What happened in Citrus

What is going on ? I heard the supervisor would not permit any PC's to be done. I will tell you I have called Citrus before and more then 1 Officer has stated that this supervisor does not permit PC's or searches. Well it looks like this time this supevisor and the Department are going to have a lawsuit on there hands if what I have read is true. The media needs to look into this and see jsut how many people we let walk in our Department. Its not the Officers fault more then it is the Supervisors fault that continue to give Officers problems because of there "Social Work" views.

Please Mr. Mcneil if it is the case where we could have apprehended this lady and did not because of a poor supervisor telling us not to run after anyone, then demote this person or get rid of them.

Same thing at 12-0

The Supervisor you are talking about is Mobley. She is all about re entry and Social Work. If this doesnt open the eyes about some of the lack of leadership we have (such as Mobley) then nothing will. This is not the first time something like this has happened in this Circuit. Mobley and the CA should be let go or asked to retire. We could have prevented this or at least did the best we could to prevent it. How will Mr. Mcneil deal with this. It is obvious that Mobley or the CA violated Department policy in not permitting any PC's. Talk to there Officers there not even permitted to serve active arrest warrants on there cases. This needs to be investigated. This would have never happened in the Tampa or Miami Regions (or would it?). I guess it depends on who the Supervisor is not policy. Way to make us look good Citrus!

This is not about Re Entry. I think that is fine. However, we need to remember what we do, and that is put people in jail. You can sugar coat this all you want, you can try to ignore this, but if you are a Social Worker then go be a Social Worker. First and foremost we need to protect the public. In this case we failed to do our job. I do agree though it was a direct result of a Supervisor not knowing the correct way to act as it relates to PC's. Read the case notes, the Officer wanted to put this lady in jail but was told no. I'm not one to say who should or should not be fired. However the Supervisor should be held accountable for not following arrest policy. A PC arrest is one of the most important part of our jobs and to tell Officers not to do them is telling the public we are not going to do our job. I agree, we might have stopped this, or at least did the best we could to stop it. The sup has really dropped the ball on this one. Face it the public does not care who you help with re entry, but they sure as hell care if someone kills someone becuase we didnt putthem in jail like we should have. Its just the nature of the busniess.

Hope Circuit 12 plays close attention!

What happened?? Lot of Judgement but no details

[CPSO North]

In my office, if an officer tells a supervisor that a case needs to be arrested, and can simply explain why they are a danger, then the PC gets done and the officer is backed up. I could not imagine a search being turned down for any reason, either. The more nonsense like this that I hear, the more I doubt that I could work in one of these crazy offices that I keep reading about. And before the "wanna-be" critics pop up, these same supervisors will back an officer when they want to work with and help deserving cases.

Where are all the Wannbe comments ? I agree with the above poster we might have been able to stop this. I workin circuit 6 and we arrest and search all the time. I think for the most part circuit 13 is the same way. Sounds like this Mobley person is from the old social work school. I dont know if she should be fired but there is some real bad calls made in this one. If what the above states is true and no pc's or searches were permitted then the supervisor is violating policy. Remember we protect the public before anything. I think sometimes we forget that. Depending on how long she/he has been here, she may have came to Probation before we were actually trained in Law Enforcment. Most of those people came in from the old "HRS" and really dont think anything like PO's that were hired after 1988. That is a big problem with our agencey. Supervisors who are nothing like the P.O.'s of today. However, I would be doing an injustice to not say that if it was not for some of those old timers with the Law Enforcment mentality that was needed, we would not be were we are at today.

My office is the same way. If you can articulate why you need to do a warrantless arrest we get the okay. Searches are aways approved and encouraged. We are in the business of making sure that offenders do what they are suppose to do, keeping bad people off the streets and you can't enforce that while shining a seat with your backside! :mrgreen:

What is going on ? I heard the supervisor would not permit any PC's to be done. I will tell you I have called Citrus before and more then 1 Officer has stated that this supervisor does not permit PC's or searches. Well it looks like this time this supevisor and the Department are going to have a lawsuit on there hands if what I have read is true. The media needs to look into this and see jsut how many people we let walk in our Department. Its not the Officers fault more then it is the Supervisors fault that continue to give Officers problems because of there "Social Work" views.

Please Mr. Mcneil if it is the case where we could have apprehended this lady and did not because of a poor supervisor telling us not to run after anyone, then demote this person or get rid of them.

Those lawsuits dont work. The bar is super high on those. Not doing something allowed in policy or even a policy not being followed doesnt even come anywhere in the ballpark to be successful on a lawsuit like that.

Let me chime in here. Well said "footlong". People can say wannabees all they want. Our job is to put people who continue to go down the wrong path in Jail. Re-entry and all that other stuff is fine but when it comes down to it, puuting the bad people or dangerous people back in jail is our job. something is definetly wrong here. This same office has called me on the phone reguarding a sex offender. this situation without going into details needed a PC to be done and that's what I told her on the phone. I was told that Gwendolyn Mobley does not permit any PC's or searches in her office. The officer agreed with me, but stated if she tries to do any arrest she will face a write up byMobley. This is not the first. Many Officers from that office have tld me that they cant even place someone in custody in there office who has a warrant. They are forced to let them go, then call police. (what the hell ls going on)

Shoot. If the offender is truely dangerous, bypass what's her/his name, go to the CA. If he/she says no, go to the RD. If the RD says no, case note it and tell him if anything happens, you'll be the first one speaking to the press.

Make sure your off probation.

LOL

You arent going to get in any trouble if a supervisor tells you not to PC someone. Just do your job and let the higher ups handle those decisions and consequences. A PC was almost non-existant prior to Zero Tolerance. I think Zero Tolerance has affected people a little too much. It is gone - get over it.

Shoot. If the offender is truely dangerous, bypass what's her/his name, go to the CA. If he/she says no, go to the RD. If the RD says no, case note it and tell him if anything happens, you'll be the first one speaking to the press.

Make sure your off probation.

LOL

Don't ask anyone just do it!

[CPT Aubrey]

How sad. You have the left and the right. Both are full or crap.

Pretty well sums up the entire country.

Let me recap:

As I understand it, you have a supervisor who refuses to PC arrest anyone. On the other hand, you have an officer who truly beleives an offender is a danger to the community and should be arrested.

On the left, you have this answer:


You arent going to get in any trouble if a supervisor tells you not to PC someone. Just do your job and let the higher ups handle those decisions and consequences. A PC was almost non-existant prior to Zero Tolerance. I think Zero Tolerance has affected people a little too much. It is gone - get over it.

On the right, there's this:


Don't ask anyone just do it!

Well, lefty liberal? The officer will get into trouble for not doing the right thing. When the higher ups are looking for scapegoats, they first reach into the ranks. How many historical examples do you need? A PC was non-existant prior to zero tolerance, because most of the leadership were balless.

An example? The head of a particluar Circuit squealed like a stuck pig if you wanted to do a warrantless arrest. He/she later became the head of CC operations under Crosby. The very person in charge of the "No Tolerance" policy. In fact, most of the leadership in CC under Crosby simply faded into lesser leadship positions.

And to fu*k full steam a head? No, Chief. You owe your chain of command and you have a duty to follow it.

And after you have followed it and the chain fails to see the rightness? Like the previous poster said- make a case note and if things go wrong, be the first one to the media.

Then? Get a lawyer.

[CPSO North]

If this situation (no pc's, no searches) is true, then that is deplorable. Even prior to the days of zero tolerance, we STILL had situations that required PC arrests, although it was a rare occurrence. Situations arose that caused even the most social work oriented supervisors to tell us to arrest someone then and there, especially sex offenders. Here's a simple test to find out if this was really the case with that supervisor - someone in Tallahassee needs to run a report showing all the PC arrests during that time period. If there are none, then you have a supervisor that is not following the mandate to protect public safety, and when the press figures that out major drama is sure to follow.

And ain't that the ballsy truth! See who is still round as head of CC or Rgional Directors or others that were under Crosby:

How sad. You have the left and the right. Both are full or crap.

Pretty well sums up the entire country.

Let me recap:

As I understand it, you have a supervisor who refuses to PC arrest anyone. On the other hand, you have an officer who truly beleives an offender is a danger to the community and should be arrested.

On the left, you have this answer:
You arent going to get in any trouble if a supervisor tells you not to PC someone. Just do your job and let the higher ups handle those decisions and consequences. A PC was almost non-existant prior to Zero Tolerance. I think Zero Tolerance has affected people a little too much. It is gone - get over it.

On the right, there's this:


Don't ask anyone just do it!

Well, lefty liberal? The officer will get into trouble for not doing the right thing. When the higher ups are looking for scapegoats, they first reach into the ranks. How many historical examples do you need? A PC was non-existant prior to zero tolerance, because most of the leadership were balless.

An example? The head of a particluar Circuit squealed like a stuck pig if you wanted to do a warrantless arrest. He/she later became the head of CC operations under Crosby. The very person in charge of the "No Tolerance" policy. In fact, most of the leadership in CC under Crosby simply faded into lesser leadship positions.

And to fu*k full steam a head? No, Chief. You owe your chain of command and you have a duty to follow it.

And after you have followed it and the chain fails to see the rightness? Like the previous poster said- make a case note and if things go wrong, be the first one to the media.

Then? Get a lawyer.CPT Aubrey
LEO Affairs Colonel
Posts: 329
Joined: 10/20/08 19:15:00

Read the whole string!

CPSONorth?

I can name the CA Aubrey is talking about. All know it's true.

Quit the BS.

And ain't that the ballsy truth! See who is still round as head of CC or Rgional Directors or others that were under Crosby:

How sad. You have the left and the right. Both are full or crap.

Pretty well sums up the entire country.

Let me recap:

As I understand it, you have a supervisor who refuses to PC arrest anyone. On the other hand, you have an officer who truly beleives an offender is a danger to the community and should be arrested.

On the left, you have this answer:[quote]You arent going to get in any trouble if a supervisor tells you not to PC someone. Just do your job and let the higher ups handle those decisions and consequences. A PC was almost non-existant prior to Zero Tolerance. I think Zero Tolerance has affected people a little too much. It is gone - get over it.

On the right, there's this:


Don't ask anyone just do it!

Well, lefty liberal? The officer will get into trouble for not doing the right thing. When the higher ups are looking for scapegoats, they first reach into the ranks. How many historical examples do you need? A PC was non-existant prior to zero tolerance, because most of the leadership were balless.

An example? The head of a particluar Circuit squealed like a stuck pig if you wanted to do a warrantless arrest. He/she later became the head of CC operations under Crosby. The very person in charge of the "No Tolerance" policy. In fact, most of the leadership in CC under Crosby simply faded into lesser leadship positions.

And to fu*k full steam a head? No, Chief. You owe your chain of command and you have a duty to follow it.

And after you have followed it and the chain fails to see the rightness? Like the previous poster said- make a case note and if things go wrong, be the first one to the media.

Then? Get a lawyer.CPT Aubrey
LEO Affairs Colonel
Posts: 329
Joined: 10/20/08 19:15:00[/quote:3mu84ix1]

If you are instructed by your supervisor not to do a PC and one is not required by policy (which doesnt 100% require a PC now for most things as it is a pretty vague policy) you will not get in big trouble most likely unless it is something that there should be no question whatsoever then they might drop the you should have went up the chain and that would mean the supervisor would be getting fired also. Crosby and his Deltona thug nonsense is gone.

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.

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.

[CPT Aubrey]

I just noticed something re-reading the string. It's been readily apparant all along. Maybe I'm slow.

The officers that are concientious, who struggle with policy and who struggle with attempting the right thing are the ones who provide a logical thought process and attempt to articulate why they did (or would do) what they did and then point to the policy or statute that gives them the ability to act.

Those that want to sit on their ass or cover their ass, bring out policy arguements first and attempt to describe why they did or would do nothing at all.

Slap me in the face.

I just noticed something re-reading the string. It's been readily apparant all along. Maybe I'm slow.

The officers that are concientious, who struggle with policy and who struggle with attempting the right thing are the ones who provide a logical thought process and attempt to articulate why they did (or would do) what they did and then point to the policy or statute that gives them the ability to act.

Those that want to sit on their ass or cover their ass, bring out policy arguements first and attempt to describe why they did or would do nothing at all.

Slap me in the face.

I just see a bunch of wannabees posting that dont get their fix anymore by PCing 100 pound bad check writers and they are mad they aren't allowed to play cop like that thug Crosby let them do for some years. Those years are over and the economic situation will 100% guarantee it isnt coming back for many years if ever. The wannabees can go by some old retired police sedan at some auction and do their field work in that. Might give them that feeling they are looking for.

I just see a bunch of cowardly social workers who don't like doing WA's because it might require some extra work and they are scared the offender might get mad at them. These social workers are frightened to go out in the field after dark and coddle the offender at every turn. Wait until some tinpot politician is effected by lax DC policies allowing felons to roam free when they should be incarcerated. Wait till someone in their family is effected. They'll find "new money" quickly. :snicker: :snicker: :snicker: :snicker: :snicker: :snicker: :snicker: :snicker:

I really is sad we have such a division in our ranks. If we didn't get a new leader every other year maybe we could have some consistency but that is the nature of P&P and Corrections. I don't want to be a Social worker or a Cop. I wan't to be the best of both of those. I want to lock up those who need it and help those that I can. If you think this job should be one or the other I advise you to go be one or the other. Something in the middle is what we really are. Be good at all aspects of your job and you will be greatly rewarded. Social workers need to step up and take responsibility and wannabees need to grow up and give a crap about people. Just my take on things in a nutshell.

I just see a bunch of cowardly social workers who don't like doing WA's because it might require some extra work and they are scared the offender might get mad at them. These social workers are frightened to go out in the field after dark and coddle the offender at every turn. Wait until some tinpot politician is effected by lax DC policies allowing felons to roam free when they should be incarcerated. Wait till someone in their family is effected. They'll find "new money" quickly. :snicker: :snicker: :snicker: :snicker: :snicker: :snicker: :snicker: :snicker:

Cowardly social workers? Who were the people going out doing the PC and the rest without wearing all the wannabee stuff. Wannabees make me think some are really scared people how they act. I bet reentry tears you wannabees up. I thought some wannabees were going to cry in my office when zero tolerance was done away with. I guess we should triple the prison space at a huge cost so they all can be locked ? We have just as many incidents since that policy ended but it doesnt linger in the media like before because DC finally wisened up like the police and stopped trying to blame themselves for the criminal actions of people.

I would bet money the above is the old pre academy PO that has no idea how to "really do this job. Our time is coming fast. We have changed this Department in to something that does get at little respect. Those days of the Coward Social Worker are over. The DT's and continued advancement of firearms will weed these people out. There are so many many many of these people that really cant make it through DT's let alone any type of academy. Iknow many instructors that are forced to pass these people Most of us know we far exceed any police standard, so there is no wannabees. If we wanted to be a cop we could have did that with a GED. SO Please retire already or go work for Children and Families with thes rest of the Lazo's. Remember no Legislator gives a crap about who you guided in the right direction, only who you put back in Jail and why. These guuys in Citus dropped the ball big time.

I couldn't agree with you more. Social workers need to retire or find another line of work.. We are dealing with felons and some of them need to be locked up on the spot. What sense does it make to allow someone who tested postive for a drug to leave the office when you are just going to have to arrest him/her at a later date when his/her warrant is active. On top of that, there is a good chance they abscond and then you have to go through all the b.s to prove they absconded. If they violate in your presence they need to be arrested, period! :cop:

Wannabees. The name says it all. :snicker: :snicker:

[CPT Aubrey]

Ah, you’re right stupid. Same ole same ole.

We are neither cop or social worker but a hybrid. A logical look and even a more simple mission analysis would come to the same conclusion But it’s hard trying to talk to the entrenched. It’s even harder for DOC because the ignorant have been in charge for so long.

There’s an easy way to solve it all. Conduct a study covering the last two decades or so at least since the advent of this monster we call OBIS.

Examine:

All offender’s who have violated breaking it down by type of probation and violation type. You can get specific here. By technical violation (1-4, 6-9) and new law violation (5). Separate out those violations of condition (5) by crime. Seriously investigate all violent crime and what if any indicators were there prior to its act. Had he/she violated before and for what etc. ad nauseum.

Take a look at all use of force reports. Create a data base that gives you who, what, when, where and how (assuming the IG now hasn’t gotten so sterile in its reporting system as to abstract useful data).

See what corollaries fall out. At least you will be able to identify keys- keys to violations, keys to use of force.

What you will more than likely find is that violent acts are independent of whatever risk system is in place. You are likely to find that the most hardened criminals avoid violence, and that most violence acts are an act of passion- a spur of the moment act. You will likely find that all (regardless of risk category) are capable of violence.

If I’m right, and I may not be, then our job becomes more art than science and that policy, while useful, is not an end all or be all. Those on the left that shout "wannabe" will be forever silenced as would those on the right.

I firmly believe if you train an officer correctly in both the social sciences and law enforcement science, then teach them how to think, analyze, and act independently you should end up with a pretty darn good officer whose judgment means everything while policy becomes what it should be- a guide.

But, that kind of study is way beyond the capabilities of a politicized DOC, with its CC head tied to the business community, Davidson (I just learned his name today) a non-entity and Mr. McNeil an up and comer in the RPOFL.

I guess I'm considered in the "right", I have never been confused with the "Social Work" mentality (the left). I think what you said is 100% correct, we are a hybrid and to be trained in both feilds is the best. However, lets face it we have grown into a Law Enforcement agency in the Past decade more then ever before. When we were considered more Social Work, we never had any respect. Heck people didnt even know what we did. Now for the most part people and other Police Officers do.

[Open Carry Man]

I wonder why CPOs don't have Baker Act powers over probationers? Think about it; LEOs with a mere GED have such authority, but CPOs, who MUST have a college degree, do not. If a CPO had Baker Act authority, this may have provided us with the best of both worlds in that situation. (Of course, the LEO who responded to the call would be complaining about being a "taxi service for nuts". :mrgreen: )

Seriously, given the "re-entry" emphasis, why would a CPO be any less judicious than a LEO in invoking the Baker Act when called for?

Open Carry - GOod question but here is why we can;t Baker Act- I went to 2 days of training to learn this about 2 years ago. Prior to that we did have the authority to Baler Act. The problem was transport to a CSU. Sometimes they are full or do not exist in the County you are in. THis then requires coordination by the Baker Act officer. Since we are not a 24 / entity the mentla health professionals asked the legislature to exclude us from this law since we could not coordinate or transport and needed to rely on othe LEO with those capabilities. Maybe, one day when we actually have cars like DCF- (Those wannabees) we could do this. If I ever get to the top, and I'm trying I will lobby for this. It is the case in most states with field supervising officers that they have Department vehicles at their access. Why we are so cheap we don't is because of our long past of being the red headed step child of the DOC or Offender Rehabilitation as we were once known as. So there is your answer as explained to me by the State expert on Baker Act.

[CPT Aubrey]

Some geat points. You're right guest. We were put on the LEO map during no tolerance. What LEO's saw were a bunch of ill trained probation officers attempting to do the right thing. They saw that there is courage in our ranks. Too bad Central Office to this date has never fully trained us or resourced us to fulfill our law enforcement role.

And stupid? You are right.

If you remember, the transport arguement was lost last year when some South Florida judge tried to get us to do the right thing and DOC successfully used the "no transport" arguement. Never mind all those transport vehicles available to prisons which exist in every county in the state . So much for inter agency cooperation and the right thing.

I agree with Guest. However I certainly dont fault the "Social Worker" we have learned alot from them and it is best to be both. I have been here 10 years and we are more respected then ever. I have never had other Cops ask what our requirements were because this is something they wanted to do, until now. The Department is even investigating PO's filing new charges besides the VOP on Offender (ask Circuit 6, and 13 they are successfully doing it). I know our pay is way behind but, you know I cant do a whole heck of alot about that. I think the best days are ahead for us.

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/apr/30/na-suspect-fled-prior-to-fatal-carjacking/

ONLY AFTER THE PRESS GETS INVOLVED CAN THE WRONGS OF THE IGNORANT POLITICALLY MOTIVATED SUPERVISORS BE KNOWN. F"UNDER INVESTIGATION =S COVERUP!!!

[Open Carry Man]

I don't understand how a CPO can "file new charges" against an offender. I have based a VOP on behavior that would have been a new criminal charge had a LEO observed it (watching an offender drive without a valid DL), but that's not a "new charge". The only thing we can arrest an offender for is VOP/VOCC. That doesn't mean we don't PC, and it's not hard for an offender to behave in such a manner that rises to that level.

The newspaper article of the other day on this makes me sick. It's full of a reporter not getting facts right (just like much of the CC "expose" in the Orlando Sentinel) that did little but to blame the PO for things that they were not responsible for. The fault here lies in changing the PC policy, IMO. There was nothing wrong (and a lot right) with the way it used to be. The individuals involved should not be judged harshly for playing by the rules of today.

And speaking of blame: If we want to spread blame, how about a little blame for the whining, crybaby sheriff's, judges, and clerks that whined about the Crosby PC policy. The whining was deafening. Sheriffs were whining about "State Prisoners" filling up their jails. (I remember a local jail director ranting about this; "State Prisoners! State Prisoners!") The judges, whining that this took away their sacred jurisdiction over setting bond. The clerks, whose staff were untrained to handle PC VOP situations. Whine, whine, whine. And lastly, Broward SO refused to transport our VOP arrestees (even with a warrant). This cacaphony of whining is what brought about the revision of PC policy.

I hope these people are happy now. I know that none of THEM will step up to the plate and own up for the results of their foolish advocacy, their parochialism, their protection of their "turf". DC changed its policy because our leadership didn't have the stones to tell them all to go to blazes. Now, counties have fewer "State Prisoners" in their jails, but Citrus County has one tragic circumstance that wouldn't have happened under the Crosby way of doing things. Crosby was a crook, but he did get this part of his job right.

[CPT Aubrey]

Open Carry is right and I've said this all along.

Pretty damming press clip. I can't beleive an officer would tell a 911 opeartor we're sorta under a time crunch because the office is due to close in 10 minutes (I have paraphrased).... But, then again there's not one officer out there that's been trained to talk on a radio, much less control their emotions and brain function while talking to a 911 operator.

