+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18
 
  1. #1
    Unregistered
    Guest

    Wait what? APAD is live with no direction?

    APAD is now live. Where are the answers to all the questions that were raised in those Q and A meetings? The "A" in that was really the most important part. No policy on it. No answer to how to document these incidents. No answers to anything. Someone dropped the ball on this. But when I mess up an APAD as a deputy, I'll be the one held accountable.

  2. #2
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Just do what you normally do. Make the arrest, and the courts or jail will figure it out. If they erase your Aciss report, oh well, it's their fault not yours. It's another stress mechanism that the Sheriff Office has placed on the deputies.

    I got a better policy for the first time offenders, and it's called responsibility. Think before you act and you won't go to jail and have a record. It worked for me, my family and friends.

  3. #3
    Unregistered
    Guest
    They never intended to change anything. Asking for our opinion was a dog and pony show. What a joke.

  4. #4
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Who's brain child was this? Put people who have never arrested anyone in charge of a program that has to do with arresting people. That was so smart. Maybe road deputies can teach jailers how to do cavity searches with oven mittens too. That's about how smart this crap was. I am sure that people in charge of this will so it was perfect and that teh deputies did not understand.

  5. #5
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Who's brain child was this? Put people who have never arrested anyone in charge of a program that has to do with arresting people. That was so smart. Maybe road deputies can teach jailers how to do cavity searches with oven mittens too. That's about how smart this crap was. I am sure that people in charge of this will so it was perfect and that teh deputies did not understand.
    Glad you asked its Bobs, Bernie's, head judge and public defender idea. They will when a Pulitzer Prize for this even though it's superseding state law. What an abomination.

  6. #6
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Glad you asked its Bobs, Bernie's, head judge and public defender idea. They will when a Pulitzer Prize for this even though it's superseding state law. What an abomination.
    Bob is going to try and sell this crap at a luncheon for defense attorneys today at noon at the courthouse

  7. #7
    Unregistered
    Guest
    This is just Bobby boy's way of padding his resume when he runs for a higher office, like AG or governor. What a joke this guys is, but then again, typical of someone who was never really a cop.

  8. #8
    Unregistered
    Guest
    SOOOOoo.... at the meeting at the courthouse today, Sheriff Gualtieri was the guest speaker at the Defense attorney's luncheon.

    During his 20 minute speech, there were plenty of good questions such as "so someone has to admit they did wrong to be eligible, how is that supposed to work" Gualtieri answered that the PCSO deputies would not be trying to "build a case" against the diversion participants." (really?)

    He was also asked if there was going to be an actual police report or ACISS on the "non-arrest". He kind of danced around that issue and said "well, if a guy steals a steak from Walmart because he is hungry, we will take a picture of the steak and attach it to the referral. There won't be any arrest records or FCIC, and they won't appear on Mugshots.com, but if someone wanted to do a Chapter 119 records search, they would have access to those records."

    He was asked how exactly these "non-arrests" would be entered into the system. Gualtieri said "it would just have the person's name entered in and that they were referred to APAD, that's it." The person followed up with "well how then is the actual crime documented if there is nothing in the system and our client decides he wants to not go through APAD." Gualtieri then back tracked and said that the report would still be in ACISS.

    He was asked "what if you get our client to agree to the program, he admits guilt, and then later doesn't follow through and the case is then referred to the SAO within that 7 day window, is the "admission" going to then be used against the defendant if charged? Guatieri said "no, it's not like we are demanding that these guys give us a signed confession or anything."

    He was asked "what if our client gets nabbed for one of these infractions on the list and he is asked if he wants diversion and asked to admit guilt or be arrested that moment and he asks to speak to his attorney before making that decision, is he going to be bullied into a confession or arrested because he asked to speak to his lawyer" Gualtieri said, "well, we all know that sometimes it becomes a situation of headbutting when it comes to our deputies, like the case we all heard about at the beginning of the meeting (the case of the St Pete Dejesus tasing the innocent firefighter and kicking him in the ball) deputies can be hard headed sometimes and we know that we are going to have to train and retrain them until they get it right. But I would hope that they would be reasonable and give the guy a chance to talk to his lawyer within the next day or two. We are telling them to be reasonable, but i know its going to be a big learning curve for some of them."

    After explaining the sliding scale of the pot directive (automatic referral to APAD with less than 10 grams and discretionary between 10 and 20 grams as long as it was not intent to sell) Guatieri was also asked if all of the eligible offenses had deputy leeway like pot possession does. Gualtieri responded that below 10 grams, we don't really care, we don't want those arrests. After the first few days of the APAD program this week, we recognized right away that the majority of the APAD participants were for marijuana possession. I know that sometimes it becomes a situation where you have a headstrong deputy that wants to haul everyone in no matter what, even if they shouldn't. You have two guys that are angry, the cop and the suspect and sometimes personalities play a part in who goes to jail and who doesn't. I know that happens. But this program is designed to still keep those people from having an arrest record when they get to the jail in cases like that with an overly aggressive deputy. Once there, intake will review the charges and evaluate these cases BEFORE they are booked so no arrest will show up on their records even if a hard headed deputy brings them into the jail anyway. There will be our employees there at the jail 24/7 and they will have the say so over the deputy over whether the guy gets booked or not. That are in charge. They will still be eligible for the program even though they were dragged down to the station, but we are hoping that out guys will get with the program and make sure things like that don't happen.

    He was then asked about "assault" being on the list. The lawyer asked "so, if a guy comes up and sucker-punches someone in the face, that's eligible for APAD? Gualtieri kind of hesitated, shrugged a little and said quietly, "well yeah"

    A few minutes later, Sheriff's candidate McLynas asked about the "sucker punching" incident being eligible for diversion and wanted to know when did Bob have the big change of heart regarding the seriousness of assaults after having him falsely arrested for only misting the legs of a trespasser's ankles in 2013. He asked if Gualtieri was so hard on him because just he was running against him for sheriff?"

    At that point Bob through up his hands and said "we're done here, this is over, no more" and ended the meeting. The food was pretty decent too.

  9. #9
    Unregistered
    Guest
    My favorite part was when one lawyer asked about restitution to the victims of APAD recipients. BG said that there would be a restitution component to APAD and that the judge would have the power to order restitution. Then the attorney asked "what judge if there was a diversion and no charges"? BG said well that would be done at the APAD level. The same lawyer then asked but what form of enforcement would be in place to ensure that the restitution was paid. BG then said, and I quote "well, don't tell your clients this, but after the seven day period has passed and no case has been filed with the SAO, there really is no way to go back and enforce any restitution payments. There just would be no way. But we wouldn't let them apply for APAD next time." Yes, he really told the defense attorney's not to tell their clients that they really didn't have to pay the fake restitution. What a clown.

  10. #10
    Unregistered
    Guest
    as a deputy with this agency, i've defended BG for a long time. I've personally never had any issues with him but damn. APAD?!! really? what a joke!! Let's give road deputy's more work than they already have. no wonder people have in apps with other agencies. It's not even about the money anymore. I'm sick of the politics. Between the stats and never being able to get a vacation day, i'm over it. I was proud of this agency when i started but now it's a joke! hope BG is ready for the mass exiduous forthcoming!

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •