can do things my badge can't. My badge can do things your badge can't. Put them together and there is nothing we can't do.

If you have been in Probation for any length of time, you know that the courts have tightened up the old rules that at one time allowed law enforcement to get around search and seizure laws and rules by calling in a probation officer to do a sham inspection just so the officer could do a search the he couldn’t do other wise legally. The help that probation was able to offer in the past has been eroded because of those court decisions so that there is very little you can do for us. We just don’t like being thought of as being lackeys, errand boys or a taxi service for any other agency.

Same applies to the FHP. Years ago the troopers were given the option of having a cage installed in their cars with the understanding that if they didn’t they would still be responsible for transporting their own prisoners. They were also told they could not call one of the troopers who had a cage to do it for them. To get around their own agency rule, they’d have their dispatch call us to send the district officer to contact them. They’d then make the request in person. That ended once the officers found out that same trooper had turned down the option to have a cage installed and just didn’t want to haul some stinking drunk driver to jail.

Your beef is with your bosses who are tying your hands. There’s’ enough of you state wide so that if you wanted the rules changed, you could put enough influence to get it done. The liability excuse is a lame one with most of our work and decisions of the bosses falling under the sovereign immunity protection laws.

Yes, I have been with Probation a length of time. I'm not sure if the Mayflower had landed yet, but Bill Davis was Sheriff when I started.

You are correct that the Courts did (past tense) tighten up on the use of "reasonable suspicion" searches. However, last year that changed in our favor. Okaloosa County SO has since made some great south end busts in conjunction with us. We have also used it with PPD.

I do not have the case at my fingertips. I am ROAD and burning a lot of leave, but if you or someone at your command level will call the "A" street office and speak to the acting Supervisor In Charge he can provide the cites on the case.

I would love nothing better than to see us get beyond this PR impass.

Davis was booted out in 1971, so that puts you at 37 plus years.... you're working for nothing.

If you started when you were 21, you’re pushing 60. Is retirement an option for you so two younger men or women can be hired with what you must be making by now?

The good news is retirement is an option. I said above that I am using up my leave balance. I have enjoyed the run.

The bad news is that two younger people will not be hired to replace me nor will one this year. It's called a hiring freeze.

PS. 60 ain't bad at all! :D

Enjoy your retirement when you get there. You deserve it after all those years!

The point made about those who have reached 60 and above retiring so that younger lower paid officers could be hired didn’t use to be a problem. The DROP program created a situation in law enforcement where there are more and more older officers in the ranks. I suspect Badge #630 is in drop and that is the only reason you are hanging around.

Prior to DROP, as soon as an Officer reached his 25th year or age 55, most took their 75% and retired to enjoy a life of leisure with a 75% retirement.

DROP encourages those with 25 to stay 5 more years so they can draw their full salary for another 5 years and their 75% retirement on top of that. Most of them are at top pay so the department has to wait 5 additional years before their top pay salary is freed so a new, lower paid officer can be hired.

If an officer starts his law enforcement career when he is 35, he is 60 by the time he has in 25 years. When he drops at the end of his 25 years, he’ll be around till he’s 65.

What departments are beginning to experience is a work force with more and more 60 year and older, deputies and there are just so many desk jobs to put them in. Those who do have to keep working the streets are no match for the much younger criminal elements. There’s no way they can compete physically and in many cases mentally with the criminals who are getting more and more street wise. The Federal law enforcement agencies have a mandatory retirement at an early age for this reason.

The DROP program works well with occupations such a school teachers or non sworn personnel who do not have to have physical fitness abilities in order to teach or do office work but that’s not an option for law enforcement. Non-sworn in the regular risk retirement pool can’t retire until they are 62 or have 35 years of service. That precludes many if not most of them from taking advantage of the DROP program. By the time they’ve put in 35 years or reached 62, they just want some time to enjoy the rest of their life. Those that do enter drop and can still function the same as they did before because age often is an asset in the teaching profession. One of the primary reasons DROP was created was to try to recruit school teachers to stay because of the teacher shortage. All the program did for law enforcement is increase the ranks with older, less productive employees.

If Sheriffs were smart they’d lobby the legislature to abolish the DROP program for all sworn, 25 year retirement special risk occupations so they could replace the higher paid older employees who retire with the lower page younger men and women.

Your comments about DROP hit it on the head. Most of those who are in DROP kick back and just kill time the last 5 years. They know they have their retirement in the bag so don’t have any incentive to be pro active in any job related issue.

Those in DROP are no benefit to the efforts of those who are in the union and who try to bargain collectively for better work conditions and wages. Many of them even drop out of the union so they won’t have to pay dues. They can’t be counted on to join any group effort to convince administration of any issue that needs to be addressed.

Most of them just want to do their hours, burn up excess leave, have a few cups of coffee, spend most of the day visiting and hanging around the movers and shakers and do little else until getting off time,.

If DROP was abolished it would be better for the 90% who are no where near close to a 25 year retirement.

It wouldn’t matter if DROP was abolished; McNesby has been hiring his old cronies back after they retire and after their drop time runs out so they can continue to have two paychecks, their retirement check and their regular paycheck. And the poster is right about what they do or how much they contribute to any union effort. Like he said, "all they do is spend all day drinking coffee and following the movers and shakers around".

Does anyone know if the State has ever done a study to determine if a mandatory 20 year special risk retirement program would be more cost effective than the present optional 25 plus system that contributes to having so many older cops on the payroll?

If all law enforcement was forced to retire after 20 years, they would still be young enough to take on a second career if they wanted meanwhile their high end salaries could then go towards making the salaries of the younger work force higher and more livable.

There are a number of jurisdictions who have mandatory 20 year retirements so it must be working for them. In addition the Feds have a mandatory early age retirement. It must be something to work in a department where the oldest guy is no more than 50 and the average is in the mid 20’ to mid 30’s.

[Gray Rider]

Do you have Reserves who could do probation transports in Escambia County? They are low risk calls and Reserves frequently are eager for something to do.

Can someone tell me please if your SO transports for P&P offices. We have just started to refuse because they are abusing our resources. DOC claims that every other SO transports, but a source inside P&P says you do not. Just trying to confirm. Thanks, stay safe.

Thanks for all your responses. A judge has ordered state officials to a hearing to have them explain why they can't do their own job. Stay tuned.