However, I'm not ready to throw the supervisor under the bus, but you can bet CO is. Why, because like I have said, like Open Carry points out, as have many, many, many fine officers before us- they, Central Office, they, Jenny Nimmer, Walt McNeil, Davidson, all of the RD's and the numbnuts that preceded them are all R-E-S-P-O-N-S-I-B-L-E.

The supervisor was damned either way. They do a PC arrest, she has to justify it to the re-entry crowd. She doesn't do a PC arrest and the offender as in this case, goes off planet.

As for me, I'd rather err on the side of an ass chewing.

And NEVER, EVER, EVER forget. The CA, the DRD (excuse me Regional Operations Manager) and the RD know precisely who is doing WA's and whose not. If there had been no WA's in that office for awhile, as an RD I would be demanding to find out why not? Did he or she? Of course not.

Officers have been pointing out these particular policy failures for years. They have been pointing the inconsistencies between the Grant memo and policy, they have been pointing out the failures in training and resources.

Let us do our damn job!

And what has Central Office done? Why, nothing of course. They are politically protected and certainly a higher human life form.

It takes something like this to point out who is realy culpable and negligent. The legal guys will appreciate that particular terminology.

Open Carry is right and I've said this all along.

Pretty damming press clip. I can't beleive an officer would tell a 911 opeartor we're sorta under a time crunch because the office is due to close in 10 minutes (I have paraphrased).... But, then again there's not one officer out there that's been trained to talk on a radio, much less control their emotions and brain function while talking to a 911 operator.

However, I'm not ready to throw the supervisor under the bus, but you can bet CO is. Why, because like I have said, like Open Carry points out, as have many, many, many fine officers before us- they, Central Office, they, Jenny Nimmer, Walt McNeil, Davidson, all of the RD's and the numbnuts that preceded them are all R-E-S-P-O-N-S-I-B-L-E.

The supervisor was damned either way. They do a PC arrest, she has to justify it to the re-entry crowd. She doesn't do a PC arrest and the offender as in this case, goes off planet.

As for me, I'd rather err on the side of an ass chewing.

And NEVER, EVER, EVER forget. The CA, the DRD (excuse me Regional Operations Manager) and the RD know precisely who is doing WA's and whose not. If there had been no WA's in that office for awhile, as an RD I would be demanding to find out why not? Did he or she? Of course not.

Officers have been pointing out these particular policy failures for years. They have been pointing the inconsistencies between the Grant memo and policy, they have been pointing out the failures in training and resources.
is case even though an ambulance chaser might try and will lose in court since that bar is set very high.nd This case
Let us do our darn job!

And what has Central Office done? Why, nothing of course. They are politically protected and certainly a higher human life form.

It takes something like this to point out who is realy culpable and negligent. The legal guys will appreciate that particular terminology.

CO wont throw anyone under the bus on this one (99% sure they wont anyway) -That wasnt that damning it was typical sensationalism of the press about what all the policies and the rest are. To catch everything you would have to go back to our zero intelligence which got ten times the bad press of the occasional bombs or in this particular case you would have to say we can baker act like a cop which isnt about to happen. Cops have way more of these type things than us where they want to build a stronger case on someone and in the meantime someone gets killed by the suspect which they had the ability to take into custody on a lesser charge prior to the tragic killing while they were building their case for more serious charges but unlike us they always used intelligence when interplaying with the media. You will have tragic cases like this sometimes it is life. The officer did the right thing calling in the person was acting very strange when they bolted from the office.

Sounds like a press release from central office:


CO wont throw anyone under the bus on this one (99% sure they wont anyway) -That wasnt that damning it was typical sensationalism of the press about what all the policies and the rest are. To catch everything you would have to go back to our zero intelligence which got ten times the bad press of the occasional bombs or in this particular case you would have to say we can baker act like a cop which isnt about to happen. Cops have way more of these type things than us where they want to build a stronger case on someone and in the meantime someone gets killed by the suspect which they had the ability to take into custody on a lesser charge prior to the tragic killing while they were building their case for more serious charges but unlike us they always used intelligence when interplaying with the media. You will have tragic cases like this sometimes it is life. The officer did the right thing calling in the person was acting very strange when they bolted from the office.

There was no need to Baker Act this woman. When she left the office, she should have been detained by multiple probation officers and arrested on a violation of condition (9). Let the court let her out after a safety of the community hearing. Remember the anti-murder act? She was a VFO for crying out loud.

Of course it would be nice for them to go back to no tolerance. Don't remember any civilian getting killed under no tolerance. What did happen was that we filled the jails across this state becuase no tolernace would not let an officer use his or her judgement. Just like know except the emphasis is re-entry.

There is a happy middle ground- let the officer and first line supervisors make the WA call and get rid of the wishy washy crap that implies you can't chase offenders. Duuuh.

How nice officers called 911. Shows supreme sacrifiece. After all, the office was closing in 10 minutes....

[CPT Aubrey]

PR, you are so right.

It is funny how many seem to point the finger at RD's, DRD's and CO when it really was poor officer judgement. An earlier post stted that they would rather take the ass chewing than not do a W/A. I agree, why are you guys such a bunch of wimps. If the Sup says no then it is on the Sup. As a Sup I have only said no 2 times to these times of request and both times the officer didn;t like the offender for there own personal reasons and could not articulate any reason why they were a threat to themselves or others. I seriously doubt anyone will be held harmless on this one. The law suit will eventually hurt. It will take the IG about 6 months to act and then this will be old news and quietly handled. Any Sup that has a rules about to W/A in their offices should be fired. Do we need 0 tolerance - No Way. Do we need to back of Re-entry on the CC side. Absolutely. Re-entry efforts should really be pushed on the prison side more. By the way, that is why the call it Re-entry- "Re-entry into society". I hope that all officer take this job a little more seriously. At 5pm you may have to stay late to handle a problem. Get over it. If you are a single mom/dad and have to pick up your kid have a back up plan. If you don't have one, get one or something. Supervisors should grow a set sometimes. Anyway, I'm rabling from point to point. CA's are no longer required to send the A/A list to Region anymore by the way CPT. They don't track this anymore, just re-entry efforts.

[CPT Aubrey]

Well said.

I think though, you miss a point.

If the sup in this office had a ploicy not to WA, it wasn't the officers call. On point, was the case officer even there? In this case, the guy who held the intrastate file.

We know one thing. The woman was off her rocker and brought over to the office by a consciencous shelter worker. This worker called the probation office so they knew she was coming, they knew she was off her rocker and they knew she was a VFO.

And they let her sit out in the lobby by herself? Why did they do that? I'll tell you why. Because that is the position CO has forced people into by their idiot policies.

I've seen it all and so have you, Stupid. You bring someooe back who has a warrant or who you're going to arrest and you have to wait what could be hours for law enforcement. So you make up a lot of things- UA's OFOA's etc. All the while, the offender finally figures out something is going on and the danger level rises. Or, you bring a bunch of officers to assist while waiting on LEO support. In the mean time the lobby backs up, and up and up and up.

iWhy do we do this? Why, we supposedly have no transport. We have been preached at for years by a social worker central office to use handcuffs as a last resort. And God forbid you use peper spray. God forbid you tie up multiple officers on one case during reporting week

So, we leave them out in the waiting room. If they take off? We'll eventually get around to doing a vop, and after all, Law Enforcement has the primary responsibility. If they kill someone? Not our problem.

And the CA's, DRD's RD's and Central Office all know this and they have done absolutely not one darn thing.

Poor Officer judgement? Maybe. But if so Stupid, it's poor officer judgement brought about by even poorer leadership.

Wannabees Zero Intelligence isnt coming back. Its rotting in a cell now with its creator Crosby. Sorry you can trump up any incident you want which every agency has but its not coming back. Sorry wannabees :lol: :lol: Go buy an old retired police sedan and get your fix that way.

You get some decent professional conversation going with opposite views, them you get guest above.

The result of some breeding is surely a wasted effort.

CPT- I agree with you 100%. CO has made us sit people in the lobby. I have been told face to face by RD's to let them run, not to use force. Unless it is in self defense. With that mentality, what happended in Citris is bound to happen. Me on the other hand, I'll take my chances and explain why i HAD to act. We need to take another look at this idea. By the way. DId any of you see the new york time article on Parole officer shot in office? It happens. Luckily they were able to draw thier own weapons to avoid furhter damage by the offender who's pistol jammed. Yikes. We are waiting for something like this to happen as well before we change our policy. It would secure high risk for a few years though.

[CPT Aubrey]

Didn't see the article you mentioned. Do you know where it was published? I can google if not.

We won't have that problem. If a guy comes in one of our offices with a gun, more officers will be hurt falling over each other trying to get to the gun locker. What a shame.

And isn't amazing how those RD verbal orders like "let 'em run" or "never chase offenders" never seem to make it into writing with a signature over their signature block? I truly believe if you confronted them, they'd pull a Richard Nixon and deny, deny, deny.

Face it, we work for a bunch of dweebs who are as far removed from reality as they are from even the whiff of something dangerous.

[Open Carry Man]

Didn't see the article you mentioned. Do you know where it was published? I can google if not.

We won't have that problem. If a guy comes in one of our offices with a gun, more officers will be hurt falling over each other trying to get to the gun locker. What a shame.

And isn't amazing how those RD verbal orders like "let 'em run" or "never chase offenders" never seem to make it into writing with a signature over their signature block? I truly believe if you confronted them, they'd pull a Richard Nixon and deny, deny, deny.

Face it, we work for a bunch of dweebs who are as far removed from reality as they are from even the whiff of something dangerous.

DC is the biggest exercise in CYA I can think of. Bar none.

let the real leo's protect the public pls o pls :cop: :mrgreen: :cop:

keep you pennies and be a cpo that all we want :devil:

Not a problem Paul 12. It's just that when we don't do what we're supposed to do, it kind'a makes their job just a little bit harder.

What a numbnuts.

heads will roll on this one for sure. You see the tbo.com article on it last week. Took te story of the night on the news, someone is fired I bet.

Suspect fled prior to fatal carjacking
ADVERTISEMENT


--------------------------------------------------------
More Top Properties

By MARK DOUGLAS

mdouglas@wfla.com

Published: April 30, 2010

INVERNESS - Just before closing time April 7, an officer called 911 to report that a violent offender had slipped away from the probation office in Inverness.

"Hightailed it," said the officer, Arienne Huckabee.

"She is not all there," Huckabee told the operator. "And I really do think she's either gonna hurt herself or somebody else."
Huckabee was right, homicide investigators say.

Before an hour passed, 34-year-old Jennifer Marino confronted a 64-year-old school teacher outside an Inverness salon and stole her car, investigators said. As Marino drove off, the victim tumbled beneath the car and a wheel ran over her head.

An investigation would reveal that Marino escaped twice from probation officers that afternoon. Another officer found her at a supermarket pay phone but let her go inside, choosing to wait until deputies arrived to deal with her. Marino ran out a back door.

"I feel like my mother has been ripped away from me and my family and my community by poor decisions," said Jason Haynie, son of the dead woman, Mary Haynie.

"I haven't received any calls from the department. I think they owe everybody an explanation, not only me."

No arrest without warrant

So how was Marino allowed to get away, twice?

State corrections authorities won't answer the question directly, noting an internal investigation is under way. But records obtained by News Channel 8 indicate office policy may to be blame.
Probation officers have the authority to make arrests and detain dangerous violators, but in this case a supervisor wouldn't allow it without a warrant signed by a judge.

The policy would come into play even after Citrus County sheriff's deputies finally caught up with Marino, outside a restaurant near Interstate 75.

Deputies on the scene asked for help from the probation office, a division of the Florida Department of Corrections, so they could detain Marino as they launched their carjacking and murder investigation.

They figured at the time that their strongest "probable cause" or "PC" was an arrest for probation violation. Marino was on probation for a previous local carjacking but had clearly violated it by leaving her home in New York to travel to Florida.

Still, probation workers refused the deputies' request for help.

"I could not authorize a PC, as earlier in the day the office manager advised the supervising officer could not PC offender," probation officer Pamela Raines wrote in case notes.
Probation officers have legal authority to execute probable cause arrests if they believe an offender has committed a willful violation of probation and poses a risk if allowed to remain free, said Gretl Plessinger, spokeswoman for the Department of Corrections.

"They have to believe there's an immediate risk to the community," Plessinger said.

Deputies found another legal path to make the arrest that day and Marino is now in jail without bond. A grand jury is expected to convene today to consider an indictment.

At least two probation officers warned Marino not to leave the office that day, but she did anyway.

"In the process of investigating, she fled," Plessinger said.

Marino slipped away twice, then, because no one had placed her in detention.

Leaving it to 911

Instead, probation officers would leave the work to the sheriff's office, using the seven-minute-long 911 call to drive home the point Marino is dangerous.

During the call, the operator tried to clarify why probation officer Huckabee was turning to 911, asking whether she was requesting a "welfare check" on Marino.

"Yes, I'm just worried about her more or less hurting herself or doing something stupid, walking in front of a car or something, you know," Huckabee said. "I don't know what she's really capable of."
Huckabee suggested to the dispatcher that someone might want to have Marino forcibly committed for mental treatment under Florida's Baker Act.

"Are weapons involved?" the operator asked at one point.

"I don't know what she has in her bag," Huckabee responded. "I don't know."

When the operator told Huckabee deputies would call her back, the officer responded, "well, our office is only open till 5."

Closing time was less than 10 minutes away.

"We are heartsick about the senseless crime committed by offender Jennifer Marino," Plessinger said in a written statement. "The Department's Inspector General is conducting a step-by-step review of the Marino case to ensure our actions were appropriate and prudent."

She was already on probation

A review of Marino's criminal record shows that the events leading up to the fatal carjacking began unfolding a year ago.

Last April, Marino carjacked a Mitsubishi Spyder convertible. The victim, Kelli Bergdoll, said she thought Marino was going to kill her.

Marino approached her car asking for the time then grabbed Bergdoll's hair and tried to drag her out.

"I was fighting for my life," Bergdoll said. "Thankfully, the Lord was watching out for me."

While awaiting trial, Marino missed a court date and a judge issued a warrant for her arrest. It turned out that Marino had an excuse for skipping court: She was undergoing psychiatric treatment in November and December at a hospital in New York, where her mother lives.

The carjacking case was resolved Jan. 13 with a plea agreement that included three years' probation.

Circuit Judge Richard Howard in Citrus County allowed Marino to serve the probation in New York so she could care for her mother, who was disabled.

She was required to undergo "mental health evaluation and treatment as recommended."

If she finished probation without a hitch, she would have no criminal record.

But new problems soon emerged.

Marino left New York in February without permission, which should have triggered a violation of her Florida probation. It didn't.

Marino told a probation officer in New York she had the permission of her officer in Florida, but the New York officer didn't buy it. She ordered Marino to return to New York.

Marino had been in New Jersey, Connecticut, North Carolina and Florida between Feb. 25 and April 3. On that day, the New York officer received a call from Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami. Marino was being held there in a crisis unit for evaluation.

This information was recorded by probation officers in New York through the Interstate Compact Offender Tracking System and was accessible to probation officers in Florida.

"NY is not aware of whether Florida probation read the notes," said Michael Ognibene, with the New York City Department of Probation, in an e-mail response to a reporter's questions.

Marino's travels are recorded in a probation violation report by Officer Huckabee in Inverness, but that report wasn't filed until a week after the carjacking death. It's not clear what Huckabee and other probation officers knew on the afternoon they had Marino in their office when she had left New York illegally.

Left to walk out two doors

Two days after Marino's hospitalization in the Miami crisis unit, Marino was back in Citrus County at The Missions homeless shelter in Crystal River, according to case notes. A shelter manager named "Jim" called the Inverness probation office April 6 to say Marino "would not sleep and kept walking around all night."

Probation Officer Angela Parker told the manager to have Marino report to probation. The next afternoon, April 7, he brought Marino to the office, Plessinger said.

At that point, Florida probation workers had yet to make a single inquiry into why Marino - categorized as a "violent offender with special concerns" - was back in Florida, Plessinger said. Nor had they asked whether she had permission from New York.
Probation officers did, however, spend several hours contacting local shelters to find her a place to stay, according to case notes.

New York officers say they received their first contact from Florida at 3:35 p.m. April 7, more than a day after officers here knew she was back in town and 90 minutes after she walked in the door of their office.

About an hour later, travel bags in hand, Marino walked out the door despite the admonitions of officers.

Authorities got a break about half an hour later when Parker, who was off duty, spotted Marino on a pay phone in front of a Save A Lot Supermarket, just a mile from the probation office.

Marino ignored Parker when she tried to speak to her and walked into the store, according to case notes. Parker said in her notes she did not follow because she wanted Marino "to stay in the store until deputies arrived."

Marino left through a back door and was seen getting into a red SUV driven by a man with a child. If the probation office timeline is correct, about 20 minutes passed before the fatal encounter with Mary Haynie.

The owner of the business where the carjacking occurred, Karen Ketchum of Best Friends Grooming Salon, said it never should have happened.

"I personally think a Reverse 911 call could have been put out to alert people of somebody questionable," Ketchum said.

"She wouldn't have fled if she was legal."

The salon is 31/2 miles from the probation office.

Investigators say Marino drove away from the salon, abandoned Haynie's Saturn Vue and arranged a ride to Wildwood with an unsuspecting couple on the pretense of escaping a boyfriend.

Authorities caught up with her at in IHOP restaurant off Interstate 75 in Wildwood.

Jason Haynie, 36, one of Mary Haynie's two sons, is left with questions about why Marino was on the loose.

"Why wasn't she detained, what's the policy and is there something that can be changed so this doesn't happen again?"

Three weeks after his mother's death, he still has a hard time accepting the loss of a mother he described as a lifelong teacher, dedicated to her family, vibrant and outgoing.

"It goes through my mind you know, why and how did this happen to my mom?"

Reporter Mark Douglas can be reached at (727) 451-2333.

Share this:

Feel sorry for them but you will have things like this sometimes in a crazy world. There will be no policy change from this DC learned its lesson on that nonsense. In the rare case an offender returns from out of state with no papers you may see many supervisors checking the background report now however. I dont see any reckless action or inaction here for a lawsuit to stick however once it got appeal court scrutiny anyway. That bar is set super high in incidents like these and it would probably take DC not calling to have her arrested knowing she had an active felony warrant from another state.

Maybe we can tip the scales.

Has anyone got the reporters e-mail address? Maybe he can get word to Mr. haynie to read this string.

Apologize. Just saw it above. I'm going to write him a little note.

[CPT Aubrey]

This is the first time I've read the entire story.

It's wrong on so many levels.

DOC refused to assist LEO's after she killed that poor woman? Refused?

Hell, I've never done this but I'm going to contact the reported and beg, BEG, he dig deeper.

And I'm going to give him everything I suspect, know and can prove.

[CPT Aubrey]

The more I read the story, the madder I got.

I wrote Mr. Douglas.

It's time to stand. If this is not a fall on your sword moment, then stand and face the mirror.

It is and we need to say no more.

Now the real facts are coming to light. Why is it that in one office, like mine, the supervisor would not hesitate to detain someone like this but another sup. somewhere else can say let them go. Why would one office keep an questionable case in an officer's office and another would put them in the lobby? Not assisting LEO's on a legitimate request to assist? Are you kidding me? Maybe the IG will dig deep, as needed. Maybe the Dept. will encourage supervisors around the state to be PROACTIVE in protecting the community. Maybe Central Office will clearly define our responsibilities as officers and not change direction every few years. And, maybe - just maybe - something will be done once and for all that will let us perform all roles of this job without fear of reprisal.

I'm not encouraging more zero tolerance. I'm encouraging common sense and a sense of responsibility to public safety. I don't think the bad check case who quit their job without permission needs a PC arrest, but if there is any question at all as to a case's mental state or anything else that could lead an average person to believe they could be a danger then they should be handcuffed and detained until the situation is investigated. That is our job, just as much a re-entry and social service referrals, and someone needs to get the fortitude to let us do that job without fear of disciplinary action. This department is built upon layer and layers of CYA. Can you imagine if every deputy had to call their Sgt., who had to call the Lt. every time they wanted to do a traffic stop? Well that's how we do things, more or less. The officer at the store, for example, would have been written up if they acted because they were off duty. The department would not have covered her if there was a fight, she would not get workman's comp if injured. She didn't have time to call the sup. for "permission" to do her job, permission wouldn't have been granted anyway in that area, and God forbid she injured the offender off duty. If that happened the press clips would read "Probation Officer Fired". Does an off-duty deputy have to call for permission to intervene in a crime while off duty? How about FDLE? Even Agricultural Inspectors and Park Police can use common sense and act to protect the public at any time without fear.

If you don't think that half of your role in this profession is law enforcement then you need to leave. If you put the desire to coddle an offender over the DUTY to protect your community, go somewhere else. This department should finally weed out anyone who can't grasp the concept that you have to wear more than one "hat" as a PO, and all those above officer level who would prevent officers from doing their jobs or would cause officers to second guess any decision to protect the public due to fear of a write-up or worse should be sent to the house. Stop tying our hands and maybe we can do something good for a change.

Finally, the New York account is nonsense. If there was a violation by her leaving the state, NY could have taken 2 minutes and sent a violation notice. Or the officer could have called the NY P.O. directly, oh wait - can't do that either or you'll get in trouble.

Now the real facts are coming to light. Why is it that in one office, like mine, the supervisor would not hesitate to detain someone like this but another sup. somewhere else can say let them go. Why would one office keep an questionable case in an officer's office and another would put them in the lobby? Not assisting LEO's on a legitimate request to assist? Are you kidding me? Maybe the IG will dig deep, as needed. Maybe the Dept. will encourage supervisors around the state to be PROACTIVE in protecting the community. Maybe Central Office will clearly define our responsibilities as officers and not change direction every few years. And, maybe - just maybe - something will be done once and for all that will let us perform all roles of this job without fear of reprisal.

