What happened in Citrus

All you have to do is check the Office PC history over the past year. My Office does at least does 1 a week. Searches! I dont know if I believe that , we do tons and I'm sure everybody else does. If it comes up that no PC's have been done, then Mrs. Mobley has alot to worry about.

The other issue I heard is warrants. In our office if someone with a warrant comes in they are handcuffed and placed under arrest. They are detained until local leo arrives for transport. I even know of a supervisor in my circuit that was in some hot water for letting someone go that had a warrant. No question on this one, you dont let people go that have warrants, even if it requires the proper use of force. I will even take this 1 step further. If the local Deputy will not do the arrest for the warrant, we will.

I am sure there is another side to this story. There is probably some good reason why an arrest was not done. However, I sill wonder once the off duty P.O. saw the Offender, why he was not given the ok to apprehend her. I looked up the supervisor on staff look up and she has years of experience so I certainly am not in a position to question if she did anything wrong, I'm sure she had reason and knew what she was doing.

I already know you are full of it on some of that with this comment. "you dont let people go that have warrants, even if it requires the proper use of force" unless proper use means assisting the LEO on site or defending yourself from attack. Filling out the arrest affidavit is just the locals not wanting to do it themselves because they dont get credit for the arrest in many places now due to our past zero tolerance.

[CPT Aubrey]

CPSO isn't entirely wrong and brings a logical solution for those in charge. But, the officer is not in charge. More on that just a little later.

Where CPSO North is wrong- the CA and Regional Directors know exactly how many PC arrests and searches are done each month and from what office. If one office has done none month after month, the red flag should have gone up long, long ago.

I would like to think policy is written so officers are mandated to do the right thing. But, we all know that's merely wishful thinking. An example: The latest flap deals with a woman from New York. She comes back, is taken to the probation office and officers are attempting to find out what is going on. So far, so good. Then the offender leaves without permission, runs across lanes of traffic and ultimately kills someone in a car jacking attempt.

Initial reports indicate an officer ran after her. The right thing to do. Policy on the other hand is hardly clear and a memo from Grant that says you should not chase offenders has been translated by the chain in some circuits to mean you will never, ever under any circumstances chase offenders. Policy in fact says nothing about it what so ever. The lack of discussion in policy is clearly departmental CYA.

Truth is? The right thing would be to leave it up to the officers judgement. The chain after all, hired him or her, then trained him or her. In this case, I sincerely hope some one went after her. But, if not and intial press reports overblown, I know exactly why they didn't.

Often, the right thing is diametrically opposed to policy. Another example? There are hundreds. A sex offender gets out of prison with probation and or conditional release. You can't find him a place to live. and he has no earthly idea and no money. What do you do? Arrest him again. A substantial violation? Maybe- public safety issue and I see nothing wrong with it. A willfull violation? Hardly. Either way, so much for the willfull and substantial arguement or at least as it applies to our buggy man- the sex offender.

If in your professional judgement, a guy needs to be arrested and the supervisor says "no", tell him or her your taking it up the chain. That is your right. I'd stop at the RD level, but if you want to take it higher? Do so. If they all say no, make a case note on exactly what you have done. Leave vitiol out of it.

If bad things happen, you're the only one covered.

Again, make sure you are off probation, then get a lawyer.

CPT- You put way too much weight in the CA's and Supervisors to control everything going on in an office. Most usually don't know because they can't. They are too busy stuck reviewing paperwork to have time to see what is going on. Almost no offices conduct PC arrest on a monthly basis sine the term "immenent danger" is means it is likely to happen at that very moment if the officer does not take action. I would not have told my officers to chase after this nutbag as at the time, they were not sure she was even on probation so they would not have had any authority to detain her anyway. Talk about a lawsuit. THey did the only thing they could do. Call the SO. We do lots of arrest on warrants these days but PC arrest are only done at the jail when they are still in custody on a serious offense.

[CPT Aubrey]

Stupid? I have always hated that name.

I respect you. You know I do. In fact, I wish we could sit down over a beer or your pleasure, meeting face to face.

But, you are wrong, wrong, w-r-o-n-g.

CPT- You put way too much weight in the CA's and Supervisors to control everything going on in an office. Most usually don't know because they can't. They are too busy stuck reviewing paperwork to have time to see what is going on. Almost no offices conduct PC arrest on a monthly basis sine the term "immenent danger" is means it is likely to happen at that very moment if the officer does not take action. I would not have told my officers to chase after this nutbag as at the time, they were not sure she was even on probation so they would not have had any authority to detain her anyway. Talk about a lawsuit. THey did the only thing they could do. Call the SO. We do lots of arrest on warrants these days but PC arrest are only done at the jail when they are still in custody on a serious offense.

Supervisors are promoted. Most are darn good. In my mind however, they all have a fundamental flaw. They have been born and raised in a system where leadership lacks accountablility. A "supervisor" is responsible for everything his/her unit does or fails to do.

They have time to see, but they fail to see. They prioritize their effort on administration because that is how they are trained. A COPS account, a PP90, a missing WMR, a IT03 report rarely, rarely, rarely if ever has gotten someone hurt or killed.

Of course you would not have told your officers to chase after this nut bag. You should not have to tell them anything. If an offender is told to stay and does not stay, that is enough. They should know that is enough. The conditions are the conditions. We cannot be forced to rely on a risk system that has proven itself time and time again to be faulty. And when it has? Central Office gives themselves an out by telling the officer and supervisor they can increase the risk level. And in invetigations, they ask that very question. Why didn't you raise the risk level if you thought the offender was dangerous? What total an utter garbage.

Offices do conduct PC arrests on a montly basis. I have personaly conducted PC arrests almost every month for month on end.

The classification "imminent danger can be applied to a DWLSR case as well as a sex ofender.

They had every right to detain the offender. They told her to stay in the office and she didn't.

I went out just the other day with the SO's office in an atempt to arrest some guy I thought dangerous. My supervisor agreed.

Right is right. If the chain of command wants to play policy word games, fine.
I stand by my advice. If you beleive an offender is dangerous, request permission to do a PC arrest. If they say no, take it up the chain.

If they say no, make a case note (and now that I think about it) do a print screen and keep it.

If you are on probation, don't do this. If you are off probation go ahead, then get a lawyer.

I'm sorry, but you are very wrong.

Stupid? I have always hated that name.

I respect you. You know I do. In fact, I wish we could sit down over a beer or your pleasure, meeting face to face.

But, you are wrong, wrong, w-r-o-n-g.

CPT- You put way too much weight in the CA's and Supervisors to control everything going on in an office. Most usually don't know because they can't. They are too busy stuck reviewing paperwork to have time to see what is going on. Almost no offices conduct PC arrest on a monthly basis sine the term "immenent danger" is means it is likely to happen at that very moment if the officer does not take action. I would not have told my officers to chase after this nutbag as at the time, they were not sure she was even on probation so they would not have had any authority to detain her anyway. Talk about a lawsuit. THey did the only thing they could do. Call the SO. We do lots of arrest on warrants these days but PC arrest are only done at the jail when they are still in custody on a serious offense.

Supervisors are promoted. Most are darn good. In my mind however, they all have a fundamental flaw. They have been born and raised in a system where leadership lacks accountablility. A "supervisor" is responsible for everything his/her unit does or fails to do.

They have time to see, but they fail to see. They prioritize their effort on administration because that is how they are trained. A COPS account, a PP90, a missing WMR, a IT03 report rarely, rarely, rarely if ever has gotten someone hurt or killed.

Of course you would not have told your officers to chase after this nut bag. You should not have to tell them anything. If an offender is told to stay and does not stay, that is enough. They should know that is enough. The conditions are the conditions. We cannot be forced to rely on a risk system that has proven itself time and time again to be faulty. And when it has? Central Office gives themselves an out by telling the officer and supervisor they can increase the risk level. And in invetigations, they ask that very question. Why didn't you raise the risk level if you thought the offender was dangerous? What total an utter garbage.

Offices do conduct PC arrests on a montly basis. I have personaly conducted PC arrests almost every month for month on end.

The classification "imminent danger can be applied to a DWLSR case as well as a sex ofender.

They had every right to detain the offender. They told her to stay in the office and she didn't.

I went out just the other day with the SO's office in an atempt to arrest some guy I thought dangerous. My supervisor agreed.

Right is right. If the chain of command wants to play policy word games, fine.
I stand by my advice. If you beleive an offender is dangerous, request permission to do a PC arrest. If they say no, take it up the chain.

If they say no, make a case note (and now that I think about it) do a print screen and keep it.

If you are on probation, don't do this. If you are off probation go ahead, then get a lawyer.

I'm sorry, but you are very wrong.