I'm not encouraging more zero tolerance. I'm encouraging common sense and a sense of responsibility to public safety. I don't think the bad check case who quit their job without permission needs a PC arrest, but if there is any question at all as to a case's mental state or anything else that could lead an average person to believe they could be a danger then they should be handcuffed and detained until the situation is investigated. That is our job, just as much a re-entry and social service referrals, and someone needs to get the fortitude to let us do that job without fear of disciplinary action. This department is built upon layer and layers of CYA. Can you imagine if every deputy had to call their Sgt., who had to call the Lt. every time they wanted to do a traffic stop? Well that's how we do things, more or less. The officer at the store, for example, would have been written up if they acted because they were off duty. The department would not have covered her if there was a fight, she would not get workman's comp if injured. She didn't have time to call the sup. for "permission" to do her job, permission wouldn't have been granted anyway in that area, and God forbid she injured the offender off duty. If that happened the press clips would read "Probation Officer Fired". Does an off-duty deputy have to call for permission to intervene in a crime while off duty? How about FDLE? Even Agricultural Inspectors and Park Police can use common sense and act to protect the public at any time without fear.

If you don't think that half of your role in this profession is law enforcement then you need to leave. If you put the desire to coddle an offender over the DUTY to protect your community, go somewhere else. This department should finally weed out anyone who can't grasp the concept that you have to wear more than one "hat" as a PO, and all those above officer level who would prevent officers from doing their jobs or would cause officers to second guess any decision to protect the public due to fear of a write-up or worse should be sent to the house. Stop tying our hands and maybe we can do something good for a change.

Finally, the New York account is nonsense. If there was a violation by her leaving the state, NY could have taken 2 minutes and sent a violation notice. Or the officer could have called the NY P.O. directly, oh wait - can't do that either or you'll get in trouble.

You are the one that needs to go somewhere else. DC has a new rational policy and it puts wannabees in their place. All that is gone along with the person whose grand idea it was. Sure made us look silly locking up anyone and everyone hence zero intelligence. You will never get rid of situations like these fully and they would have had her arrested on the spot if they knew she had an active warrant from out of state. I guess you will have us run checks on everyone that comes in to bring everything to a standstill ? The one thing I do like is how DC has handled the press lately that is why these stories dont fester for months now trying to blame us instead of the offender for what they did. Its over for you wannabees get used to it. :wink:

[CPT Aubrey]

To the first guest- a very eloquent, reasoned response.

To the second guest- garbage.

You're right on one point. We will never stop it all. But, in this case it is supremely clear- this woman is dead because we didn't do our jobs. How does that make your silly rear end feel?

It is also clear that this is a direct result of years, upon years of leadership neglect- neglect of our law enforcement role. Central Office fails to train us, they fail to resource us and they fail to lead us.

Ive come to the conclusion that DOC simply does not want to fully fund the LEO role. What they would rather do is chose a middle of the road position, putting officers, offenders and civilians at risk. What they would rather do is use the CC budget to suplement the prison budget when the need arises. And when something bad happens, they use political cover, silence and time. So far, it's been pretty effective.

How many folks have to get killed because DOC refuses to understand that we have two roles to play and must be able to play both well?

I'm going to wait until the IG report is complete, then through the FOIA I'm going to get a copy. If it is a CYA report, I'm going public.

To the first guest- a very eloquent, reasoned response.

To the second guest- garbage.

You're right on one point. We will never stop it all. But, in this case it is supremely clear- this woman is dead because we didn't do our jobs. How does that make your silly rear end feel?

It is also clear that this is a direct result of years, upon years of leadership neglect- neglect of our law enforcement role. Central Office fails to train us, they fail to resource us and they fail to lead us.

Ive come to the conclusion that DOC simply does not want to fully fund the LEO role. What they would rather do is chose a middle of the road position, putting officers, offenders and civilians at risk. What they would rather do is use the CC budget to suplement the prison budget when the need arises. And when something bad happens, they use political cover, silence and time. So far, it's been pretty effective.

How many folks have to get killed because DOC refuses to understand that we have two roles to play and must be able to play both well?

I'm going to wait until the IG report is complete, then through the FOIA I'm going to get a copy. If it is a CYA report, I'm going public.

Go public now then :lol: DC has already put out everything basically. You are more naive than I thought. Maybe you can stop the police from not arresting people while they try to get a better case ( more serious charges) built on an offender which people have been killed while they continued their investigation. We are where we are at and there will be no substantive change to anything like zero intelligence and its unrealistic to run a records check on every office visit.

[CPT Aubrey]

Go public now then DC has already put out everything basically. You are more naive than I thought. Maybe you can stop the police from not arresting people while they try to get a better case ( more serious charges) built on an offender which people have been killed while they continued their investigation. We are where we are at and there will be no substantive change to anything like zero intelligence and its unrealistic to run a records check on every office visit.

Fortunately, DOC initially tried the CYA then clamed the hell up when Mr. Douglas got the story. I suspect more than one officer leak to the press, thank God.

And, you smug ass. We had multiple chances to put this woman behind bars before she killed someone, and it didn't happen. We even had a chance to help law enforcement put her behind bars after the fact and it didn't happen.

What I can only hope is the minute chance that Walt McNeil, Davidson and Jenny Nimmer are all subpoenaed at a civil hearing and let them justify their stupid inane policies.

And I hope to help that happen.

Smugness tends to disapear when you're in court and the circle the wagons mentality tends to fall apart.

As to taking it public, it's pretty darn public now isn't it?

And I hope it gets even more public.

Go public now then DC has already put out everything basically. You are more naive than I thought. Maybe you can stop the police from not arresting people while they try to get a better case ( more serious charges) built on an offender which people have been killed while they continued their investigation. We are where we are at and there will be no substantive change to anything like zero intelligence and its unrealistic to run a records check on every office visit.

Fortunately, DOC initially tried the CYA then clamed the hell up when Mr. Douglas got the story. I suspect more than one officer leak to the press, thank God.

And, you smug ass. We had multiple chances to put this woman behind bars before she killed someone, and it didn't happen. We even had a chance to help law enforcement put her behind bars after the fact and it didn't happen.

What I can only hope is the minute chance that Walt McNeil, Davidson and Jenny Nimmer are all subpoenaed at a civil hearing and let them justify their stupid inane policies.

And I hope to help that happen.

Smugness tends to disapear when you're in court and the circle the wagons mentality tends to fall apart.

As to taking it public, it's pretty darn public now isn't it?

And I hope it gets even more public.

I could probably dig up thousands of cases where you could second guess actions on violations if the person left and killed someone. You will always have some of these its just with zero intelligence you have a ton more because you play right to the anti-criminal justice system media. The Colonel even caught on to that finally.

[CPT Aubrey]

Hell, Guest. The Colonel had been in combat. Second guessing plays no part in initial life or death decisions until those wishing to learn from mistakes make change after the fact. How on earth do you think the military evolves?

The problem? DOC only evolves when they lose a law suit.

And, even the anti-criminal justice media can smell flatulence.

I will not second guess anyone however i bet policy chances and supervisors are moved or demoted.

Beware of anybody whose name ends in "...ino" on your caseload! Troy VictorINO. Jennifer MarINO.

Victorino's actions resulted in big changes in DC policy. Could Marino's actions result in similar changes, or will it cause DC to reemphasize and reinforce policies that are already in place?

According to the case notes, when the deputy called the CPO to try to get the (alleged) murderer arrested, she was off duty. The deputy called her because he had worked with her before. The CPO tried to call a supervisor but was unable to contact. The CPO based her decision not to go on duty & not to do a WA on the supervisor's decision earlier in the day. (question: why didn't the PO call the CA?) My opinion - The officer went with the last instructions she had, which is exactly what she should have done.

According to ICOTS, NY submitted a Violation Report several days after the (alleged) murder happened and obviously after everything had already gone to hell & had been well publicized. The violations listed all happened well before the events in Citrus.

According to the case notes, when the deputy called the CPO to try to get the (alleged) murderer arrested, she was off duty. The deputy called her because he had worked with her before. The CPO tried to call a supervisor but was unable to contact. The CPO based her decision not to go on duty & not to do a WA on the supervisor's decision earlier in the day. (question: why didn't the PO call the CA?) My opinion - The officer went with the last instructions she had, which is exactly what she should have done.

According to ICOTS, NY submitted a Violation Report several days after the (alleged) murder happened and obviously after everything had already gone to hell & had been well publicized. The violations listed all happened well before the events in Citrus.


New York is so overloaded you are lucky if they violate someone within 30 days of their violation. California is even worse than New York. People that think Florida has issues dont even realize how messed up some of the other big states are.

Hell, Guest. The Colonel had been in combat. Second guessing plays no part in initial life or death decisions until those wishing to learn from mistakes make change after the fact. How on earth do you think the military evolves?

The problem? DOC only evolves when they lose a law suit.

And, even the anti-criminal justice media can smell flatulence.

Zero Intelligence didnt evolve after a lost lawsuit. It evolved from a crooked thug making a stupid quick decision without thinking things out. A few people tried suing over deaths happening after zero intelligence PC policy was not met but the ones I remember failed and were tossed by the court as not meeting the very high bar they set for those type of lawsuits which goes far beyond a policy not being met by an agency. Even if DC did lose on a case like that the state would just throw the 100k limit on the people suing anyway. You usually can only really financially hit an agency with a police brutality type case because the cap doesnt apply on those types of cases but the state is shielded pretty well on negligence cases.

Yes, I see "rear entry" is working great. Somebody died, idiot and it wouldn't have happened if we didn't "hug a thug."

Yes, I see "rear entry" is working great. Somebody died, idiot and it wouldn't have happened if we didn't "hug a thug."

I am sorry you arent allowed to PC 100 pound female bad check writers anymore to get your fix. This should give you a temporary fix.

http://i.usatoday.net/communitymanager/_photos/drive-on/2010/03/12/fordpoliceoutsidex-large.jpg

http://i.usatoday.net/communitymanager/_photos/drive-on/2010/03/12/policeinteriorx-large.jpg

[CPT Aubrey]

What a dweeb.

If any of the zero intellengence crowd have noticed, few if any are arguing for a return to the Crosby era. In fact, most argue for a reasoned approach to probation.

The very aspect of zero tollerance that caused problems is the very aspect on curent display- neither idiot policy relies on a officer's or first line supervisor's judgement.

Under no tolerance, we could make no recommendation except the sentencing guidelines.

Under the new recidivism efforts, we can make recommendations as long as they don't include prison. Anytime you have CA's, Regional Operations Managers and RD's reviewing an officers recommendation and making the sup justify those recommending prison? It's like making no recommendation at all.

Under zero tolerance, all those brave CA's, ROM's and RD's were telling us, "go out and get' em" never mind to this day not one probation officer has been trained on how to do an arrest.

Under recidivism, it's back to pre-zero tolerance with one exception- a strickly enforced VOP time horizon. Whoppe do. Now, those same CA's ROM's and RD's are telling us to "let em run", "never chase offenders" while hiding under a policy that says absolutely nothing. And they are never required to put their absolutely inane instructions in writing. All they do is make the first line supervisor justify every WA.

Guest? You'll make a great RD some day

There is however, a major difference. For all the fault of no tolerance, after it took effect, no civilian got killed.

Officer PK knew the right thing to do, but felt handcuffed, understandably so, by handsy pansy management. She personally has no problem with PC arrests and is one of the better respected PO's among law enforcement. But she does have a problem with being charged with insubordination for going counter to official orders.

One of the hardest things I ever had to come to grips with under Crosby was to to follow and enforce policy and orders no matter how ridiculous or what the consequences. DC does not care about consequences, they only care about following the letter of the policy or instructions. Neither the greater good nor the law of competing harms is considered. I learned the hard way.

There is simply too much second guessing of Officers actions by all levels of DC management. The boots-on-the-ground Officer is dammed if they do and dammed if they don't.

Based on 30+ years of observation of Central Office's "cover their own A__" policy I will be shocked if anything changes for the better. That is a crying shame, and an injustice to the citizens we are paid to protect. I just hope the several officers who tried to do what little they are allowed to do are not made scapegoats.

Officer PK knew the right thing to do, but felt handcuffed, understandably so, by handsy pansy management. She personally has no problem with PC arrests and is one of the better respected PO's among law enforcement. But she does have a problem with being charged with insubordination for going counter to official orders.

One of the hardest things I ever had to come to grips with under Crosby was to to follow and enforce policy and orders no matter how ridiculous or what the consequences. DC does not care about consequences, they only care about following the letter of the policy or instructions. Neither the greater good nor the law of competing harms is considered. I learned the hard way.

There is simply too much second guessing of Officers actions by all levels of DC management. The boots-on-the-ground Officer is dammed if they do and dammed if they don't.

Based on 30+ years of observation of Central Office's "cover their own A__" policy I will be shocked if anything changes for the better. That is a crying shame, and an injustice to the citizens we are paid to protect. I just hope the several officers who tried to do what little they are allowed to do are not made scapegoats.

It appears they won't be reading the articles. Its about time DOC quit that but I give McDonough a little credit there also as he called the media out himself after they had got so used to writing their mess about us since we basically asked them to under Crosby.

What a dweeb.

If any of the zero intellengence crowd have noticed, few if any are arguing for a return to the Crosby era. In fact, most argue for a reasoned approach to probation.

The very aspect of zero tollerance that caused problems is the very aspect on curent display- neither idiot policy relies on a officer's or first line supervisor's judgement.

Under no tolerance, we could make no recommendation except the sentencing guidelines.

Under the new recidivism efforts, we can make recommendations as long as they don't include prison. Anytime you have CA's, Regional Operations Managers and RD's reviewing an officers recommendation and making the sup justify those recommending prison? It's like making no recommendation at all.

Under zero tolerance, all those brave CA's, ROM's and RD's were telling us, "go out and get' em" never mind to this day not one probation officer has been trained on how to do an arrest.

Under recidivism, it's back to pre-zero tolerance with one exception- a strickly enforced VOP time horizon. Whoppe do. Now, those same CA's ROM's and RD's are telling us to "let em run", "never chase offenders" while hiding under a policy that says absolutely nothing. And they are never required to put their absolutely inane instructions in writing. All they do is make the first line supervisor justify every WA.

Guest? You'll make a great RD some day

There is however, a major difference. For all the fault of no tolerance, after it took effect, no civilian got killed.

There were people killed by offenders under zero tolerance and if I recall the department had been sued twice at least during that time by people claiming it wasn't met by the book but I think the suits were tossed by the courts.

[CPT Aubrey]

Name one, guest. give us his or her name. Name one and give us the circumstances. If they are anything like this one then we can point the finger where it should and must be pointed.

PK? I don't know you, but if what the other guest said was true, CO may give you up but as Christ is my witness, you are not alone. Just read this very string and you have enough not only to win any grievance hearing, but more....

All officers KNOW what is wrong here.


There were people killed by offenders under zero tolerance and if I recall the department had been sued twice at least during that time by people claiming it wasn't met by the book but I think the suits were tossed by the courts.

If guest is right, the people at the very top are responsible.

And? Sue again.

Let Mr. Hainy sue. Let PK sue.

If the only thing you can do is make those responsible for policy publically justify their positions, then you win. Why? Because they can't, and thier careers will be over while yours will continue.

Name one, guest. give us his or her name. Name one and give us the circumstances. If they are anything like this one then we can point the finger where it should and must be pointed.

PK? I don't know you, but if what the other guest said was true, CO may give you up but as Christ is my witness, you are not alone. Just read this very string and you have enough not only to win any grievance hearing, but more....

All officers KNOW what is wrong here.


There were people killed by offenders under zero tolerance and if I recall the department had been sued twice at least during that time by people claiming it wasn't met by the book but I think the suits were tossed by the courts.

If guest is right, the people at the very top are responsible.

And? Sue again.

Let Mr. Hainy sue. Let PK sue.

If the only thing you can do is make those responsible for policy publically justify their positions, then you win. Why? Because they can't, and thier careers will be over while yours will continue.

A lawsuit on this would never withstand appeal court scrutiny. Heck a lawsuit on this wouldnt even make it to the jury if the trial judge applies the case law properly but for some reason the trial judges often seem to like to let the appeals courts overturn the jury verdicts in cases like this instead of ruling themselves that it doesnt meet the legal standards.

DC was
Name one, guest. give us his or her name. Name one and give us the circumstances. If they are anything like this one then we can point the finger where it should and must be pointed.

PK? I don't know you, but if what the other guest said was true, CO may give you up but as Christ is my witness, you are not alone. Just read this very string and you have enough not only to win any grievance hearing, but more....

All officers KNOW what is wrong here.


There were people killed by offenders under zero tolerance and if I recall the department had been sued twice at least during that time by people claiming it wasn't met by the book but I think the suits were tossed by the courts.

If guest is right, the people at the very top are responsible.

And? Sue again.

Let Mr. Hainy sue. Let PK sue.

If the only thing you can do is make those responsible for policy publically justify their positions, then you win. Why? Because they can't, and thier careers will be over while yours will continue.

One suit was over someone getting killed by a probationer after he wasnt PC arrested at the jail even though he was in there for about three days on a new misdemeanor charge before he bonded himself out and killed the person a few days after that. They were saying DC should be held partly responsible in the civil suit because they failed to carry out their clearly defined at the time policy which required the probationer to be PC arrested by the end of the next working day if possible. If I remember right the trial Judge tossed that one for not meeting what the law requires in those cases which is much higher than just a policy not being met.

[CPT Aubrey]

That's the problem with this board. When you start talking policy, you can't get into specifics and it's not until you get into court, those specifics become publically available.

I can't tell if your wrong or right without knowing who, what, risk classification etc.

Here's what I do know. Win or lose, the more idiot policies are brought out into the open, the more those idiot policies are likely to change.

And, I especially love the concept of some CO bigwig standing in open court attempting to justify the unjustifiable.

That's the problem with this board. When you start talking policy, you can't get into specifics and it's not until you get into court, those specifics become publically available.

I can't tell if your wrong or right without knowing who, what, risk classification etc.

Here's what I do know. Win or lose, the more idiot policies are brought out into the open, the more those idiot policies are likely to change.

And, I especially love the concept of some CO bigwig standing in open court attempting to justify the unjustifiable.

Well imo you can take it to the bank that we will stay about where we are for the next 2 years at least. Imo anyway ...

"Rear Entry" will be placed in the dustbins of history once one of our offenders does something henious to a big wig or his/her family member. Then we'll see what happens to these woosy social workers! :devil:

"Rear Entry" will be placed in the dustbins of history once one of our offenders does something henious to a big wig or his/her family member. Then we'll see what happens to these woosy social workers! :devil:

It better be the Governor or the Speaker of the House or it simply isnt changing with the economic situation now.

[CPT Aubrey]

And that makes it OK?

To have an even handed, dual missioned community corrections office should'nt even be up for debate in the governors office, the house or the senate. Anyone with half a brain can see where we need to go.

The problem is and always has been that we have been under the wing of DOC who does all the talking to the governor, the house and the senate.

We have never been truly represented, not by DOC and certainly not by a union who has been using us to keep their Correctional Officer bread buttered.

If we can get someone to speak truth, maybe we can be our own agency.

Until then, idiot polices will continue to kill people.

I agree in P&P we do nothing that Corrections Officers do. We are much closer to Police Officers then Corrections. There has been talk of relocating P&P to FDLE. It would make sense, we are much more in line with them then Corrections. It would be better for us. Lets see, we have about 18,000 Correction Officer and 2200 P&P Officers. Talk about no one paying attention to us (wonder why) LOL!

[CPT Aubrey]

Gee. And just what were the results of the IG investigation? They've had plenty of time to complete it. Actually, they could have written a doctor's thesis by now.

Well as DOC always says, "No information is good information."

Waiting with baited breath for the IG report

I agree in P&P we do nothing that Corrections Officers do. We are much closer to Police Officers then Corrections. There has been talk of relocating P&P to FDLE. It would make sense, we are much more in line with them then Corrections. It would be better for us. Lets see, we have about 18,000 Correction Officer and 2200 P&P Officers. Talk about no one paying attention to us (wonder why) LOL!

:lol: They are about to shut FDLE down at the rate they are gutting them.

[CPT Aubrey]

Ah.

The string started April 14, 2010. Without checking OBIS, the incident probably happened a few days before.

It's now June and no investigative report from the IG's office.

Has one been written? If so, is it being "scrubbed" by the agency?

Maybe that's what we need. A law or state policy that follows an IG report, and who it's submitted to, and when it's submitted- A time line. And maybe the law ought to track changes to the report as it's passed along.

Why would DOC need any time to "review" an IG report?

They are an independent agency afterall. And what happens to IG reports? Where do they go? And who has ultimate authority to act? The governor? Oh, my. Doesn't the agency head work for him or her? Isn't that a conflict? Would we not be fired for such a conflict? Of course we would, Mr. Rogers.

Something truly stinks in Demark- a reference to MacBeth- Shakespear's MacBeth.

After all, we've won wars in less than 100 days. It's now going on 40 plus and all the witnesses belong to the same organization. Seems to me, it should have taken a week to ten days to complete. Ah, geeze. The implication is of course- cover up. Maybe not, but then again we've had Crosbys before.

That is unless of course, they are doing a complete job and reviewing policy, and why policy is where it is and who pushed what and when and by whom. And even if they do? Who is it submitted to and if changes are demanded who demands them?

All valid questions.

Yeah, right. Surely I injested an illegal mushroom.

On what ground's would there be a lawsuite if the law states that there is a general duty to protect the public, but not to protect a certain individual?

On what ground's would there be a lawsuite if the law states that there is a general duty to protect the public, but not to protect a certain individual?

So you're saying the law allows the government to pick and choose which individual makes up the public?

WTF???

If ture, then sue them in the court of public opinion.

What happened/happens in Citrus is the same thing(s) that is happening everywhere in the state. Everyone is doing their own thing. Starts at Region level when the directors start making their own procedures ( or ignoring CO procedures). Then at the Circuit level the CA's put their own spin on it (or add something new). Down at the office level the SIC's make up their own procedures based upon what ever whim drives them (like no warrantless arrests or searches). Even unit sups in the same office have different rules.

Never thought I would say it but I miss Moore and Wolf -they might have been wrong but EVERYONE was on the same page. Current Secretary needs to grow a pair and start kicking some butts and bringing people into line-i.e following the procedures as they are written.

There is no lawsuit that would withstand appeal court scrutiny here. And even in the cases there is it has to be police brutality for the 100,000 lawsuit limit not to apply but this case doesnt even come close to the bar the Courts have set on cases like this involving public safety agencies.

What happened/happens in Citrus is the same thing(s) that is happening everywhere in the state. Everyone is doing their own thing. Starts at Region level when the directors start making their own procedures ( or ignoring CO procedures). Then at the Circuit level the CA's put their own spin on it (or add something new). Down at the office level the SIC's make up their own procedures based upon what ever whim drives them (like no warrantless arrests or searches). Even unit sups in the same office have different rules.

Never thought I would say it but I miss Moore and Wolf -they might have been wrong but EVERYONE was on the same page. Current Secretary needs to grow a pair and start kicking some butts and bringing people into line-i.e following the procedures as they are written.

He is bringing people into line. Reentry is the name of the game for now and for many years to come due to budget cuts and the rest and the age of the wannabee is over. :D

Wait to some offender commits a henious act on somebody "important." The day of the woozy, hug-a-thug, social worker will be over along with the bogus "rear-entry." :devil: :devil: :devil:

Looks like someone did if you can believe the media reports. The vic in this case was popular, well-loved and had many community connections. It all comes down to wussy supervisors and administrators that allowed the perp to leave. If it had been in another circuit like Hillsborough, this never would have happened. Be that as it may, no one will probably take a fall for this as it looks like policy (however misguided) was followed.

Looks like someone did if you can believe the media reports. The vic in this case was popular, well-loved and had many community connections. It all comes down to wussy supervisors and administrators that allowed the perp to leave. If it had been in another circuit like Hillsborough, this never would have happened. Be that as it may, no one will probably take a fall for this as it looks like policy (however misguided) was followed.

If the state of New York actually did VOP's half the time we could prevent another thousand murders temporarirly at least.

Looks like someone did if you can believe the media reports. The vic in this case was popular, well-loved and had many community connections. It all comes down to wussy supervisors and administrators that allowed the perp to leave. If it had been in another circuit like Hillsborough, this never would have happened. Be that as it may, no one will probably take a fall for this as it looks like policy (however misguided) was followed.

If the state of New York actually did VOP's half the time we could prevent another thousand murders temporarirly at least.

The thing with New York is that they were courtesy supervision for Citrus County. The case Jennifer was on probation for jurisdiction lies with Citrus County. Jennifer allegedly having mental health, no travel papers, warrant in VA and labeled as a VOF should have constituted for some action.

is the IG done with interveiwing everyone, i would imagine it could take weeks to do that.

Looks like someone did if you can believe the media reports. The vic in this case was popular, well-loved and had many community connections. It all comes down to wussy supervisors and administrators that allowed the perp to leave. If it had been in another circuit like Hillsborough, this never would have happened. Be that as it may, no one will probably take a fall for this as it looks like policy (however misguided) was followed.

If the state of New York actually did VOP's half the time we could prevent another thousand murders temporarirly at least.

The thing with New York is that they were courtesy supervision for Citrus County. The case Jennifer was on probation for jurisdiction lies with Citrus County. Jennifer allegedly having mental health, no travel papers, warrant in VA and labeled as a VOF should have constituted for some action.

We dont run checks on everyone that reports into the office. They did let the police know she might have some mental issues.

But I am talking about New York, California etc with all their cases not just Interstate - They are lucky to violate someone a month after a new arrest that they are aware of.

[CPT Aubrey]

Looks like someone did if you can believe the media reports. The vic in this case was popular, well-loved and had many community connections. It all comes down to wussy supervisors and administrators that allowed the perp to leave. If it had been in another circuit like Hillsborough, this never would have happened. Be that as it may, no one will probably take a fall for this as it looks like policy (however misguided) was followed.

If the state of New York actually did VOP's half the time we could prevent another thousand murders temporarirly at least.

The thing with New York is that they were courtesy supervision for Citrus County. The case Jennifer was on probation for jurisdiction lies with Citrus County. Jennifer allegedly having mental health, no travel papers, warrant in VA and labeled as a VOF should have constituted for some action.

We dont run checks on everyone that reports into the office. They did let the police know she might have some mental issues.

But I am talking about New York, California etc with all their cases not just Interstate - They are lucky to violate someone a month after a new arrest that they are aware of.

She was known to be mentally unstable, she was a VFO, she was given an instruction to stay and she didn't (violation of condition (9)), she was in Florida in illegaly (although no one checked the ICOTS case notes (who does) and she had an active warrant from another state. Did we follow policy?

I don't know. But, what I do know is that the entire incident was brought about by irrational policy and vague verbal orders by senior officials who make a living not being held accountable. And because that is the truth, neither officer or supervisor should be held accountable or liable.

That's why I'm waiting on the IG report to see if this whole thing is a white wash.

We all know why she sat in an office for two hours or more. Because although written policy says nothing about it, verablly she was allowed to run.

Looks like someone did if you can believe the media reports. The vic in this case was popular, well-loved and had many community connections. It all comes down to wussy supervisors and administrators that allowed the perp to leave. If it had been in another circuit like Hillsborough, this never would have happened. Be that as it may, no one will probably take a fall for this as it looks like policy (however misguided) was followed.

If the state of New York actually did VOP's half the time we could prevent another thousand murders temporarirly at least.

The thing with New York is that they were courtesy supervision for Citrus County. The case Jennifer was on probation for jurisdiction lies with Citrus County. Jennifer allegedly having mental health, no travel papers, warrant in VA and labeled as a VOF should have constituted for some action.

We dont run checks on everyone that reports into the office. They did let the police know she might have some mental issues.

But I am talking about New York, California etc with all their cases not just Interstate - They are lucky to violate someone a month after a new arrest that they are aware of.

She was known to be mentally unstable, she was a VFO, she was given an instruction to stay and she didn't (violation of condition (9)), she was in Florida in illegaly (although no one checked the ICOTS case notes (who does) and she had an active warrant from another state. Did we follow policy?

I don't know. But, what I do know is that the entire incident was brought about by irrational policy and vague verbal orders by senior officials who make a living not being held accountable. And because that is the truth, neither officer or supervisor should be held accountable or liable.

That's why I'm waiting on the IG report to see if this whole thing is a white wash.

We all know why she sat in an office for two hours or more. Because although written policy says nothing about it, verablly she was allowed to run.

Its a judgement call - they werent aware of the out of state warrant or anything from New York (That doesn't surprise me knowing that state) and that is a minor technical violation and the cops were called and told she seemed unstable while taking off (They have baker act powers we don't). You could monday morning QB almost any case that does something crazy.

[CPT Aubrey]

Its a judgement call - they werent aware of the out of state warrant or anything from New York (That doesn't surprise me knowing that state) and that is a minor technical violation and the cops were called and told she seemed unstable while taking off (They have baker act powers we don't). You could monday morning QB almost any case that does something crazy.

There is no Monday morning quarterbacking here. I'm going to make it perfectly clear to anyone reading, especially to those preparing the IG report..

The fact that they were not aware of the out of state warrant, or the fact that they were not aware of her New York status has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with anything.

They let a known, mentally unstable woman sit in the lobby for over two hours for one reason, and one reason only- because verbal policy told them that was the best course of action. They were totally aware of her mental and VFO status.

Our totally bullshit, verbally ordered policy by those protecting their own ass have totally failed to fight for and resource us and have forced officers into a position where they must chose between two bad alternatives-the worse of all worlds:

Bring dangerous offenders or those with active warrants or those who you plan do do a warrantless arrest back into the a secured section of the office , or leave them out in the lobby..

Bring them back, then there is a chance of a use of force, or handcuffing while you wait what could be multiple hours for LEO support or?

Leave them out in the lobby with perfunctory orders not to leave and if they do? You're supposedly covered because if they run, the Circuit Administrators, Regional Directors and Central Office have given a tacid nod that that's what they want and by previous disciplinary actions, this is what they demand.

If the IG report white washes this simple fact, I'll do the best I can to make it public.

There is no Monday morning at all. It's mid-night on Sunday.

Its a judgement call - they werent aware of the out of state warrant or anything from New York (That doesn't surprise me knowing that state) and that is a minor technical violation and the cops were called and told she seemed unstable while taking off (They have baker act powers we don't). You could monday morning QB almost any case that does something crazy.

There is no Monday morning quarterbacking here. I'm going to make it perfectly clear to anyone reading, especially to those preparing the IG report..

The fact that they were not aware of the out of state warrant, or the fact that they were not aware of her New York status has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with anything.

They let a known, mentally unstable woman sit in the lobby for over two hours for one reason, and one reason only- because verbal policy told them that was the best course of action. They were totally aware of her mental and VFO status.

Our totally bullshit, verbally ordered policy by those protecting their own ass have totally failed to fight for and resource us and have forced officers into a position where they must chose between two bad alternatives-the worse of all worlds:

Bring dangerous offenders or those with active warrants or those who you plan do do a warrantless arrest back into the a secured section of the office , or leave them out in the lobby..

Bring them back, then there is a chance of a use of force, or handcuffing while you wait what could be multiple hours for LEO support or?

Leave them out in the lobby with perfunctory orders not to leave and if they do? You're supposedly covered because if they run, the Circuit Administrators, Regional Directors and Central Office have given a tacid nod that that's what they want and by previous disciplinary actions, this is what they demand.

If the IG report white washes this simple fact, I'll do the best I can to make it public.

There is no Monday morning at all. It's mid-night on Sunday.

Its still a judgement call. I guess it would have looked better if they made a decision a little faster to call the cops and say they might want to come look at her and see if they think she should be baker acted (knowing what the cops want to see they probably wouldn't have done it unless she attacked them when they came in) but they seemed more concerned about where she was going to stay and the rest. You can try and blow this up all you want but we have hundreds of situations like this yearly where if the person did snap after leaving you could second guess actions. The Dept is not going back to zero intelligence to try and prevent every situation as that only got them burned in the media even more and had LEO agencies even refusing to pick our PC's up. The Dept like the local LEO's before finally wisened up and learned to deal with the media properly unlike the crminal thug zero tolerance pushing Crosby.

True, very true. Once these criminals leave New York it's almost impossible to get them to take them back. Personally, I think this Interstate Compact stuff is a waste of time and a bunch of crappola. If someone commits a crime while visiting or whatever in Florida they should either have to stay here and do probation or take some jail time. If we did this we could re-direct a whole lot of money back to the filed by getting rid of the whole Interstate Compact crew.

[CPT Aubrey]

You got to love how Guest defines a "judgement calll" impying there is some freedom of action associated with DOC written and verbal policy.

It's like a Florida DOC death row inmate given the choice between the electric chair or lethal injection.

His "judgement" would allow him to choose the best of bad alternatives, yet the end result is still the same.

If you don't see the bull in his arguement, there's no reason to hope things will ever get better.

[CPT Aubrey]

Let's see...

The Citrus incident happened 04/07- sixty eight days ago. Still no IG report.

Things that have happened in less time:

- The world was formed

- Rome burned

- Babies were conceived

- The Iraq war was won

- BP placed an initial cap on the Deep Water Horizon

- Joan Rivers had two more face lifts

- The 2010 legislative session opened and closed

- Marco Rubio went from front runner to wanabe to tied

- PBA made its decision to endorse Alex Sink

If you have a few more, add them. The point? Why is it taking so long and could the fact that it's an election year have anything to do with anything?

An independent IG? My butt.

See my last post on the Circuit 16 board - the wheels of the "IG" move so, so slowly. :roll: :roll: :roll:

[CPT Aubrey]

See my last post on the Circuit 16 board - the wheels of the "IG" move so, so slowly. :roll: :roll: :roll:

OK. I'll bite. What is the link to the Circuit 16 Board?

Even so, here is my original post to keep the thought alive:


Let's see...

The Citrus incident happened 04/07- sixty eight days ago. Still no IG report.

Things that have happened in less time:

- The world was formed

- Rome burned

- Babies were conceived

- The Iraq war was won

- BP placed an initial cap on the Deep Water Horizon

- Joan Rivers had two more face lifts

- The 2010 legislative session opened and closed

- Marco Rubio went from front runner to wanabe to tied

- PBA made its decision to endorse Alex Sink

If you have a few more, add them. The point? Why is it taking so long and could the fact that it's an election year have anything to do with anything?

An independent IG? My butt.

That situation down there with the extreme (100% within two years) turnover rate has been ignored despite many pleas to the IG. No matter what histrionics took place on that board the reality is that that kind of turnover is atrocious and reflects a CA that feels she must keep her supervisors at the "probationary level" for literally eight years to keep them in check (including heavy hitters like Dunn). When the latest casualty emerged the officer DEMANDED an IG investigation after pulling some strings and it was granted. The result? A standstill with no action being taken at the expense of the tax payers since no one knows what to do. Give it some time Captain and some fireworks will fly - I promise. The tie-in? Politics, man, politics. . . but nothing unusual for this agency . . .

See my last post on the Circuit 16 board - the wheels of the "IG" move so, so slowly. :roll: :roll: :roll:

OK. I'll bite. What is the link to the Circuit 16 Board?

Even so, here is my original post to keep the thought alive:


Let's see...

The Citrus incident happened 04/07- sixty eight days ago. Still no IG report.

Things that have happened in less time:

- The world was formed

- Rome burned

- Babies were conceived

- The Iraq war was won

- BP placed an initial cap on the Deep Water Horizon

- Joan Rivers had two more face lifts

- The 2010 legislative session opened and closed

- Marco Rubio went from front runner to wanabe to tied

- PBA made its decision to endorse Alex Sink

If you have a few more, add them. The point? Why is it taking so long and could the fact that it's an election year have anything to do with anything?

An independent IG? My butt.


I wonder who will win:

Will BP clean the oil spill before the IG report
or
Will the IG report come out before the oil clean up
or
Will we all be screwed for another century while people sit on their thumbs and get paid.

I am wondering if there is some time lapsing in the IG report coming out so some of the people responsible can voluntarily retire therefore still eligible for retirement benefits with no sanctions.

Give it up wannabees.

The evolution continues: Zero Tolerance, Career of Courage, Re-Entry, It's not about what you can't do but about what you can do. :snicker:

[CPT Aubrey]

Thanks Tom..., guest.

This case is much like a Supreme Court case representing many facets of an imbedded, ill-conceived culture, ultimately reflected in a wishy washy policy designed by those making a risk analysis choice.

First and foremost, our job is to protect the public. That is our reason for being. We exist only in that tenant. We failed.

In my opinion the officer didn't fail, the supervisor didn't fail. They were both operating under the constraints of a failing system.

The system failed becuase of our leadership. They failed to recognize the duality in probation work choosing the social over public protection, consciously choosing to ignore the LEO role- resourcing the LEO role- training the LEO role.

I have always argued for balance, one not more important than the other. Both equally sacrosanct. That requires independent thought, independent action.....and we are anything but independent.

I cannot in all good consceince, let this one go.

[debdust22]

I knew this woman very well. She did not deserve to die this way. This was wrong on so many levels on the supervisors end. Sue Haynie would still be with family, friends, and her students if it wasn't for this supervisors poor poor decision making. This is just a sad sad situation for all who loved her.

You will have bad things happen- its sad but its life. Know one will ever have a crystal ball and we see what happens when you try to stop most things that could happen. Different situation but I guess police should always arrest someone the first chance they get even if they know they can build a case for a real high level crime if they hold out to get more evidence of the larger crime so as to make sure an arrest was made at the earlies possible time because he may kill someone in the meantime (which has happened quite a few times). You wannabees are more of a joke than the law enforcement hating media sometimes.

I knew this woman very well. She did not deserve to die this way. This was wrong on so many levels on the supervisors end. Sue Haynie would still be with family, friends, and her students if it wasn't for this supervisors poor poor decision making. This is just a sad sad situation for all who loved her.

You're right and all at DOC that I know, regret and deeply feel your loss.

Disregard any post that has the term "wannabe" in it.

All of the officers I know and have the pleasure of working with will do what it takes to protect anyone. They will also go out of their way to assist a deserving offender doing the best they can to abide by the court's order.

This job is and will always be about being proactive versus reactive. Officers and most unit supervisors know this.

It's the rest of the leadership we're not so sure about.

[CPT Aubrey]

I knew this woman very well. She did not deserve to die this way. This was wrong on so many levels on the supervisors end. Sue Haynie would still be with family, friends, and her students if it wasn't for this supervisors poor poor decision making. This is just a sad sad situation for all who loved her.

You're right and all at DOC that I know, regret and deeply feel your loss.

Disregard any post that has the term "wannabe" in it.

All of the officers I know and have the pleasure of working with will do what it takes to protect anyone. They will also go out of their way to assist a deserving offender doing the best they can to abide by the court's order.

This job is and will always be about being proactive versus reactive. Officers and most unit supervisors know this.

It's the rest of the leadership we're not so sure about.

Guest? You are a wonderful human being.

It's isn't and never has been about our LEO function and our social service function. It has been about resourcing us and achieving balance.

From no tolerance- one side of the spectrum- to our current re-cidivism efforts- the other side, wild shifts in policy have done nothing to really protect the public or keep repeat offenders from repeat prison.

Can't anyone see the irony? To keep people going back to prison, we build more prisons?

I am so sorry for Ms. Haynie. We could have stopped this, and we didn't. The reasons are perfectly clear to anyone with eyes to see.

We need to be our own agency.

You will have bad things happen- its sad but its life. Know one will ever have a crystal ball and we see what happens when you try to stop most things that could happen. Different situation but I guess police should always arrest someone the first chance they get even if they know they can build a case for a real high level crime if they hold out to get more evidence of the larger crime so as to make sure an arrest was made at the earlies possible time because he may kill someone in the meantime (which has happened quite a few times). You wannabees are more of a joke than the law enforcement hating media sometimes.

What are you trying to say????? Bad things Happen??!! Yeah, but with spinless morons in charge it's more than just sad!! It borders of neglience........

[CPT Aubrey]

Guest?

Bullseye!

I wrote this as part of the string, "Worst Training Ever..." to another idiot poster:

Or maybe we can watch and document how all of the pure bread social workers disappear when it comes time to do a warrantless arrest or search, or protect a fellow worker in the office?

Maybe we can watch all of them disappear at the exact stroke of 5 PM and complain to 911 operators the office is about to close....

Or please, let's document the social workers who refuse to observe a UA, type a VOP or put any kind of effort into what should be, an honorable profession.

Or maybe we can point to example after example of the social worker mentality pointing to policy excuses for not being proactive in protecting anybody or anything but their own ass....

I get so tired of this arguement. Not one good PO, or supervisor, or leader does not know we need balance.

I think what really bugs me is the total cowardice on display for America to see, digest and say, "To hell with them all, lets gets rid of the organization."

Then we can turn it over to guys who are only interested in collecting cost of supervision for profit.

You will have bad things happen- its sad but its life. Know one will ever have a crystal ball and we see what happens when you try to stop most things that could happen. Different situation but I guess police should always arrest someone the first chance they get even if they know they can build a case for a real high level crime if they hold out to get more evidence of the larger crime so as to make sure an arrest was made at the earlies possible time because he may kill someone in the meantime (which has happened quite a few times). You wannabees are more of a joke than the law enforcement hating media sometimes.

What are you trying to say????? Bad things Happen??!! Yeah, but with spinless morons in charge it's more than just sad!! It borders of neglience........

That we don't have a crystal ball that tells us what someone will do. That we don't run a records check on everyone that walks throught the door. We don't have baker act authority either and we know in reality the cops generally won't baker act someone unless they go absolutely nuts in front of them. Unlike some states we would probably inform the sending state if we knew someone had a technical violation weeks prior however. Sorry zero intelligence is gone forever from DC like Mr. Crosby (well at least the next decade since the budget is still so bad).

[CPT Aubrey]

That we don't have a crystal ball that tells us what someone will do. That we don't run a records check on everyone that walks throught the door. We don't have baker act authority either and we know in reality the cops generally won't baker act someone unless they go absolutely nuts in front of them. Unlike some states we would probably inform the sending state if we knew someone had a technical violation weeks prior however. Sorry zero intelligence is gone forever from DC like Mr. Crosby (well at least the next decade since the budget is still so bad).

Zero tollerance or "intelligence" has bar none, nothing to do with absolutely anything at all.

A crystal ball isn't needed. Common sense is. The woman was a nut case. The probation office knew she was a nut case. The homeless shelter called, told them she was a nut case and told them she would be delivered the next day..

No records check were needed, although some CPO probably thought of it.

It was a matter of commmon sense. Bring her back into what we consider to be a semi secure office space (ya right) , or let her stay in the lobby. They let her stay. for over two hours.

We don't have Baker Act authority because we have no supposed transport capability and as far as I can tell from media reports, no request was ever made for her to be Baker Acted..

And we do have the ability to check if an Interstate Compact offender has a violation, but no one routinely looks at interstate compact case notes. Why? Because we are already responsible for keeping multiple data bases up to date. Why? Because CO has mandated so many requirements, even the most conscientious Probation Officer can't keep up especially during a reporting period.

It has nothing to do with zero tollerance. It has everything to do with wild swings in policy where in absolutely no case, and I mean no case, the officer was trained.

Don't believe me? A CPO killed an offender in the panhandle. She was right. The offender was dead. There are absolutely no case notes in OBIS. Strange. Every single main leader from the supervisor , to the circuit administrator, to the regional director all went to the site, or called someone or talked to some one. No case notes. Yet I personally heard a Regional Director say, "If it isn't in cases notes? It did not happen." We all know that is corruptable bullshit. We, you, and I have kept things from case notes we know to be true and we know why we have not put them in public writting. The chain did not want them in case notes.

The Supervisor? She/he was following a balleless chain of command.

We have transport capability in every county in every prison thoughout this state.

We have the ability to arrrest. The legislature has given us that ability. Why they have not resourced us to execute that function is between the legislature and a ballesss chain of command.

Why was she not arrested? Becuase we had a letter from a former Community Corrections head who said we should not chase offenders that was never recscinded and a balless chain of command who have never resourced our LEO functions.

They relied on a risk analysis that told them it was less expensive and they have always philisophically been against our LEO role, just as they have aways forced us to bring back offenders into a non-secured office and said, "Handle it." Even now, the current secretary has referred office safety to some kine of board- read the wonderful lunch notes as if this issue hasn't been brought up before.

And now because we are supposed to help offenders, a role we have always done?

They Lie.

[CPT Aubrey]

In light of the new Tampa officer deaths, isn't this even more appropriate?