Everything I read she shouldnt have been detained except maybe for her own safety. I dont see where returning from New York with no documentation or approval from ISC would rise to do a PC on the spot. I would say the officer calling when she was spotted running away in traffic like that was proper but to start that crazy PC junk all the time again would just get out of hand like before with all the wannabees with Crosby's crooked mentality. The dept learned their lesson on that and now things die out after a few days since DC like the police and other agencies doent say some silly thing wasnt followed 100% since that zero tolerance nonsense is gone just like Crosby.

Well this just shows you how each Circuit / Region operates with it's own set of circumstances. DOn;t get me wrong, I woudl love to arrest everyone that I could. I carry and did WA routinely as an officer. But, not anymore. Now I have to justify every WA done in my office all the way to Region which I do on certain cases as needed. I tell every officer, intelligently articulate the danger and I'm with you 100%. Most don't care anymore to take the time. I wished you worked for me. I agree, it would be nice to reveal myself here and have a great discussion, but I;m still trying to climb back up the ladder and posting here is not really a plus in that regars. I do promise that I will try to make a difference when I get there. it is the only reason I'm trying. So much for policy. Still too much interpretation with the most vague policy on WA ever.

Did anyone read the case notes? There was nothing to PCA the offender on initially. I am confused why an unstable offender was put out in the lobby and expected to make good deisions. Why was law enforcement not called to Baker act the offender. Case notes indicate that she was not stable and there was concern. Another thing when doea a PO have to give permisiion to law enforcement to PCA all we need to do is verify that the offender is on probation. Looks to me as if someone is trying to throw the supervisor under the bus. Reentry would have been to attempt to Baker act.

Most of the "Social Worker" comments on here are forgetting that the Offender was seen by an off duty P.O. in a store and not given permission to act. Here is the problem. We could have done something then. If you were hired after 1991 then you come from a trained Leo academy. We are taught to apprehend (public sfatey). Pre academy are mostly Social workers that were hired from HRS, and could have never made it through any academy anyway. Think about some of the old time supervisors (they have no Leo trainng) so they run and hide when confronted with this type of situation. The problem is many of the "Social Workers" have been here for years and they run the show. In time they will leave and the Department will continue down the Leo path, until then incidents like this will continue to happen.

Most of the "Social Worker" comments on here are forgetting that the Offender was seen by an off duty P.O. in a store and not given permission to act. Here is the problem. We could have done something then. If you were hired after 1991 then you come from a trained Leo academy. We are taught to apprehend (public sfatey). Pre academy are mostly Social workers that were hired from HRS, and could have never made it through any academy anyway. Think about some of the old time supervisors (they have no Leo trainng) so they run and hide when confronted with this type of situation. The problem is many of the "Social Workers" have been here for years and they run the show. In time they will leave and the Department will continue down the Leo path, until then incidents like this will continue to happen.

So - what did she do at the store besides return without permission ? We would have to PC on almost everything to ensnare all the what ifs and then the locals would go crazy again with the overloaded jails. This isnt even a good case study for the wannabees to use. Police dont even PC them for violations on stuff like that not even close.

[CPT Aubrey]

I'm the last guy trying to point fingers at either the officer or the supervisor. I imagine like most incidents, the telephone was going up and down from supervisor to CA, CA to supervisor with a dribble of RD thrown in. Someone was working with interstate and surely that must have been real fun.

And because I know the above scenario is likely and because of the diametrically opposed views on the board, and because I know policy is as clear as a dehydrated urine stream, I know the supervisor and officers did what they were told to do.

I read in the initial press clip an officer ran after the offender when she initially left the office, but could not catch her. I read nothing after so I don't know if it actually occurred. If it did happen, was the officer acting on his own instincts (which would have been correct)? Of course had he caught her, she would have been detained, the incident avoided, followed by disciplinary action for chasing after an offender. Maybe he's better off for not catching her. All supposition- woulda coulda shoulda.

If anyone is to blame, it is the Central Office yahoos who believe all actions can be prescribed through policy coupled by a thorough review by those bright minds in Central Office legal.

The decision to do a WA should be left to the officer and the first line supervisor. Unfortunately, Central Office knows how meager training is, that they are responsible for it and that's one of the reasons they don't trust an officer's judgement.

The very idea that supervisors have to justify a WA is ever so telling.

Ah, well. We all try to do what we think best and sometimes we get it wrong. On the other hand, Central Office tries to tell us what is best from the confines of an easy chair.

Who is the guy over Jenny Nimmer? Anyone ever met him? Isn't he also in charge of OIT? There's a group of like functions that fit well together. Yeah right.

He must need a job real bad.