T

That we don't have a crystal ball that tells us what someone will do. That we don't run a records check on everyone that walks throught the door. We don't have baker act authority either and we know in reality the cops generally won't baker act someone unless they go absolutely nuts in front of them. Unlike some states we would probably inform the sending state if we knew someone had a technical violation weeks prior however. Sorry zero intelligence is gone forever from DC like Mr. Crosby (well at least the next decade since the budget is still so bad).

Zero tollerance or "intelligence" has bar none, nothing to do with absolutely anything at all.

A crystal ball isn't needed. Common sense is. The woman was a nut case. The probation office knew she was a nut case. The homeless shelter called, told them she was a nut case and told them she would be delivered the next day..

No records check were needed, although some CPO probably thought of it.

It was a matter of commmon sense. Bring her back into what we consider to be a semi secure office space (ya right) , or let her stay in the lobby. They let her stay. for over two hours.

We don't have Baker Act authority because we have no supposed transport capability and as far as I can tell from media reports, no request was ever made for her to be Baker Acted..

And we do have the ability to check if an Interstate Compact offender has a violation, but no one routinely looks at interstate compact case notes. Why? Because we are already responsible for keeping multiple data bases up to date. Why? Because CO has mandated so many requirements, even the most conscientious Probation Officer can't keep up especially during a reporting period.

It has nothing to do with zero tollerance. It has everything to do with wild swings in policy where in absolutely no case, and I mean no case, the officer was trained.

Don't believe me? A CPO killed an offender in the panhandle. She was right. The offender was dead. There are absolutely no case notes in OBIS. Strange. Every single main leader from the supervisor , to the circuit administrator, to the regional director all went to the site, or called someone or talked to some one. No case notes. Yet I personally heard a Regional Director say, "If it isn't in cases notes? It did not happen." We all know that is corruptable bullshit. We, you, and I have kept things from case notes we know to be true and we know why we have not put them in public writting. The chain did not want them in case notes.

The Supervisor? She/he was following a balleless chain of command.

We have transport capability in every county in every prison thoughout this state.

We have the ability to arrrest. The legislature has given us that ability. Why they have not resourced us to execute that function is between the legislature and a ballesss chain of command.

Why was she not arrested? Becuase we had a letter from a former Community Corrections head who said we should not chase offenders that was never recscinded and a balless chain of command who have never resourced our LEO functions.

They relied on a risk analysis that told them it was less expensive and they have always philisophically been against our LEO role, just as they have aways forced us to bring back offenders into a non-secured office and said, "Handle it." Even now, the current secretary has referred office safety to some kind of board- read the wonderful lunch notes as if this issue hasn't been brought up before.

And now because we are supposed to help offenders, a role we have always done?

They Lie.

[Open Carry Man]

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.

This, I believe, is the core of the Citrus problem more than the personal philosophy of any CPSS or CA. The focus on a COPS refund, PP90, ISPs, and the like make activities that address the realities of SUPERVISION a distraction from the "games" aspect of Correctional Probation Supervision. Really, it's become a bit of a series of "games". The "Contacts Game". The "Investigations Game". (People would laugh if they knew what an "investigation" in ITS can involve.) The focus on this demotivates officers from learning about the things that separate someone truly proficient in supervision from someone who can make the numbers.

As a result, an offender that shows up in the office and isn't active on someone's caseload proves a distraction. Yes, they're flaky, but there's nothing in ITS. There are officers and supervisors that would be more preoccupied about whether or not Jennifer Marino had an open REVW then they would be about her in-office behavior. This isn't all their fault; there is a lot of conditioning that pushes an officer and a supervisor in that direction.

Another part of the negative routine is for officers to avoid doing anything with a case assigned to another officer, unless they are OD or doing GPS duty. Even then, officers are encouraged to do as little as possible, and to leave the bulk of the problem for the assigned officer.

What MIGHT have helped in Citrus is for ONE officer to have broken out of the negative routine and openly refused to accept a passive solution to the problem. That officer would have taken active charge of the offender's whereabouts in the office, enlisted another officer or two to help, and ADAMANTLY pushing for a PC with a supervisor. It sounds naive, but sometimes the sense of urgency of one officer can reverse the negative inertia of the office environment and effect a wiser course of action. This could have resulted in providing an environment where the offender would not have felt free to leave without consequnce.

I have some working knowledge of mental health issues, to where I can recognize the symptoms of various psycoological conditions, and recognize by the offender's history of psychotropic medications if there's an abnormal psych history that could pose a risk to the public if the offender was at large and unmedicated. That's knowledge I don't often use in supervising offenders, but it comes in handy once in a while. I have used that knowledge to convince my sup and CA to authorize a PC on an offender who, IMO, posed a potential danger. My knowledge base isn't overwhelming, but it was enough to give me credibility to influence an outcome of a situation.

Perhaps I'm suggesting that it's worth it to expand our knowledge bases in areas that affect the outcome of supervision. These knowledge bases may not be used everyday, but sometimes some of the most valuable skills you have are skills you use in only a few special situations in your whole career. This might be the best way to fight the negative routine that, I believe, played a role in the Citrus matter, and in how many other situations that could have turned out better.

[CPT Aubrey]

Open Carry? In my opinion your best post.

It is dispassionate providing true insight.

Your a re right. It takes one officer to break a routine- to recognize an extraordinary situation, shaking us out of a daily, complacent routine. I believe DOC has hundreds of those kinds of people. I've seen them.

One more comment. I had to laugh at the process DOC used to establish so called "mental helath" case officers. One minute you were handling DOP, or CC or the run of the mill case and with one or possibly two, short power point driven classes, the officer is magically transformed into a mental-health, supervision expert.

It's classic DOC. Minimal training to cover what might be litigious, and the next day you're a professional. Once out of the academy, a few on-ine or policy oriented courses, OJT and a policy manual are all your ever gonna get.

Read this policy and go out and arrest.

What a grand organization.

[CPT Aubrey]

So where is the IG report?

So where is the IG report?

Probably in the IG 's office or something ? :shock:

[CPT Aubrey]

So where is the IG report?

Probably in the IG 's office or something ? :shock:

A tongue in cheek response to a serious question.

Did you notice how the last IG investigation ended up in the press about the officer who deleted two text messages from the GPS on call center? It aoutmatically pointed the public finger at a lone, rogue officer. Of course if anything crtical about the on-call system was written, it didn't get published.

Have you ever noticed how no IG reports are leaked when the agency is found at fault or partly at fault?

We can learn all kinds of useful things from IG reports. The problem is that they are never published unless it's to absolve the agency.

An independent IG Office? I don't think so.

[CPT Aubrey]

In light of what's happening in Verizongate, watch for a couple of things:

Watch for press reports that point the finger at a lone supervisor, officer or maybe reaching as far as a Circuit administrator. This tends to be the first arrow in the quiver.

When the final IG report is released, watch and see if the total picture is represented with all the faults and foibles of an obviously flawed system with an equally flawed higher headquarters.

Have you ever noticed how no IG reports are leaked when the agency is found at fault or partly at fault?

We can learn all kinds of useful things from IG reports. The problem is that they are never published unless it's to absolve the agency.



Are you really this naive or are you just pretending to be ignorant?

IG reports don't get "published". They're not Steven King novels. Once they're completed, they become public record....it's the LAW. They can't be released prior to completion and they can't be withheld after completion. There's no such thing as reports being "leaked".
Do you know how the press got a copy of the report? Here it comes......are you ready.......THEY ASKED!. What do you think DOC should do once the report is done...send out flyers? Or maybe send a "DC ALL" email saying "Attention Attention...copy of report now available..come and get it!"

If you wan't a copy of the report, here's what you do. You might want to take good notes so you don't stumble through the process. Ready? Step 1. Pick up phone. Step 2. Call IG's Office. Step 3. Ask for copy of report.

Result? The report will be "leaked" to you too!!! No conspiracy required. Amazing!

[CPT Aubrey]

Have you ever noticed how no IG reports are leaked when the agency is found at fault or partly at fault?

We can learn all kinds of useful things from IG reports. The problem is that they are never published unless it's to absolve the agency.



Are you really this naive or are you just pretending to be ignorant?

IG reports don't get "published". They're not Steven King novels. Once they're completed, they become public record....it's the LAW. They can't be released prior to completion and they can't be withheld after completion. There's no such thing as reports being "leaked".
Do you know how the press got a copy of the report? Here it comes......are you ready.......THEY ASKED!. What do you think DOC should do once the report is done...send out flyers? Or maybe send a "DC ALL" email saying "Attention Attention...copy of report now available..come and get it!"

If you wan't a copy of the report, here's what you do. You might want to take good notes so you don't stumble through the process. Ready? Step 1. Pick up phone. Step 2. Call IG's Office. Step 3. Ask for copy of report.

Result? The report will be "leaked" to you too!!! No conspiracy required. Amazing!

I may be ignorant and confess I don't know how the system works.

I find it odd, the first shot in the Verizon gate quiver was the "officer lied" followed by a statement that said the full report would not be available for a few more days.

The leak could consist of getting a jump on any bad publicity by calling a favored reporter and saying, "Hey, this protion of the report is available now. Why don't you ask for it?. Hint, hint"

And as naive as this may sound, all reports should be posted on the DC web. Redact names if you like. It's the only way we're ever going to learn from our mistakes.

Instead, according to you they're filed away and only made public if someone asks. Great system.

Have you ever noticed how no IG reports are leaked when the agency is found at fault or partly at fault?

We can learn all kinds of useful things from IG reports. The problem is that they are never published unless it's to absolve the agency.



Are you really this naive or are you just pretending to be ignorant?

IG reports don't get "published". They're not Steven King novels. Once they're completed, they become public record....it's the LAW. They can't be released prior to completion and they can't be withheld after completion. There's no such thing as reports being "leaked".
Do you know how the press got a copy of the report? Here it comes......are you ready.......THEY ASKED!. What do you think DOC should do once the report is done...send out flyers? Or maybe send a "DC ALL" email saying "Attention Attention...copy of report now available..come and get it!"

If you wan't a copy of the report, here's what you do. You might want to take good notes so you don't stumble through the process. Ready? Step 1. Pick up phone. Step 2. Call IG's Office. Step 3. Ask for copy of report.

Result? The report will be "leaked" to you too!!! No conspiracy required. Amazing!

You're crapping me, right? Directly from Tampa Bay.com:


A summary of that investigation was released last week, and the full report was made public Tuesday. The department was not able to determine when she actually received the text alerts. But it found she gave conflicting accounts to a Tampa police officer and to her supervisor. She resigned in June.

Guess you have to demand, er... I mean ask for a summary report before the final is issued.

[CPT Aubrey]

Thanks. I guess the previous guest doesn't have any more steps he wants me to follow.

[CPT Aubrey]

So where is the smart ass who was explaining the equity in the IG system? Step 1, step 2, step 3.

KMA

So where is the smart ass who was explaining the equity in the IG system? Step 1, step 2, step 3.

You're really not pretending are you? You actually are that ignorant. Wow.
I wasn't explaining the equity of the IG system...I was explaining the Idiot's Guide to Requesting Public Records. Try reading the post again (go slower this time).
I thought I was being sarcastic about those three steps being too hard but I guess they really were too confusing weren't they? Ok, you're right then, DOC should post ALL reports online for easy access to everyone. In fact, all police departments should post all of their reports online too so no one has to go through the "hassle" of having to ask for a report. Hey, while we're at it, maybe libraries should just post all books online so people like you don't have to follow all of the difficult steps involved in the "red tape" of the check out process.

Reading all of these posts about the "mystery" of IG reports is as amusing as watching a bunch of bumbling thieves spending hours arguing about how to break into a house before someone finally decides to open the front door...which was unlocked the whole time.

If you're all so curious about what is in the report, then go get it! It's right there. I can't believe I have to explain this to you.....again! These reports are public record, they HAVE to give it you you. It's really not that hard, I'm telling you, try it!

[CPT Aubrey]

It's obvious to me you have some experience with the IG, the system et al. Good.

And, I'm learning a lot confirming some assumptions.

You lose me though in your rants which appear to be slanted towards trying to tell an audience how dispationately fair and objective the IG's office is. I would suppose the IG's Office is like all state organizations. Some good, some bad and a lot poltical. Always I keep in the back of my mind how Crosby's demise was not caused by a supposed independent IG's office. In fact, they had nothing to do with it at all. I beleive it was a board like this one that got the ball rolling.

Two of your quotes. The second comes from another post on the board and if it's not yours, I certainly apologize before hand. But, it certainly does sound like you. The first quote was published a few days before the next:


IG reports don't get "published". They're not Steven King novels. Once they're completed, they become public record....it's the LAW. They can't be released prior to completion and they can't be withheld after completion. There's no such thing as reports being "leaked".


Ok, now how about this summary report that was "leaked" to the press that you keep referring to and, again, have obviously no idea what you're talking about. Neither administrative nor criminal reports can be released to the public prior to the case being officially closed...that's per Florida Statute. However, the very same statute makes allowances for agency heads to use discretion and give partial statements, briefings, press releases, SUMMARIES, etc, prior to the full official report being released…in most cases this is done when the investigation is long over but the official report cannot yet be released per law because of some minor technical issue keeping the case open, which I’m sure was the case in this issue.

So what have we learned? Contrary to your first quote, partial reports can be and are released prior to completion and the "leak" can take the form of DOC calling a favored reporter and telling them that it is available. Name me one IG summary in the history of DOC that was first quoted by the press prior to the release of the full report and was unfavorable to DOC? Cat got your tongue? If you can name one that can be confirmed, I'll shut up. Further, I'll apologize and call it a day.

And your second quote indicates that the agency that requests and IG investigation is given the curtousy of a pre-briefing prior to it's release. How nice.

The whole system is designed to contain information.

And as far as asking for the report. What kind of idiot do you take me for? As a DOC employee as soon as I request a copy of an IG report that has nothing to do with me, I paint a giant cross on my forehead.

Ignorant? Maybe. Dumb? Most certaily not.

As to publishing all reports classified as public record, why not? How hard is it to scan a report into a web page. OPAGA does it? I t would certainly go a long way in establishing the orgazational credibility you so fervently fight for.

Firstly, you are correct that I did, in fact, write both posts you’re referring to, but after going back over those, and the few other ones I’ve sent over the last few days, I’m trying to figure out how you interpreted any of them as me being sympathetic towards the IG’s office in any way?? (unless you have me confused with some other poster, which may be the case) My points were focused on trying to clarify the laws and protocols regarding the release of reports, which in this case happens to be an IG report. That process has to do with the General Counsel’s office and the Public Affairs Office…not the IG. The IG’s role is simply to investigate allegations of wrong doing, gather the facts, and forward their findings to the powers that be, who then make the ultimate decisions on what to do with those findings. You’re giving the IG too much credit, they don’t have as much power and influence as you seem to think.

Regarding the two quotes of mine that you cited and their apparent contradiction to eachother, I’m struggling to see that point as well? I thought I made it clear that official reports (i.e. full, complete reports) can’t be released prior to the case being closed but unofficial reports, (i.e. “summaries”), can. How did I contradict myself??

I’m only reluctant to accept your challenge because, number one, believe it or not, I don’t consider this as me vs. you. And number two, I don’t want you to “shut up and call it a day”. I really do like reading your posts, they’re quite insightful and better written than most (most of the time ? ) So how bout we make it a beer instead?
I don’t think I really need to go any farther than the report in question right here. Isn’t this report considered unfavorable to DOC? If you don’t agree, then how could you possibly consider it to be favorable??? Yes, maybe they unfairly put all of the blame on the officer instead of shifting part of the blame on the system in place at the time (which, by the way, was very publicly restructured as a result of this case, which is an obvious concession by DOC that the previous system was, in fact, flawed) However, the officer represented DOC and, therefore, DOC was found to be at fault. If the IG was really as biased and unjust as you feel them to be, then wouldn’t they have placed the blame on Verizon, or the lying cop, or anyone not affiliated with DOC, as the DOC spokesperson tried to insinuate at the outset of the investigation???? This report is very damning to DOC and, as a DOC employee, you should not be very pleased about it being released to the public and being one more thing to add to the public’s negative perception of this agency.

Not to beat a dead horse, but to further weaken your stance, go back to the very first post on this thread. DOC did not “call a favored reporter” and “leak” this report as you suggest. In fact, DOC probably wished no one would have ever asked about it because of its "unfavorable" content. They only released it when a reporter asked about it…but they DID release it….however reluctantly. Not publicing a report is one thing, withholding it from public release is another. I like Budweiser. ?

Lastly, come on, you’re pulling my leg, right? Is your reluctance to request the report really due to your fear of being targeted by some kind of “Big Brother”? Please don’t tell me you’re serious. You do realize that there are over 30,000 people who work for DOC? Do you actually think anyone cares about, much less keeps track of, everyone who requests reports on a daily basis? If you really think the agency is that sinister, you really need to consider going somewhere else, seriously. Otherwise, you need to squelch these fears dude…it’s not healthy.

[CPT Aubrey]

Darn, guest. I like this ever so much better. I starting reading the other string about the Probation Officer deleting texts and had to stop. A lot of vitriol. I can do vitriol, but find no one gains.

On the other hand, I read your post. Reasoned, rationale a true conversation.

Not sure how long you've been with the agency. I think your a tad naive. I remember a little more than a decade ago watching a new administration taking over. It surely was a blood letting and remember thinking at the time DOC eats their young.

I can't remember everything you wrote without going back and forth and so on, so if I don't address a particular point you want me to repsond to, let me know.

One of the first things you have to learn is there is a separation between Central Office (the DOC hierarchy) and us minions. They don't look at "DOC" the way you and I do. They are political appointees hired to carry out an agenda. In an election year, the agenda doesn't really matter so much as it becomes a question of personal survival. Who you back is all important and who you have backed in the past, even more so. If I even think my side is going to lose, I start looking for a place to hide.

Blood letting. If Alex Sink especially wins, watch the blood flow.

Given that, of course DOC wins when they can blame an officer and absolve the agency. It was a rogue who failed to follow policy. It's no reflection on them. That's why unless you can prove me wrong, I think someone diliberately leaked the summary.

And you are right. They did change procedure as a result of the texting incident, without knowing all the facts. They didn't know if the problem was faulty technology and still don't. Verizon did not cooperate. They instituted a feel good solution to show they were on top of the problem. What's ironic about this situation is they have yet to prove or disprove the notion that the officer recived a late text, and they still rely on texting. Their solution? It still falls way short of protecting the public and combined with a conflict of interest at the highest level, still struggles with providing a real solution.

And yes, Chief. I've seen too many good people fired sticking their nose into something that supposedly did not involve them, or standing up at the wrong time without the right backing.

How does this tie in to the Citrus thing?

I'm trying to get them, through these series of posts, to avoid the easy avenue they took with this last one. I'm trying to get them to address the real problem which is systemic.

Citrus is in my opinion, an almalgamation of things gone wrong that no on one wants to take responsibility for.

Darn, guest. I like this ever so much better. I starting reading the other string about the Probation Officer deleting texts and had to stop. A lot of vitriol. I can do vitriol, but find no one gains.

On the other hand, I read your post. Reasoned, rationale a true conversation.

Not sure how long you've been with the agency. I think your a tad naive. I remember a little more than a decade ago watching a new administration taking over. It surely was a blood letting and remember thinking at the time DOC eats their young.

I can't remember everything you wrote without going back and forth and so on, so if I don't address a particular point you want me to repsond to, let me know.

One of the first things you have to learn is there is a separation between Central Office (the DOC hierarchy) and us minions. They don't look at "DOC" the way you and I do. They are political appointees hired to carry out an agenda. In an election year, the agenda doesn't really matter so much as it becomes a question of personal survival. Who you back is all important and who you have backed in the past, even more so. If I even think my side is going to lose, I start looking for a place to hide.

Blood letting. If Alex Sink especially wins, watch the blood flow.

Given that, of course DOC wins when they can blame an officer and absolve the agency. It was a rogue who failed to follow policy. It's no reflection on them. That's why unless you can prove me wrong, I think someone diliberately leaked the summary.

And you are right. They did change procedure as a result of the texting incident, without knowing all the facts. They didn't know if the problem was faulty technology and still don't. Verizon did not cooperate. They instituted a feel good solution to show they were on top of the problem. What's ironic about this situation is they have yet to prove or disprove the notion that the officer recived a late text, and they still rely on texting. Their solution? It still falls way short of protecting the public and combined with a conflict of interest at the highest level, still struggles with providing a real solution.

And yes, Chief. I've seen too many good people fired sticking their nose into something that supposedly did not involve them, or standing up at the wrong time without the right backing.

How does this tie in to the Citrus thing?

I'm trying to get them, through these series of posts, to avoid the easy avenue they took with this last one. I'm trying to get them to address the real problem which is systemic.

Citrus is in my opinion, an almalgamation of things gone wrong that no on one wants to take responsibility for.


F-N A!

It's about time!!

The CPT needs to just march into the IG's office and get the report. :wink:

Please review the Public Records law people. DOC has people in paid postions whose SOLE purpose is to respond to public records requests...they're THAT common. You don't have to give your name or reason, just ask for the record (by a phone call...you don't have to MARCH in, come on!) and they'll fax/mail/email it to you, however you want. I've never seen so many paranoid people in my life!

[CPT Aubrey]

Please review the Public Records law people. DOC has people in paid postions whose SOLE purpose is to respond to public records requests...they're THAT common. You don't have to give your name or reason, just ask for the record (by a phone call...you don't have to MARCH in, come on!) and they'll fax/mail/email it to you, however you want. I've never seen so many paranoid people in my life!

Some reasons to be paranoid:

The IG's office had nothing to do with the initial investigation of Secretary Crosby or Clark, even though their shenaigans were widely known. Anyone remember softball or the infanmous law enforcement softball games?

The Department of Corrections submitted a planning exercise last year that proposed the elimination of all regular probation officer positions. When it was publically brought to light, only then did they publically admit it was a mistake.

The Florida Department of Corrections instituted a new on-call policy without first determining the true problem, then blamed the officer for deleting an on-call text. At first they said it was a problem with the Verizon servers and the volume of messages. Now all of the sudden, it's a rogue officer. The fact that the officer may have lied becomes cover for a systemic problem. Policy does not cover anything about deleting an on-call text message

The Florida Department of Corrections instituted its no tolerance policy by having a satellite broadcast of senoir officials reading policy. It was a total travesty only to be remade when the Department held another satellite broadcast on the release of sex offenders and the refusal of prison officials to hook up offenders on GPS as required by court orders and or Parole commission orders. After all, if probation officers are afraid, we will transport.

The Florida Department of Corrections had officers sign an affidavit stating I have read and understood this policy, and any questions the officer might have, it was his or her responsibility to bring them up the chain of command. And when they did? You were told to read policy.

The examples of a paranoic cause are too numerous to illustrate and the very fact that if you're paranoid, you have every right to be.

Hey guess what! I have taken the suggestions of some of the other guest's writing.

I call DOC at 850-488-9265 and was able to talk to a real person. The IG report in under Jennifer Marino's name. I requested the report, but was unable to obtain it. The investigation is still "active", but I was able to leave my name, phone number and mailing address so I could receive a letter when it was ready and how much they were going to charge me for a copy. Really, does it take this long to do the thorough investigation or is taking a long time to figure out how this neglect does not impact the department in a negative fashion and protect their people.

[CPT Aubrey]

Hey guess what! I have taken the suggestions of some of the other guest's writing.

I call DOC at 850-488-9265 and was able to talk to a real person. The IG report in under Jennifer Marino's name. I requested the report, but was unable to obtain it. The investigation is still "active", but I was able to leave my name, phone number and mailing address so I could receive a letter when it was ready and how much they were going to charge me for a copy. Really, does it take this long to do the thorough investigation or is taking a long time to figure out how this neglect does not impact the department in a negative fashion and protect their people.

I want to be perfectly clear. Given the current climate and state of policy neither the officer, supervisor or CA deserves judgment in this case.

Protection comes in the form of insulating central office from continued bad public policy and even poorer leadership. Just the other day, I saw Davidson for the first time. He's been over community corrections for how long? By the way, he never said a word, never introduced himself and continually looked at his watch.

So true. Has anyone heard Davidson being quoted by any media concerning any major issue- hell, any issue at all facing Community Corrections?

The ghost leader......

Hey guess what! I have taken the suggestions of some of the other guest's writing.

I call DOC at 850-488-9265 and was able to talk to a real person. The IG report in under Jennifer Marino's name. I requested the report, but was unable to obtain it. The investigation is still "active", but I was able to leave my name, phone number and mailing address so I could receive a letter when it was ready and how much they were going to charge me for a copy. Really, does it take this long to do the thorough investigation or is taking a long time to figure out how this neglect does not impact the department in a negative fashion and protect their people.

I want to be perfectly clear. Given the current climate and state of policy neither the officer, supervisor or CA deserves judgment in this case.

Protection comes in the form of insulating central office from continued bad public policy and even poorer leadership. Just the other day, I saw Davidson for the first time. He's been over community corrections for how long? By the way, he never said a word, never introduced himself and continually looked at his watch.

:idea: Davidson knows who you are now and is probably wondering why you didn't speak up CPT ? :evil:

[CPT Aubrey]

Lol. Just another face in the crowd. Enough big wigs around him trying to make face time.

[CPT Aubrey]

Darn. The incident happened back in April.

They've even surpassed the BP timeline. If BP can close the "damn hole" 5,000 feet down, why can't the IG publish a relatively simple investigation? Or maybe the they couldn't get on the Secretaries calendar to provide a pre-brief summary before the end of August?

The fact that its an election year doesn't have anything to do with it?

Of course not.

[CPT Aubrey]

Maybe Charlie and Walt don't want this out....

[CPT Aubrey]

We should never forget what's important.

Maybe Charlie and Walt are together this weekend!

[CPT Aubrey]

Hey!

Hey Gene Hatcher head of the Forida Department of Corrections IG Office?

Are you missing in action?

Do you have a set or are you worried about who pays your salary?

Where is the report?

Hatcher is out working on his own LEO cert!

[CPT Aubrey]

Hatcher is out working on his own LEO cert!

That sounds about right.

wilbur "Gene" Hatcher is and has not been a leo in over twenty years... says something about the leadership of DC when a non-cop is the head cop. $107,000 to sit in an office and not lead sounds mighty nice.

[CPT Aubrey]

wilbur "Gene" Hatcher is and has not been a leo in over twenty years... says something about the leadership of DC when a non-cop is the head cop. $107,000 to sit in an office and not lead sounds mighty nice.

Oh, man.

It just gets better.

As probation officers we have the right to baker act an individual that is having a mental break down. The incident in April could had been prevented by keeping the offender in the office and getting the police to transport her to the hospital to be evaluated by a doctor.

When the officer and supervisor were aware that the offender was a danger to the public and failed to apply the baker act, that makes them responsible for not performing due diligence: definitions of due diligence say something like "due diligence is a measure of prudence, activity, or assiduity, as is properly to be expected from, and ordinarily exercised by, a reasonable and prudent person under the particular circumstances; not measured by any absolute standard but depends on the relative facts of the special case." As probation officers we must practice this and if our supervisors get in the way we must ignore their instructions and complete our due diligence; and then we must begin to report them as soon as possible. I'm not willing to put the public at risk when I'm aware of the danger that might take place, therefore, the superviosr just have to write me up and then I will have to take the next action.

By the way somebody said that we do not have baker act power, your wrong. We do!!

By the way somebody said that we do not have baker act power, your wrong. We do!!

No you don't. Go read the statute. LEO, Judges, Psych Doctor etc not CPO or CO etc.

For purposes of the Baker Act a "[l]aw enforcement officer" means "a law enforcement officer as defined in s. 943.10."[9] Section 943.10(1), Florida Statutes, defines "[l]aw enforcement officer" as

"any person who is elected, appointed, or employed full time by any municipality or the state or any political subdivision thereof; who is vested with authority to bear arms and make arrests; and whose primary responsibility is the prevention and detection of crime or the enforcement of the penal, criminal, traffic, or highway laws of the state. This definition includes all certified supervisory and command personnel whose duties include, in whole or in part, the supervision, training, guidance, and management responsibilities of full-time law enforcement officers, part-time law enforcement officers, or auxiliary law enforcement officers but does not include support personnel employed by the employing agency." (e.s.)

[Open Carry Man]

For purposes of the Baker Act a "[l]aw enforcement officer" means "a law enforcement officer as defined in s. 943.10."[9] Section 943.10(1), Florida Statutes, defines "[l]aw enforcement officer" as

"any person who is elected, appointed, or employed full time by any municipality or the state or any political subdivision thereof; who is vested with authority to bear arms and make arrests; and whose primary responsibility is the prevention and detection of crime or the enforcement of the penal, criminal, traffic, or highway laws of the state. This definition includes all certified supervisory and command personnel whose duties include, in whole or in part, the supervision, training, guidance, and management responsibilities of full-time law enforcement officers, part-time law enforcement officers, or auxiliary law enforcement officers but does not include support personnel employed by the employing agency." (e.s.)

I'm not sure CPOs or COs meet that definition. If we do, it's a well-kept secret.

I'd like a legal opinion by someone other than our legal department.

For purposes of the Baker Act a "[l]aw enforcement officer" means "a law enforcement officer as defined in s. 943.10."[9] Section 943.10(1), Florida Statutes, defines "[l]aw enforcement officer" as

"any person who is elected, appointed, or employed full time by any municipality or the state or any political subdivision thereof; who is vested with authority to bear arms and make arrests; and whose primary responsibility is the prevention and detection of crime or the enforcement of the penal, criminal, traffic, or highway laws of the state. This definition includes all certified supervisory and command personnel whose duties include, in whole or in part, the supervision, training, guidance, and management responsibilities of full-time law enforcement officers, part-time law enforcement officers, or auxiliary law enforcement officers but does not include support personnel employed by the employing agency." (e.s.)

I'm not sure CPOs or COs meet that definition. If we do, it's a well-kept secret.

I'd like a legal opinion by someone other than our legal department.

We obviously don't meet that definition - and whose primary responsibility is the prevention and detection of crime or the enforcement of the penal, criminal, traffic, or highway laws of the state

It is a little vague with the penal law comment but I have never heard of a CO baker acting someone themselves if they weren't a certified LEO also and even then they let the LEO do it officially I think when they came to transport.

We Do Have the Right and Duty to Baker Act: Please read the below


RE: PUBLIC RECORDS--BAKER ACT--LAW ENFORCEMENT RECORDS--MENTAL HEALTH: confidentiality of deputy's event report under Baker Act provisions. Part I, Ch. 394, F.S.

Part I, Ch. 394, F.S. (1992 Supp.), is "The Baker Act,"[1] Florida's mental health act. The Baker Act provides for voluntary or involuntary examination and treatment of mentally ill persons. Pursuant to s. 394.463(2), F.S. (1992 Supp.), a person may be taken to a receiving facility[2] for involuntary examination if there is reason to believe that he is mentally ill and has refused voluntary examination or is unable to determine for himself whether examination is necessary. A determination must be made that, without care or treatment, the person is likely to suffer from neglect or refuse to care for him or herself or that there is substantial likelihood that without care or treatment serious bodily harm to that person or others may result.[3]

An involuntary examination may be initiated under a number of circumstances. Section 394.463(2)(a)2., F.S. (1992 Supp.), provides that:

"A law enforcement officer shall take a person who appears to meet the criteria for involuntary examination into custody and deliver him or have him delivered to the nearest receiving facility for examination. The officer shall execute a written report detailing the circumstances under which the person was taken into custody, and the report shall be made a part of the patient's clinical record."[4]

For purposes of the Baker Act a "[l]aw enforcement officer" includes "any city police officer, officer of the Florida Highway Patrol, sheriff, deputy sheriff, correctional probation officer, or university police officer."[5] Thus, a deputy sheriff who is involved in an involuntary examination pursuant to s. 394.463(2), F.S., is required to complete a written report, a form for which has been drafted and is designated HRS-MH 3052-A, and this "Report of Law Enforcement Officer" is included in the patient's clinical record.[6] Clinical records for patients are specifically made confidential and exempt from the provisions of the Public Records Law by s. 394.459(9), F.S. (1992 Supp.).[7]

Florida Toll Free: 1-866-966-7226Copyright © 2008 State of FloridaPrivacy Policy

You can not transport and can not Baker Act. Statute requires the Baker Act athourity to transport to CSU. I have been to 2 Statewide training sessions on this provided by the State and County. You can not Baker Act. Why would you when you can call the County Sheriff who can an will transport. Give it up.

[CPT Aubrey]

You can not transport and can not Baker Act. Statute requires the Baker Act athourity to transport to CSU. I have been to 2 Statewide training sessions on this provided by the State and County. You can not Baker Act. Why would you when you can call the County Sheriff who can an will transport. Give it up.

Stupid? Some food for thought:

If the above poster is right that we have the statutory authority to Baker Act, then the only reason we don’t is a lack of resources not a lack of authority. Right?

I’m not sure who taught the training classes you went to. If it was DOC, there’s your answer. If it wasn’t DOC, I’m sure they had input.

The lack of transport has been used as a primary excuse for all sorts of things.

DOC is a single organization made up of four basic parts- the prison security system, the community corrections system, the prison healthcare system and the various odds and ends of a logistical system that support the first three. Within that body, there are hundreds of transport assets that often sit idle.

I even heard the excuse that we can’t use these assets because we have no transport officers and to train them would cost money that DOC could ill afford. Well, hardly true. We could train a percentage of probation officers to be transport certified and it would cost time away from a case load.

The money comes from CJSTC. The course is a specialized course. DOC pays with bodies, effort and will.

So far, they have not been willing to pay that price. – not because they can’t and not because they don’t have the resources and certainly not because we lack the authority.

It’s the same argument they used when we were letting rapists go with active VOP warrants down South and the po po wouldn’t come and get them.

The argument holds no water.

[Open Carry Man]

You can not transport and can not Baker Act. Statute requires the Baker Act athourity to transport to CSU. I have been to 2 Statewide training sessions on this provided by the State and County. You can not Baker Act. Why would you when you can call the County Sheriff who can an will transport. Give it up.

Here's what the Statute says:

(f)When any law enforcement officer has custody of a person based on either noncriminal or minor criminal behavior that meets the statutory guidelines for involuntary examination under this part, the law enforcement officer shall transport the person to the nearest receiving facility for examination.

What we may well have is the authority to initiate a Baker Act, but not the ability to follow through.

Calling a LEO for a Baker Actable offender is not always productive. Firstly LEOs are loathe to Baker Act anyone; it's work for them that they view as beneath them. "Social Work! Yuk!" Additionally, it's time consuming, as the LEO has to wait around while the offender. More importantly, the LEO has to witness the actual behavior that qualfies for a Baker Act commitment. A LEO won't initiate a Baker Act commitment solely on the word of even multiple witnesses; if the LEO isn't a witness, he'll refer concerned parties to the Court.

On the other hand, Psychiatrists, Psychologists, LCSWs Baker Act people every day, and THEY don't transport. Private transport takes these folks to the facility. This is an area where, quite frankly, public safety could be enhanced with some statuatory changes.

The original statute had us specifically listed as those authorized to BA. We were removed due to our inability to transport and due to the fact that we only have legal authority of those sentenced by the Court. In this statute LEO does not incorporate us. This was not DC training. It was conducted by the USF professor that is the States leading authority on this who was also taked with training LEO and treatment staff of the laws of this act and shortfalls when treatment is not properly provided.

How long ago was that ruling when the Higher Courts shot down that Judge down south that was trying to order DOC to transport VOP arrests to the jail. I remember all the wannabees got all worked up thinking they would be allowed to do that and all their crazy talking about having VOP teams that would only do things like that. :snicker:

[CPT Aubrey]

The original statute had us specifically listed as those authorized to BA. We were removed due to our inability to transport and due to the fact that we only have legal authority of those sentenced by the Court. In this statute LEO does not incorporate us. This was not DC training. It was conducted by the USF professor that is the States leading authority on this who was also taked with training LEO and treatment staff of the laws of this act and shortfalls when treatment is not properly provided.

I beleive you stupid. We were removed because "we lacked transport" and because we "only have legal authority to those sentenced by the court." Which means we have the legal authority to Baker Act those under our care but can't, because we supposedly lack transport resources. And as I have previously said, this arguement doesn't pass the common sense test.

I wonder if any of the legal geniuses considered DOC and Community Corrections were the same organization?

Which brings me to the idiot poster. Does anyone have access to the actual ruling from down south and the language used? I'd love to be able to read it.

I also love it when guys publically brag about letting rapists with warrants go.

I know based on almost 20 years with the department, almost every single major change has been the result of a law suit forcing DOC to do what they knew to be right from the very beginning.

[CPT Aubrey]

PS

And I hope law suit is exactly where this woman's relatives are going.

It's where I'd go if she was one of mine.

PPS

Where is th IG report? Over five months- time enough for BP to cap the Deep Water Horizon; time enough for Bill McCollum to spend 24 million on a lost election and Scott to spend more to buy one.

If I were king, not only would I fire the IG, he would be Georgia banished from state government.

Lawsuits almost never win in Florida on policy or judgement issues with regards to Corrections/Law Enforcement (even if they are clearly spelled out and not followed in some way) and in this case that isn't even a major issue really as far as policy goes. When a jury does rule for the plaintiff in cases like this the appeals courts routinely overturn their decision as that bar of reckless disregard or whatever the legal term for it is is set very very high. In reality I would give this case and circumstances about a .0001 % chance of withstanding appeal court scrutiny if the trial judge didn't toss it first based on case law. Its usually the police brutality type cases with good evidence that have any success.

[CPT Aubrey]

Lawsuits almost never win in Florida on policy or judgement issues with regards to Corrections/Law Enforcement (even if they are clearly spelled out and not followed in some way) and in this case that isn't even a major issue really as far as policy goes. When a jury does rule for the plaintiff in cases like this the appeals courts routinely overturn their decision as that bar of reckless disregard or whatever the legal term for it is is set very very high. In reality I would give this case and circumstances about a .0001 % chance of withstanding appeal court scrutiny if the trial judge didn't toss it first based on case law. Its usually the police brutality type cases with good evidence that have any success.


I love it when someone from Central Office legal has been assigned to answer a post on this board.

It's just like the law suit that changed the prison health care system, and like the law suit they recently lost when mentally ill inmates were routinely gassed. It's like the law suits that happen every year, never publicized- that employees win. Nurses, officers etc.

It's a public ploy to get ahead of the game.

Problem is over time, they have been wrong and wrong and wrong again. All it takes is perseverance, to be right and to have them work off a cost benefit analysis.

Which, is normally wrong.

Anytime you put money over what is knowingly right, you lose your ass.

Lawsuits almost never win in Florida on policy or judgement issues with regards to Corrections/Law Enforcement (even if they are clearly spelled out and not followed in some way) and in this case that isn't even a major issue really as far as policy goes. When a jury does rule for the plaintiff in cases like this the appeals courts routinely overturn their decision as that bar of reckless disregard or whatever the legal term for it is is set very very high. In reality I would give this case and circumstances about a .0001 % chance of withstanding appeal court scrutiny if the trial judge didn't toss it first based on case law. Its usually the police brutality type cases with good evidence that have any success.


I love it when someone from Central Office legal has been assigned to answer a post on this board.

It's just like the law suit that changed the prison health care system, and like the law suit they recently lost when mentally ill inmates were routinely gassed. It's like the law suits that happen every year, never publicized- that employees win. Nurses, officers etc.

It's a public ploy to get ahead of the game.

Problem is over time, they have been wrong and wrong and wrong again. All it takes is perseverance, to be right and to have them work off a cost benefit analysis.

Which, is normally wrong.

Anytime you put money over what is knowingly right, you lose your ass.

BS - Central Office purposely keeps mum on things like this but the fact is it is very very hard to meet the standard to win on a case like this - probably because the courts know the state/municipalities would go bankrupt if the bar wasn't set so high - its also why they have the 100K limit even if 100 million is awarded on negligence cases. I still say looking at past rulings the chance of succes is about .0001% to even win that 100K. Go look at how many get overturned by the appeals courts after years sometimes in the appeal process.

[CPT Aubrey]

Lawsuits almost never win in Florida on policy or judgement issues with regards to Corrections/Law Enforcement (even if they are clearly spelled out and not followed in some way) and in this case that isn't even a major issue really as far as policy goes. When a jury does rule for the plaintiff in cases like this the appeals courts routinely overturn their decision as that bar of reckless disregard or whatever the legal term for it is is set very very high. In reality I would give this case and circumstances about a .0001 % chance of withstanding appeal court scrutiny if the trial judge didn't toss it first based on case law. Its usually the police brutality type cases with good evidence that have any success.


I love it when someone from Central Office legal has been assigned to answer a post on this board.

It's just like the law suit that changed the prison health care system, and like the law suit they recently lost when mentally ill inmates were routinely gassed. It's like the law suits that happen every year, never publicized- that employees win. Nurses, officers etc.

It's a public ploy to get ahead of the game.

Problem is over time, they have been wrong and wrong and wrong again. All it takes is perseverance, to be right and to have them work off a cost benefit analysis.

Which, is normally wrong.

Anytime you put money over what is knowingly right, you lose your ass.

BS - Central Office purposely keeps mum on things like this but the fact is it is very very hard to meet the standard to win on a case like this - probably because the courts know the state/municipalities would go bankrupt if the bar wasn't set so high - its also why they have the 100K limit even if 100 million is awarded on negligence cases. I still say looking at past rulings the chance of succes is about .0001% to even win that 100K. Go look at how many get overturned by the appeals courts after years sometimes in the appeal process.

Love it. Same Central Office legaleze.

Win or lose (a law suit) it drags the right people through the mud.

Other officers have told me that supervisors are still telling them to sit people in the lobby when they are having some type of mental break down and a danger to the community. Also, that the supervisors are not wanting to deal with the problem because they want to make sure they go home on time. These supervisors need to look for other employment or not be a supervisor. They definitely no longer care about the community safety if it inconvenient them. What must an officer do to make sure they can perform their job as a probation officers?

[CPT Aubrey]

Of course guest.

There would not be this kind of response if everything was as Central Office says- kosher.

Thye know they are wrong and so do we.

Other officers have told me that supervisors are still telling them to sit people in the lobby when they are having some type of mental break down and a danger to the community. Also, that the supervisors are not wanting to deal with the problem because they want to make sure they go home on time. These supervisors need to look for other employment or not be a supervisor. They definitely no longer care about the community safety if it inconvenient them. What must an officer do to make sure they can perform their job as a probation officers?

Simple fix to that call the local police and see if they will baker act if the person is acting that crazy. They will refuse like they do in most cases unless the person is going absolutely ape sh** in front of them and even then the places realease them after 48-72 hours anyway due to a lack of funding in recent years.

[CPT Aubrey]

Ah, but guest....

We shouldn't have to call anyone....

There in lies the rub.

I see panic

Panic because Central Office has no clue hwere the political winds blow.

In light of the new Tampa officer deaths, isn't this even more appropriate?

T
[quote]That we don't have a crystal ball that tells us what someone will do. That we don't run a records check on everyone that walks throught the door. We don't have baker act authority either and we know in reality the cops generally won't baker act someone unless they go absolutely nuts in front of them. Unlike some states we would probably inform the sending state if we knew someone had a technical violation weeks prior however. Sorry zero intelligence is gone forever from DC like Mr. Crosby (well at least the next decade since the budget is still so bad).

Zero tollerance or "intelligence" has bar none, nothing to do with absolutely anything at all.

A crystal ball isn't needed. Common sense is. The woman was a nut case. The probation office knew she was a nut case. The homeless shelter called, told them she was a nut case and told them she would be delivered the next day..

No records check were needed, although some CPO probably thought of it.

It was a matter of commmon sense. Bring her back into what we consider to be a semi secure office space (ya right) , or let her stay in the lobby. They let her stay. for over two hours.

We don't have Baker Act authority because we have no supposed transport capability and as far as I can tell from media reports, no request was ever made for her to be Baker Acted..

And we do have the ability to check if an Interstate Compact offender has a violation, but no one routinely looks at interstate compact case notes. Why? Because we are already responsible for keeping multiple data bases up to date. Why? Because CO has mandated so many requirements, even the most conscientious Probation Officer can't keep up especially during a reporting period.

It has nothing to do with zero tollerance. It has everything to do with wild swings in policy where in absolutely no case, and I mean no case, the officer was trained.

Don't believe me? A CPO killed an offender in the panhandle. She was right. The offender was dead. There are absolutely no case notes in OBIS. Strange. Every single main leader from the supervisor , to the circuit administrator, to the regional director all went to the site, or called someone or talked to some one. No case notes. Yet I personally heard a Regional Director say, "If it isn't in cases notes? It did not happen." We all know that is corruptable bullshit. We, you, and I have kept things from case notes we know to be true and we know why we have not put them in public writting. The chain did not want them in case notes.

The Supervisor? She/he was following a balleless chain of command.

We have transport capability in every county in every prison thoughout this state.

We have the ability to arrrest. The legislature has given us that ability. Why they have not resourced us to execute that function is between the legislature and a ballesss chain of command.

Why was she not arrested? Becuase we had a letter from a former Community Corrections head who said we should not chase offenders that was never recscinded and a balless chain of command who have never resourced our LEO functions.

They relied on a risk analysis that told them it was less expensive and they have always philisophically been against our LEO role, just as they have aways forced us to bring back offenders into a non-secured office and said, "Handle it." Even now, the current secretary has referred office safety to some kind of board- read the wonderful lunch notes as if this issue hasn't been brought up before.

And now because we are supposed to help offenders, a role we have always done?

They Lie.[/quote:3cjejdlq]

[CPT Aubrey]

A little dramatic, I admit. True none the less.

It's passion.

Every PO worth his salt knows this particular incident could have been avoided. In fact, predictions over the last decade have said as much. And, the chain of command was forewarned- beaten over the head.

Not only has this happened (as predicted), we have let reporting offender's go with active warrants who have comitted additonal crimes (as predicted), and we've not arrested when we should. We've done a whole bunch of nonsense in the name extremism and political favoritism.

They refused to listen and now they refuse to take responsibility. I take that back. They have always refused to accept responsibility for wild swings in policy regardless of administration. The problem here is the same people in charge during the no tolearnce era are the same people in charge now.

So, just where is the IG report anyway?

The head of the IG should be fired as should ever regional dirctor in Communicty Corrections, Jenny Nimmer and every bureau chief.

Not to worry. They are all backing Scott now and Sink will be the new Governor.

A little dramatic, I admit. True none the less.

It's passion.

Every PO worth his salt knows this particular incident could have been avoided. In fact, predictions over the last decade have said as much. And, the chain of command was forewarned- beaten over the head.

Not only has this happened (as predicted), we have let reporting offender's go with active warrants who have comitted additonal crimes (as predicted), and we've not arrested when we should. We've done a whole bunch of nonsense in the name extremism and political favoritism.

They refused to listen and now they refuse to take responsibility. I take that back. They have always refused to accept responsibility for wild swings in policy regardless of administration. The problem here is the same people in charge during the no tolearnce era are the same people in charge now.

So, just where is the IG report anyway?

The head of the IG should be fired as should ever regional dirctor in Communicty Corrections, Jenny Nimmer and every bureau chief.

Not to worry. They are all backing Scott now and Sink will be the new Governor.

Wannabees :lol: :lol:

[CPT Aubrey]

Another (_E=mc2_) smart ass.

Obvious he hasn't read the entire string- 7 months worth.

The actions of the Po Po in this case are certainly less than stellar.

Another (_E=mc2_) smart ass.

Obvious he hasn't read the entire string- 7 months worth.

The actions of the Po Po in this case are certainly less than stellar.


You rock CPT Aubrey. I want to thank you for your support and passion.

[CPT Aubrey]

Another (_E=mc2_) smart ass.

Obvious he hasn't read the entire string- 7 months worth.

The actions of the Po Po in this case are certainly less than stellar.


You rock CPT Aubrey. I want to thank you for your support and passion.


Wish there was more I could do.

By the way. Just where is that IG report?

It a WBPUATE report (Won't be published until after the election).

[CPT Aubrey]

Once again, Where is the D*&&^$$##@!!$%^&&***(((())))___+_+_)(*&&^^%%$$###@#@!@!@

IG report?

[CPT Aubrey]

Again.....,

IG report?

IG report will be after the election; because if Scott wins he will want to know the truth!!!

IG report will be after the election; because if Scott wins he will want to know the truth!!!

So he can update the Salvation Army probation office ? :snicker:

[CPT Aubrey]

If Scott wins then fires the folks responsible, who are also the same folks supporitng his election bid? I say yeah!.

Won't happen.

Scott is a thief and like all theives, he'll take the path of least resistance.

Will Sink do anything? Maybe.

At this point, I'll take a maybe over a thief any day.

Sink and swim.

The fight starts after she's elected.

Let's get to work.

LOL

Scott was over approximately 280,000 employees and over 300+ hospital and out of those hospital only 14 hospitals were involved in the fraud. It was 2 executives that committed the fraud. Scott took responsibility and the 2 executives were let go. Scott visited 2 to 3 hospitals ever week. Remember when the extra money that was collected due to the fraud this was not listed on the expense and revenue book for people to view including Scott. He was not aware of what the 2 executives were doing. I believe that Scott will make the tough decisions and be honest about the true budget (we want to avoid being like California). When must elect a Governor that will take care of the budget and know how to create jobs. Scott has a 7 steps plan, read about that plan on http://www.rickscott.com plan. If you have questions or solutions he will want to hear from you. He will require that all state agency taking resposiblity for their actions because Rick Scott really understands that importance of taking responsibility. He took responsiblity for something he was not even responsible for but felt that since it happened on his watch he will address it regardless of the consequences. Rick Scott is a leader that base his decision on principles and values and not feelings. Rick Scott our new Governor.

http://www.rickscott.com .....no it is http://www.rickscottforflorida.com..sorry!! Please check it out!!

[CPT Aubrey]

Where is the IG report?

[Open Carry Man]

Scott was over approximately 280,000 employees and over 300+ hospital and out of those hospital only 14 hospitals were involved in the fraud. It was 2 executives that committed the fraud. Scott took responsibility and the 2 executives were let go. Scott visited 2 to 3 hospitals ever week. Remember when the extra money that was collected due to the fraud this was not listed on the expense and revenue book for people to view including Scott. He was not aware of what the 2 executives were doing. I believe that Scott will make the tough decisions and be honest about the true budget (we want to avoid being like California). When must elect a Governor that will take care of the budget and know how to create jobs. Scott has a 7 steps plan, read about that plan on http://www.rickscott.com plan. If you have questions or solutions he will want to hear from you. He will require that all state agency taking resposiblity for their actions because Rick Scott really understands that importance of taking responsibility. He took responsiblity for something he was not even responsible for but felt that since it happened on his watch he will address it regardless of the consequences. Rick Scott is a leader that base his decision on principles and values and not feelings. Rick Scott our new Governor.

Give this pimp a drug test! Quick!

[CPT Aubrey]

Loraine Ausley...

Didn't know squat about her until recently.

She's arguing for a more independent IG, running for the state wide IG's office...., Bill Mc what's his face's old job.

Her opponent acts as this is a new issue. Screw him.

That's precisely what this string is all about.

Open Carry?

The above poster is a schill for a thief. He's singing a show tune from "Oliver."

Scott Fagan should be singing in prison.

[CPT Aubrey]

And I'll be darned if PBA isn't endorsing Loranne Ausley for CFO.....

So I suppose they are alos for a more independent IG Office.

[CPT Aubrey]

So PBA?

If you're for Loraine, your for her platform.

And you should demand an IG report on this incident right now.

Which is it?

Because you have said nada, I'm assuming this is another case of Charlie Crist expediency.

Sure, I'm right.

So PBA?

If you're for Loraine, your for her platform.

And you should demand an IG report on this incident right now.

Which is it?

Because you have said nada, I'm assuming this is another case of Charlie Crist expediency.

Sure, I'm right.

:roll: Get a frickin life dude - you could second guess almost anything. You are becoming pathetic spamming this to the top all the time. And No I am not DOC brass or the IG. Go to their office and ask for the report and stop spamming here with this nonsense.

[CPT Aubrey]

I gotta life dude, though the woman donwn in Cirtus no longer does.

So no, it ain't going away until they publish the F-N report.

I gotta life dude, though the woman donwn in Cirtus no longer does.

So no, it ain't going away until they publish the F-N report.

:roll: Please go camp out at their office then until they hand it to you. Maybe they should sticky this just for you. You sound like a 7 year old kid crying.

[CPT Aubrey]

Her name was Mary Haynie jerk off.

I'm not cyring, but I imagine her two sons and family are still a little angry.

I gotta life dude, though the woman donwn in Cirtus no longer does.

So no, it ain't going away until they publish the F-N report.

:roll: Please go camp out at their office then until they hand it to you. Maybe they should sticky this just for you. You sound like a 7 year old kid crying.

The IG report has not been completed or published, so there is not a way to get the report. You would feel like crying if it was your mother death could have been prevented with a little common sense.

I gotta life dude, though the woman donwn in Cirtus no longer does.

So no, it ain't going away until they publish the F-N report.

:roll: Please go camp out at their office then until they hand it to you. Maybe they should sticky this just for you. You sound like a 7 year old kid crying.

The IG report has not been completed or published, so there is not a way to get the report. You would feel like crying if it was your mother death could have been prevented with a little common sense.

You can second guess a thousand things where tragedy happens. That person caused the tragedy not DOC. Even the law enforcement hating media doesn't deem this worthy of being in the news any longer. Sad situation but this spam doesn't help things. The Captain needs to go camp out at the IG and stop spamming this to the top everyday imo. Maybe the mod will sticky it for him if he asks but crying the same thing every day is getting very old.

[CPT Aubrey]

I gotta life dude, though the woman donwn in Cirtus no longer does.

So no, it ain't going away until they publish the F-N report.

:roll: Please go camp out at their office then until they hand it to you. Maybe they should sticky this just for you. You sound like a 7 year old kid crying.

The IG report has not been completed or published, so there is not a way to get the report. You would feel like crying if it was your mother death could have been prevented with a little common sense.

You can second guess a thousand things where tragedy happens. That person caused the tragedy not DOC. Even the law enforcement hating media doesn't deem this worthy of being in the news any longer. Sad situation but this spam doesn't help things. The Captain needs to go camp out at the IG and stop spamming this to the top everyday imo. Maybe the mod will sticky it for him if he asks but crying the same thing every day is getting very old.

I see you omitt the victim's name in your quote above and can only assume you feel uncomfortable mentioning Ms Haynie.

That offender was Jennifer Marino DC# U38236 if memory serves correct. As to her causing the tragedy? No doubt. As to the causal factors that allowed her to get that far?

This incident illustrates policy holes that have been identified for decades and DOC did nothing.

You can keep posting, moving this string to the top of the board, or I will until the IG report is published.

And when it does, I'm going over it with a fine tooth comb, which I'm willing to bet will start an entirely new string.

Either way, I could care less about idiots and their idiot speak.

[CPT Aubrey]

PS

Don't forget to vote for Loraine Ausley. She's for correcting the problem of independence in the IG's Office.

Another serious problem this incident clearly demonstrates.

Jerk.

[CPT Aubrey]

Now the election's over, it's safe to publish the IG report.

IG?

IG?

IG, it's safe. No really.

IG?

Now the election's over, it's safe to publish the IG report.

IG?

IG?

IG, it's safe. No really.

IG?

Rick Scott just laid off the whole IG dept. as he doesn't want any future problems with depositions and such. :snicker:

[CPT Aubrey]

Now the election's over, it's safe to publish the IG report.

IG?

IG?

IG, it's safe. No really.

IG?

Rick Scott just laid off the whole IG dept. as he doesn't want any future problems with depositions and such. :snicker:

As much as I dislike Scott, how is this any different from the system we have now?

Here is a new artical in the Citrus County Cronicle reguarding the IG report.

http://www.chronicleonline.com/cgi-bin/ ... 3071071022 (http://www.chronicleonline.com/cgi-bin/c2.cgi?071+article+News+20101116213133071071022)

http://www.chronicleonline.com/cgi-bin/c2.cgi?071+article+News+20101116213133071071022

I guess the department wants some good public relations letting the state atty see the report first even though there obviously is nothing criminal in it. The supervisor has retired anyway so this won't go anywhere as far as employees. As far as a lawsuit it won't go anywhere either as its not even in the ballpark of the bar the Florida Supreme Court has set on cases like this with law enforcement/corrections agencies. Its a sad situation for the family however.

They do have a criminal charge now for falsified entries by state workers so maybe they are just covering themselves if the supervisor or an officer changed them to something that was blatantly false to make the situation sound better. Note to officers - never change your notes to something that isn't true even if a supervisor pushes you to as that can open you up to criminal charges possibly. Just list the facts and you will be alright as long as you didn't do something really crazy.

[CPT Aubrey]

I sure hope that's not all a 9 month investigation prodiuced- falsification of an OBIS case note entry. If it is, it's clearly a white wash looking for and finding a scape goat.

I read the article, and felt empty, angry and sincere sorrow for the victim's son and family. I've been chastising the IG's Office for months.

For years officers have told Tallahassee something like this was bound to happen and it did.

What should have happened is remarkably simple given the known circumstances. A nut bag shows up at the office and no one knows if she there legitimately. She's immediately brought into a back office, put into handcuffs for officer safety and a simple telephone call is made to the New York Probation Officer. When it's found she's there illegally, she's arrested under 948 and transported to jail.

Why this didn't happen? For years Central Office has refused even a minor attempt at fully resourcing our law enforcement role and have written vague policy to cover the short falls forcing officers (not Central Office) to make decisions they shouldn't have to make. Policy has made even the strongest supervisor paranoic.

The telephone call was not made because interstate compact rules and regs prohibit direct talk between officers. I have been personally chatised for by-passing Interstate when I thought it appropriate. It goes all the way to you through Region. It doesn't take many of these kinds of calls before people get the message.

End of story.

Not enough for a law suit? Surely you are wrong.

And the IG has submitted the report to Willie Megs? After a thourough review by Walt and his staff I bet, never mind it's another good delaying technique.

I'm still going to get a copy of this report.

I sure hope that's not all a 9 month investigation prodiuced- falsification of an OBIS case note entry. If it is, it's clearly a white wash looking for and finding a scape goat.

I read the article, and felt empty, angry and sincere sorrow for the victim's son and family. I've been chastising the IG's Office for months.

For years officers have told Tallahassee something like this was bound to happen and it did.

What should have happened is remarkably simple given the known circumstances. A nut bag shows up at the office and no one knows if she there legitimately. She's immediately brought into a back office, put into handcuffs for officer safety and a simple telephone call is made to the New York Probation Officer. When it's found she's there illegally, she's arrested under 948 and transported to jail.

Why this didn't happen? For years Central Office has refused even a minor attempt at fully resourcing our law enforcement role and have written vague policy to cover the short falls forcing officers (not Central Office) to make decisions they shouldn't have to make. Policy has made even the strongest supervisor paranoic.

The telephone call was not made because interstate compact rules and regs prohibit direct talk between officers. I have been personally chatised for by-passing Interstte when I thought it appropriate. It goes all the way to you through REgion. End of story.

Not enough for a law suit? Surely you are wrong.

And the IG has submitted the report to Willie Megs? After a thourough review by Walt and his staff I bet, never mind it's another good delaying technique.

I'm still going to get a copy of this report.

Don't know about the lawsuit in this case but usually only police brutality cases go anywhere in Florida. Even not following a written agency policy is not enough to get anything in Florida unless its just totally reckless actions. Well I guess if CCA takes over in a few years they won't even have to worry about public relations in an incident like this.

[CPT Aubrey]

I sure hope that's not all a 9 month investigation prodiuced- falsification of an OBIS case note entry. If it is, it's clearly a white wash looking for and finding a scape goat.

I read the article, and felt empty, angry and sincere sorrow for the victim's son and family. I've been chastising the IG's Office for months.

For years officers have told Tallahassee something like this was bound to happen and it did.

What should have happened is remarkably simple given the known circumstances. A nut bag shows up at the office and no one knows if she there legitimately. She's immediately brought into a back office, put into handcuffs for officer safety and a simple telephone call is made to the New York Probation Officer. When it's found she's there illegally, she's arrested under 948 and transported to jail.

Why this didn't happen? For years Central Office has refused even a minor attempt at fully resourcing our law enforcement role and have written vague policy to cover the short falls forcing officers (not Central Office) to make decisions they shouldn't have to make. Policy has made even the strongest supervisor paranoic.

The telephone call was not made because interstate compact rules and regs prohibit direct talk between officers. I have been personally chatised for by-passing Interstte when I thought it appropriate. It goes all the way to you through REgion. End of story.

Not enough for a law suit? Surely you are wrong.

And the IG has submitted the report to Willie Megs? After a thourough review by Walt and his staff I bet, never mind it's another good delaying technique.

I'm still going to get a copy of this report.

Don't know about the lawsuit in this case but usually only police brutality cases go anywhere in Florida. Even not following a written agency policy is not enough to get anything in Florida unless its just totally reckless actions. Well I guess if CCA takes over in a few years they won't even have to worry about public relations in an incident like this.

You might be right about CCA...

But, tell me.

What prevents them from publishing the report at the same time it's referred to Willie?

Surely Mr. Megs can make his determination under media pressure? He's done it before.

He's no wall flower. And after all, Walt has surely seen it and gone over it in infinite minutia. If he hasn't his legal staff has and so has Ms. Nimmer.

[quote="CPT Aubrey":17fa8l7w]I sure hope that's not all a 9 month investigation prodiuced- falsification of an OBIS case note entry. If it is, it's clearly a white wash looking for and finding a scape goat.

I read the article, and felt empty, angry and sincere sorrow for the victim's son and family. I've been chastising the IG's Office for months.

For years officers have told Tallahassee something like this was bound to happen and it did.

What should have happened is remarkably simple given the known circumstances. A nut bag shows up at the office and no one knows if she there legitimately. She's immediately brought into a back office, put into handcuffs for officer safety and a simple telephone call is made to the New York Probation Officer. When it's found she's there illegally, she's arrested under 948 and transported to jail.

Why this didn't happen? For years Central Office has refused even a minor attempt at fully resourcing our law enforcement role and have written vague policy to cover the short falls forcing officers (not Central Office) to make decisions they shouldn't have to make. Policy has made even the strongest supervisor paranoic.

The telephone call was not made because interstate compact rules and regs prohibit direct talk between officers. I have been personally chatised for by-passing Interstte when I thought it appropriate. It goes all the way to you through REgion. End of story.

Not enough for a law suit? Surely you are wrong.

And the IG has submitted the report to Willie Megs? After a thourough review by Walt and his staff I bet, never mind it's another good delaying technique.

I'm still going to get a copy of this report.

Don't know about the lawsuit in this case but usually only police brutality cases go anywhere in Florida. Even not following a written agency policy is not enough to get anything in Florida unless its just totally reckless actions. Well I guess if CCA takes over in a few years they won't even have to worry about public relations in an incident like this.

You might be right about CCA...

But, tell me.

What prevents them from publishing the report at the same time it's referred to Willie?

Surely Mr. Megs can make his determination under media pressure? He's done it before.

He's no wall flower. And after all, Walt has surely seen it and gone over it in infinite minutia. If he hasn't his legal staff has and so has Ms. Nimmer.[/quote:17fa8l7w]

I am not sure if there is some legal requirement there or not but it might seem a little prudent if there is a chance a charge might be coming for falsifying records or something. You would think it would just take a couple of weeks at most to decide. I wonder if that might have happened since a supervisor went ahead and retired. Anyone know how soon after this happened the supervisor retired ?

[CPT Aubrey]

[quote="CPT Aubrey":1eznyetp]I sure hope that's not all a 9 month investigation prodiuced- falsification of an OBIS case note entry. If it is, it's clearly a white wash looking for and finding a scape goat.

I read the article, and felt empty, angry and sincere sorrow for the victim's son and family. I've been chastising the IG's Office for months.

For years officers have told Tallahassee something like this was bound to happen and it did.

What should have happened is remarkably simple given the known circumstances. A nut bag shows up at the office and no one knows if she there legitimately. She's immediately brought into a back office, put into handcuffs for officer safety and a simple telephone call is made to the New York Probation Officer. When it's found she's there illegally, she's arrested under 948 and transported to jail.

Why this didn't happen? For years Central Office has refused even a minor attempt at fully resourcing our law enforcement role and have written vague policy to cover the short falls forcing officers (not Central Office) to make decisions they shouldn't have to make. Policy has made even the strongest supervisor paranoic.

The telephone call was not made because interstate compact rules and regs prohibit direct talk between officers. I have been personally chatised for by-passing Interstte when I thought it appropriate. It goes all the way to you through REgion. End of story.

Not enough for a law suit? Surely you are wrong.

And the IG has submitted the report to Willie Megs? After a thourough review by Walt and his staff I bet, never mind it's another good delaying technique.

I'm still going to get a copy of this report.

Don't know about the lawsuit in this case but usually only police brutality cases go anywhere in Florida. Even not following a written agency policy is not enough to get anything in Florida unless its just totally reckless actions. Well I guess if CCA takes over in a few years they won't even have to worry about public relations in an incident like this.

You might be right about CCA...

But, tell me.

What prevents them from publishing the report at the same time it's referred to Willie?

Surely Mr. Megs can make his determination under media pressure? He's done it before.

He's no wall flower. And after all, Walt has surely seen it and gone over it in infinite minutia. If he hasn't his legal staff has and so has Ms. Nimmer.

I am not sure if there is some legal requirement there or not but it might seem a little prudent if there is a chance a charge might be coming for falsifying records or something. You would think it would just take a couple of weeks at most to decide. I wonder if that might have happened since a supervisor went ahead and retired. Anyone know how soon after this happened the supervisor retired ?[/quote:1eznyetp]

I think that's an intersting question deserving an answer. It will go well into rounding out the picture.

Another question: Was she encouraged to retire? If so, by who?

Either way, it's ultimately irrelevant to the causal factors and a side bar to something far more intersting.

[quote="CPT Aubrey":27so42jk]I sure hope that's not all a 9 month investigation prodiuced- falsification of an OBIS case note entry. If it is, it's clearly a white wash looking for and finding a scape goat.

I read the article, and felt empty, angry and sincere sorrow for the victim's son and family. I've been chastising the IG's Office for months.

For years officers have told Tallahassee something like this was bound to happen and it did.

What should have happened is remarkably simple given the known circumstances. A nut bag shows up at the office and no one knows if she there legitimately. She's immediately brought into a back office, put into handcuffs for officer safety and a simple telephone call is made to the New York Probation Officer. When it's found she's there illegally, she's arrested under 948 and transported to jail.

Why this didn't happen? For years Central Office has refused even a minor attempt at fully resourcing our law enforcement role and have written vague policy to cover the short falls forcing officers (not Central Office) to make decisions they shouldn't have to make. Policy has made even the strongest supervisor paranoic.

The telephone call was not made because interstate compact rules and regs prohibit direct talk between officers. I have been personally chatised for by-passing Interstte when I thought it appropriate. It goes all the way to you through REgion. End of story.

Not enough for a law suit? Surely you are wrong.

And the IG has submitted the report to Willie Megs? After a thourough review by Walt and his staff I bet, never mind it's another good delaying technique.

I'm still going to get a copy of this report.

Don't know about the lawsuit in this case but usually only police brutality cases go anywhere in Florida. Even not following a written agency policy is not enough to get anything in Florida unless its just totally reckless actions. Well I guess if CCA takes over in a few years they won't even have to worry about public relations in an incident like this.

You might be right about CCA...

But, tell me.

What prevents them from publishing the report at the same time it's referred to Willie?

Surely Mr. Megs can make his determination under media pressure? He's done it before.

He's no wall flower. And after all, Walt has surely seen it and gone over it in infinite minutia. If he hasn't his legal staff has and so has Ms. Nimmer.

I am not sure if there is some legal requirement there or not but it might seem a little prudent if there is a chance a charge might be coming for falsifying records or something. You would think it would just take a couple of weeks at most to decide. I wonder if that might have happened since a supervisor went ahead and retired. Anyone know how soon after this happened the supervisor retired ?[/quote:27so42jk]

On 06/15/10 13:19:18 there was a post about when the idea that this supervisor might retire.

And this incident didn't solidfy her decision making process...., with a few pushes along the way?

Yeah, right.

[Open Carry Man]

I have posted on this issue before. I don't particularly care for what the supervisor's attitude has been presented as, and I think that this situation could have been prevented with (A) a degree of overcoming negative routine and (B) a willingness to see a bigger public safety picture. That appears not to have happened.

People who see CPOs as paper jockeys and bureaucrats ought to consider this case as a lesson in the IMMENSE liability we expose ourselves to as CPOs. This was a situation that was handled in a way that was easy to criticize. In hindsight, I know what could have been done differently by the supervisor and by an officer (ANY officer) in that field office. One officer could have (I've said this before.) noted the discrepancy (an out-of-state case returning to the county of sentencing unannounced), taken action (check ICOTS, move to regain the case, determine the offender's location), assess the offender's behavior (note symptoms of instability). The supervisor could have found grounds for a warrantless arrest, instructed the officer to try for a "compliant handcuffing", evaluated the situation if the offender refused to be handcuffed. This would have required thinking outside the box, but not all that far outside, really.

On the other hand, think of the conflicting messages those officers and that supervisor (and all of us, for that matter) receive every day. In the Crosby years, the focus was on the liability for what would happen if the offender hurt or killed someone. Now, the focus is on the liability for our wrongfully PCing someone, "re-entry", the whining of local sheriff's (who talk tough, but don't want "State Prisoners!" clogging up their precious jails on PC VOPs), and others.

We work for a Department in an environment where mixed messages are a way of life. There are supervisors whose judgement I have questioned, but I have become privy information long after an action was taken on more than one occasion to see the no-win situations they are put in from up the chain. I suppose that's an inevitable consequence of our high liability profession, where we have to worry about hurting others, or taking their liberty when not justified, while being empowered to use force and arrest powers for the protection of the public from the acts probation violators.

Only when we make a mistake (or someone is afraid that we will appear to have made a mistake) is the liability CPOs expose themselves to acknowledged.

[CPT Aubrey]

You've stated what I have been saying all along....., only better.

Amen.

I have posted on this issue before. I don't particularly care for what the supervisor's attitude has been presented as, and I think that this situation could have been prevented with (A) a degree of overcoming negative routine and (B) a willingness to see a bigger public safety picture. That appears not to have happened.

People who see CPOs as paper jockeys and bureaucrats ought to consider this case as a lesson in the IMMENSE liability we expose ourselves to as CPOs. This was a situation that was handled in a way that was easy to criticize. In hindsight, I know what could have been done differently by the supervisor and by an officer (ANY officer) in that field office. One officer could have (I've said this before.) noted the discrepancy (an out-of-state case returning to the county of sentencing unannounced), taken action (check ICOTS, move to regain the case, determine the offender's location), assess the offender's behavior (note symptoms of instability). The supervisor could have found grounds for a warrantless arrest, instructed the officer to try for a "compliant handcuffing", evaluated the situation if the offender refused to be handcuffed. This would have required thinking outside the box, but not all that far outside, really.

On the other hand, think of the conflicting messages those officers and that supervisor (and all of us, for that matter) receive every day. In the Crosby years, the focus was on the liability for what would happen if the offender hurt or killed someone. Now, the focus is on the liability for our wrongfully PCing someone, "re-entry", the whining of local sheriff's (who talk tough, but don't want "State Prisoners!" clogging up their precious jails on PC VOPs, and others.

We work for a Department in an environment where mixed messages are a way of life. There are supervisors whose judgement I have questioned, but I have become privy information long after an action was taken on more than one occasion to see the no-win situations they are put in from up the chain. I suppose that's an inevitable consequence of our high liability profession, where we have to worry about hurting others, or taking their liberty when not justified, while being empowered to use force and arrest powers for the protection of the public from the acts probation violators.

Only when we make a mstake (or someone is afraid that we will appear to have made a mistake) is the liability CPOs expose themselves to acknowledged.

We could second guess almost all cases and run a million things but the fact is there will be no liability issue here in the end as even violating policy (which is not even the case here) does not meet the very high burden to win a case like this and even if the initial Judge allowed a jury to ignore the case law and award something here the appeals court would overturn it 100% guaranteed. This case has about as much chance of collecting that 100K limit negligence award as that Judge's ruling down in Broward that said DOC must transport VOP warrant cases to the Jail.

Sorry wannabees but things are how they are and if anything you should be worried about losing your officer designation altogether over the next few years. Zero Tolerance/Intelligence is locked up in a jail cell with its master James Crosby.

[CPT Aubrey]

I have posted on this issue before. I don't particularly care for what the supervisor's attitude has been presented as, and I think that this situation could have been prevented with (A) a degree of overcoming negative routine and (B) a willingness to see a bigger public safety picture. That appears not to have happened.

People who see CPOs as paper jockeys and bureaucrats ought to consider this case as a lesson in the IMMENSE liability we expose ourselves to as CPOs. This was a situation that was handled in a way that was easy to criticize. In hindsight, I know what could have been done differently by the supervisor and by an officer (ANY officer) in that field office. One officer could have (I've said this before.) noted the discrepancy (an out-of-state case returning to the county of sentencing unannounced), taken action (check ICOTS, move to regain the case, determine the offender's location), assess the offender's behavior (note symptoms of instability). The supervisor could have found grounds for a warrantless arrest, instructed the officer to try for a "compliant handcuffing", evaluated the situation if the offender refused to be handcuffed. This would have required thinking outside the box, but not all that far outside, really.

On the other hand, think of the conflicting messages those officers and that supervisor (and all of us, for that matter) receive every day. In the Crosby years, the focus was on the liability for what would happen if the offender hurt or killed someone. Now, the focus is on the liability for our wrongfully PCing someone, "re-entry", the whining of local sheriff's (who talk tough, but don't want "State Prisoners!" clogging up their precious jails on PC VOPs, and others.

We work for a Department in an environment where mixed messages are a way of life. There are supervisors whose judgement I have questioned, but I have become privy information long after an action was taken on more than one occasion to see the no-win situations they are put in from up the chain. I suppose that's an inevitable consequence of our high liability profession, where we have to worry about hurting others, or taking their liberty when not justified, while being empowered to use force and arrest powers for the protection of the public from the acts probation violators.

Only when we make a mstake (or someone is afraid that we will appear to have made a mistake) is the liability CPOs expose themselves to acknowledged.

We could second guess almost all cases and run a million things but the fact is there will be no liability issue here in the end as even violating policy (which is not even the case here) does not meet the very high burden to win a case like this and even if the initial Judge allowed a jury to ignore the case law and award something here the appeals court would overturn it 100% guaranteed. This case has about as much chance of collecting that 100K limit negligence award as that Judge's ruling down in Broward that said DOC must transport VOP warrant cases to the Jail.

Sorry wannabees but things are how they are and if anything you should be worried about losing your officer designation altogether over the next few years. Zero Tolerance/Intelligence is locked up in a jail cell with its master James Crosby.

This wannabe attorney has posted so often as to make wannabe vomit look good.

Now he/she brings in the fear factor of losing special risk et al.

Here's the fear: the current Secretary and IG on the stand. Ms Nimmer on the stand. Her predecessor on the stand, not to mention a hold host of bureau chiefs et al all publically forced to admit what we all know.

You can kiss my butt.

[quote="Open Carry Man":gkerrzqh]I have posted on this issue before. I don't particularly care for what the supervisor's attitude has been presented as, and I think that this situation could have been prevented with (A) a degree of overcoming negative routine and (B) a willingness to see a bigger public safety picture. That appears not to have happened.

People who see CPOs as paper jockeys and bureaucrats ought to consider this case as a lesson in the IMMENSE liability we expose ourselves to as CPOs. This was a situation that was handled in a way that was easy to criticize. In hindsight, I know what could have been done differently by the supervisor and by an officer (ANY officer) in that field office. One officer could have (I've said this before.) noted the discrepancy (an out-of-state case returning to the county of sentencing unannounced), taken action (check ICOTS, move to regain the case, determine the offender's location), assess the offender's behavior (note symptoms of instability). The supervisor could have found grounds for a warrantless arrest, instructed the officer to try for a "compliant handcuffing", evaluated the situation if the offender refused to be handcuffed. This would have required thinking outside the box, but not all that far outside, really.

On the other hand, think of the conflicting messages those officers and that supervisor (and all of us, for that matter) receive every day. In the Crosby years, the focus was on the liability for what would happen if the offender hurt or killed someone. Now, the focus is on the liability for our wrongfully PCing someone, "re-entry", the whining of local sheriff's (who talk tough, but don't want "State Prisoners!" clogging up their precious jails on PC VOPs, and others.

We work for a Department in an environment where mixed messages are a way of life. There are supervisors whose judgement I have questioned, but I have become privy information long after an action was taken on more than one occasion to see the no-win situations they are put in from up the chain. I suppose that's an inevitable consequence of our high liability profession, where we have to worry about hurting others, or taking their liberty when not justified, while being empowered to use force and arrest powers for the protection of the public from the acts probation violators.

Only when we make a mstake (or someone is afraid that we will appear to have made a mistake) is the liability CPOs expose themselves to acknowledged.

We could second guess almost all cases and run a million things but the fact is there will be no liability issue here in the end as even violating policy (which is not even the case here) does not meet the very high burden to win a case like this and even if the initial Judge allowed a jury to ignore the case law and award something here the appeals court would overturn it 100% guaranteed. This case has about as much chance of collecting that 100K limit negligence award as that Judge's ruling down in Broward that said DOC must transport VOP warrant cases to the Jail.

Sorry wannabees but things are how they are and if anything you should be worried about losing your officer designation altogether over the next few years. Zero Tolerance/Intelligence is locked up in a jail cell with its master James Crosby.

This wannabe attorney has posted so often as to make wannabe vomit look good.

Now he/she brings in the fear factor of losing special risk et al.

Here's the fear: the current Secretary and IG on the stand. Ms Nimmer on the stand. Her predecessor on the stand, not to mention a hold host of bureau chiefs et al all publically forced to admit what we all know.

You can kiss my butt.[/quote:gkerrzqh]

You can kiss my butt. You sound like the people arguing with me when that Judge said DOC will transport or be in contempt of his order after a certain date. I said then hell would freeze over first before that happened and I have seen cases where agencies are sued with similarities to this and guess what I have never seen them hold up in the appeals process. Police brutality type cases are a whole different issue and do hold up many times. There have been suits over police agencies not making an arrest when they had plenty of probable cause to make an arrest days earlier (much more than the issues here) but wanted to land a bigger fish so they held off for bigger charges and in the meantime the person killed someone and guess what after all appeals are through I don't think any of the lawyers won that case.

[CPT Aubrey]

You can kiss my butt. You sound like the people arguing with me when that Judge said DOC will transport or be in contempt of his order after a certain date. I said then hell would freeze over first before that happened and I have seen cases where agencies are sued with similarities to this and guess what I have never seen them hold up in the appeals process. Police brutality type cases are a whole different issue and do hold up many times. There have been suits over police agencies not making an arrest when they had plenty of probable cause to make an arrest days earlier (much more than the issues here) but wanted to land a bigger fish so they held off for bigger charges and in the meantime the person killed someone and guess what after all appeals are through I don't think any of the lawyers won that case.

A legal victory, counselor. My hat's off. So you take pride in the transport victory? Great. It cost a woman her life. Hope you can live with that.

That might be unfair. You're paid to defend DOC. The legal system is, what the legal system is, even though Shakespear reminded us a few hundred years ago, " The law is an ass."

A legal victory certainly can't even begin to equate to moral victory.

All knew your transport victory was wrong just as all will know what has happened here.

That in and of itself, is enough.

This is the latest story on this case.

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/dec/04 ... w-if-prob/ (http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/dec/04/MENEWSO1-carjack-victims-son-wants-to-know-if-prob/)

I don't see any criminal charge coming here unless they faked/changed case notes to something blatantly false because they made that against the law due to some DCF cases a while back. If they charged officers for an offender doing something because they didn't take a certain action and second guessing the police could be charged thousands of times in scenarios like that. Note to officers - never faslify a case note whether a supervisor says to or not. If a case goes bad it goes bad and they committed the crime not you so don't get nervous just because of the old zero tolerance culture thinking you will be fired or something because you won't be if you don't falsify anything. Stuff happens and that idiot criminal Crosby and his zero intelligence policies and officer hanging to try to toot his own horn are out the door. I know some may not care for the current Secretary but one thing he doesn't do is hang out his own officers (he probably knows this best coming from his LEO background). Not sure exactly what happened here but I just don't see any criminal charge coming unless there is a lot more to the story which I doubt or they falsified their case notes because they got nervous thinking they would be fired due to what the offender did.

I think DOC may have just turned it over to the State Attorney for political reasons.

For the love of GOD where is that IG REPORT????

For the love of GOD where is that IG REPORT????

Go ask CPT Aubrey. :snicker:

For the love of GOD where is that IG REPORT????

Go ask CPT Aubrey. :snicker:


I suspect CPT Aubrey will respond as soon as new the new article comes out.

The one that explains the new case note requirement.

The one that explains why the IG report hasn't been published......

The one that may go a long way in explaing why who lost their jobs and who got promoted.

snicker.

For the love of GOD where is that IG REPORT????

Go ask CPT Aubrey. :snicker:


I suspect CPT Aubrey will respond as soon as new the new article comes out.

The one that explains the new case note requirement.

The one that explains why the IG report hasn't been published......

The one that may go a long way in explaing why who lost their jobs and who got promoted.

snicker.

I think someone just resigned. That State Atty didnt do anything with the report and probably wondered what the hell DOC was doing giving it to him.

I've been told by the reporter who broke the original story, that a regional supervisor asked officers to "clarify" their case notes in the Citrus case. Clarify?

Is there any surprise that Jenny Nimmer came out with her new case note policy requiring officers to insure that they did not change notes?

I told him that in 20 years, I had never have been contacted by a Regional Director or a DRD to clairfy squat. If they did, it was considered more than highly unusual.

I also told him that Citrus fell under Barbara Scala ,who was just promoted, which made his story more than interesting. Is this a quid pro quo? I don't know and I would imagine it difficult to prove.

I was told by the same reporter that no one in Citrus had tried to confirm with Interstate Compact that she (the offender) was there without permission. He asked me why.

I told him that, I did not know why, but, an officer can get disciplined if they talk directly with another state without going through Interstate.

I went on to tell him that it was more than simply one officer or supervisor making a mistake. I told him that it was a systemic problem, and, that we had never been resourced to arrest and have been actively discouraged from doing so.

He told me that the reason the IG report had not been published was that they were never able to interview the supervisor in charge and that they had turned it over to the SA's office.

Ain't this grand. I can hardly wait for the new news story....

So some one in Region II asked officers to change their case notes?

Scala gets promoted after the fact?

LOL

She is great! We all love her leadership.

I've been told by the reporter who broke the original story, that a regional supervisor asked officers to "clarify" their case notes in the Citrus case. Clarify?

Is there any surprise that Jenny Nimmer came out with her new case note policy requiring officers to insure that they did not change notes?

I told him that in 20 years, I had never have been contacted by a Regional Director or a DRD to clairfy squat. If they did, it was considered more than highly unusual.

I also told him that Citrus fell under Barbara Scala ,who was just promoted, which made his story more than interesting. Is this a quid pro quo? I don't know and I would imagine it difficult to prove.

I was told by the same reporter that no one in Citrus had tried to confirm with Interstate Compact that she (the offender) was there without permission. He asked me why.

I told him that, I did not know why, but, an officer can get disciplined if they talk directly with another state without going through Interstate.

I went on to tell him that it was more than simply one officer or supervisor making a mistake. I told him that it was a systemic problem, and, that we had never been resourced to arrest and have been actively discouraged from doing so.

He told me that the reason the IG report had not been published was that they were never able to interview the supervisor in charge and that they had turned it over to the SA's office.

Ain't this grand. I can hardly wait for the new news story....


It True, she's ****ed.

Sure glad my child is not looking over my shoulder. Watch what you type. She will be just fine. She is a great leader.

Sure glad my child is not looking over my shoulder. Watch what you type. She will be just fine. She is a great leader.


If true, I surely don't think so.

We all think she is a great leader.

I've been told by the reporter who broke the original story, that a regional supervisor asked officers to "clarify" their case notes in the Citrus case. Clarify?

Is there any surprise that Jenny Nimmer came out with her new case note policy requiring officers to insure that they did not change notes?

I told him that in 20 years, I had never have been contacted by a Regional Director or a DRD to clairfy squat. If they did, it was considered more than highly unusual.

I also told him that Citrus fell under Barbara Scala ,who was just promoted, which made his story more than interesting. Is this a quid pro quo? I don't know and I would imagine it difficult to prove.

I was told by the same reporter that no one in Citrus had tried to confirm with Interstate Compact that she (the offender) was there without permission. He asked me why.

I told him that, I did not know why, but, an officer can get disciplined if they talk directly with another state without going through Interstate.

I went on to tell him that it was more than simply one officer or supervisor making a mistake. I told him that it was a systemic problem, and, that we had never been resourced to arrest and have been actively discouraged from doing so.

He told me that the reason the IG report had not been published was that they were never able to interview the supervisor in charge and that they had turned it over to the SA's office.

Ain't this grand. I can hardly wait for the new news story....


It True, she's ****ed.


Not only is she not a great leader, she is tied to Nimmer who is also less than stellar.

So let me get this correct. You blame Scala for trying to get case notes that make sense for the death of this woman. She was not there. The officer's who did nothing should be fired. The Supervisor already resigned. My bet resign or be fired. Have you ever tried to look at case notes of some officers. The make no sense. I'm not saying she did or didn't try to get some things changed but we have been back dating case notes since they began Maybe make a system that doesn't let you change them. Tha t way every disgruntled officer can enter whatever they want and it is there for all to see. opinions that usually are not fact appropriate for view by anyone. So, don't change he game afterwards and act like chaging case notes is something never done. It was done all the time. Scala works hard for the DOC putting in more hours than you can imagine. She is not perfect but puts the DOC before her own life. Trust me. I've seen her working everymoring before dawn for years.

I am the investigative reporter who's been working on this story on and off since last April. This is the story we published on http://www.TBO.com this morning:

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2011/feb/17 ... -breaking/ (http://www2.tbo.com/content/2011/feb/17/170843/MENEWSO1-string-of-missteps-a-perfect-storm/news-breaking/)

The Tampa Tribune featured the story at the bottom of the front page today (2/27/11) and a video version appeared on WFLA-TV last night ( now streamed on TBO). I'd love to hear from anyone with direct knowledge or insight on this case because--as you will see--there are a number of unanswered questions that I believe have statewide significance.

Mark Douglas Mdouglas@wfla.com (727) 815 1054.

I am not going to come on here and blame Ms. Scala or anyone else because I don't know all the facts. I really doubt she had anyone doctor casenotes by changing the facts. She probably wanted them written more clearly! What did the officers do wrong? Did they allow a person with an active warrant to leave the office? I though we were suppose to let them leave and call law enforcement and not pursue after them. Hopefully we will get a full report in order to learn from it. Unfortuantely we never got a full report from the incident in the panhandle when an officer ended up shooting an absconder. Never got the whole story. The Department does a piss poor job in informing the officers of past incindents. That is why nobody ever has an answer to "what if" situations! It's call training!!!!!!!!!

I am the investigative reporter who's been working on this story on and off since last April. This is the story we published on http://www.TBO.com this morning:

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2011/feb/17 ... -breaking/ (http://www2.tbo.com/content/2011/feb/17/170843/MENEWSO1-string-of-missteps-a-perfect-storm/news-breaking/)

The Tampa Tribune featured the story at the bottom of the front page today (2/27/11) and a video version appeared on WFLA-TV last night ( now streamed on TBO). I'd love to hear from anyone with direct knowledge or insight on this case because--as you will see--there are a number of unanswered questions that I believe have statewide significance.

Mark Douglas Mdouglas@wfla.com (727) 815 1054.


There are several facts in this story that need to be brought out. First, it is true florida officer cannot talk directly to an officer in another state and second if a request was sent to ICOTS it could be days before they receive a reply. Also, according to a letter sent out to all probation officers by then Assiatant Secretary Bruce Grant, officers are not allowed to pursue an offender if they leave the probation office, period! He said let them run. However, they are responsible for immediately calling law enforcement and offer assistance. Line officers hould not be punished for incompetent and gutless "leaders" who put out flawed policy and then don't back the officers.