Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Active duty LEOs and retired LEOs, please review this and post opinions.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Active duty LEOs and retired LEOs, please review this and post opinions.

    Anyone else can also of course but after reading the morning newspaper and seeing this article about the background of two officers who killed a rancher in rural Idaho last year, and were just recently cleared in that shooting, these facts shed new light on the event.
    Headline,
    Prior employers disciplined the deputies who shot Idaho rancher
    Newly released records from the state investigation of a rancher’s shooting by two Adams County sheriff’s deputies show that both deputies had been disciplined for behavior in previous jobs, and one had been fired.

    Brian S. Wood and Cody W. Roland have been on leave with pay at the Adams County Sheriff’s Office since Jack Yantis was killed the night of Nov. 1 on U.S. 95 next to his ranch north of Council. Last week, state and federal prosecutors decided not to file homicide or civil rights charges against them, saying the evidence was too weak to overcome reasonable doubt.

    Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/s...#storylink=cpy
    Wood’s poaching

    Wood, 32, started his first law enforcement job, as a McCall police officer, in February 2010. Less than two years later he was fired.

    According to an Idaho State Police report, the McCall Police Department began an internal investigation of Wood after learning he was under investigation by Idaho Fish and Game for killing an elk without a valid tag in Valley County.

    Fish and Game, acting on a tip, cited Wood on Nov. 7, 2011, with three misdemeanors. Wood first pleaded not guilty but changed his plea to guilty to two of the three charges: unlawfully possessing wildlife and having no game-hunting tag. The third charge, wasting wildlife, was dismissed.

    The judge ordered Wood to pay a $1,050 fine and to complete 200 hours of community service. His hunting license was suspended for three years. In May 2013, the judge issued a withheld judgment, meaning the guilty plea was withdrawn and the case dismissed.

    Meanwhile, the city of McCall wrote Wood a letter saying it intended to terminate his employment. Wood wrote back, asking not to be fired. He said he was wrong to shoot the elk, but he thought he had a valid tag for the zone. Wood said he actually had a tag for another zone, while a friend with whom he usually hunts had the tag for the McCall zone.

    When Wood shot the spike elk — a young male with unbranched antlers — near his McCall home, he was hunting alone.

    McCall’s investigation found that Wood violated several hunting-related laws, two police department policies — conduct unbecoming and failure to maintain level of moral conduct — and a city policy prohibiting employees from engaging in criminal conduct. He was fired Nov. 30, 2011.

    Wood’s firing led Idaho Peace Officer and Standards Training, a division of the Idaho State Police, to begin an investigation to determine whether Wood should be decertified. All local and state law enforcement officers in Idaho must be certified through POST.

    Jerry Summers was McCall’s police chief when Wood worked there.

    “I received a call from the POST decertification investigator questioning comments that were made and truthfulness by Mr. Wood,” Summers told the Statesman this week, declining to be more specific. “I provided additional documentation to that investigator and said that if, in his estimation, the officer was being untruthful, that my recommendation would be to decertify the officer.”

    Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/s...#storylink=cpy
    Roland’s incidents

    Roland, 38, has worked for six Idaho law enforcement agencies since 2000, including the sheriff’s offices of Adams, Canyon and Valley counties and the Gooding, Parma and Wilder police departments. Roland told the Statesman that he also worked in Basra, Iraq, for military defense contractor DynCorp International from 2008 to 2010. Zollman hired him as a patrol deputy in August 2014.

    An ISP report said four incidents in Roland’s tenure in Valley County from 2005 to 2012 resulted in investigations or discipline:

    1. On Jan. 12, 2007, after a complaint from a motorist, Roland was counseled for his attitude during a traffic stop. The ISP report provided no details. Roland told the Statesman he does not recall the specific incident, but the statement is correct.

    2. On May 14, 2008, Roland received a letter of reprimand and was placed on probation for one year for conduct unbecoming, which stemmed from an off-duty incident. The ISP report provided no details. Roland declined to provide details but said he was not demoted.

    3. In March 2010, an internal investigation was started against Roland after a confidential informant provided information to members of the Valley County-area narcotics task force. The ISP report provided no details about this, either, and neither did Roland.

    Roland told the Statesman he was questioned and then later told that the matter had been dropped.

    “I never did figure out what that was about,” he said. “I never knew there was an (internal) investigation.”

    4. In December 2011, the Idaho POST Academy told Valley County Sheriff Patti Bolen that there were inconsistencies on Roland’s POST and employment applications about his military service.

    In a 2001 job application, Roland said he served in the military and received a general discharge under honorable conditions. In a 2011 application, he said he did not serve in the military. POST told Bolen that Roland actually had received an “uncharacterized/entry-level separation.”

    That typically means an enlisted person served fewer than 180 days and the commander did not have enough time to evaluate the person’s conduct and performance.

    Roland resigned before Bolen could address the application inconsistencies with him, Valley County Undersheriff John Coombs told ISP.

    Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/s...#storylink=cpy
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

  • #2
    With what's given, I'd say this about the two.

    Woods: Okay, people make dumb decisions and mistakes. A single case of hunting without a license. Not something that should be a career ender. I can't speak to how Woods was generally perceived by his supervisors and fellow officers, but on what's given not a big deal.
    That he had a previous police job but was let go after about two years? I'd need more details to comment there.

    Roland on the other hand strikes me as a potentially dangerous nut bag. I've seen his type. The one who thinks he's really Rambo.
    That he declined to give details about multiple incidents is a red flag for me.
    That he was discharged in less than 90 days (that's the NOB ie.,, Not OBserved period for evaluations) means he didn't finish boot camp with the service he enlisted in. The number one reason for that is usually the guy is a squirrel and had psychological issues. Number two would be some serious medical problem that was pre-existing and aggravated in boot camp.
    He had 3 police related service issues sufficient for negative documentation on his record. That is a repetitive problem that is another red flag.
    Then there's his service as a private security guy with one of those "Black" firms in Iraq. Another indication of Rambo syndrome.
    Then there's that the guy worked for 6 different departments... Another red flag...

    Comment


    • #3
      On the first:

      Working a big hunting county, violations can be pretty rare, or really common, depending on the motivation level of the 'squirrel sheriff'. He committed the violations, no doubt. But not necessarily a complete career ender, just shows that he's had some less than stellar conduct in his past. Generally speaking, it's typically departmental policy to terminate members who commit violations while employed. However, and it varies from state to state and agency to agency, departments will hire employees with a spot or two in their past, so long as they're not larceny or violent offenses. Some agencies have higher standards than others, but thems the breaks when you have an opening for a job that could advertise "Mediocre Pay, Crappy Hours, Likely to be Sued no matter what, and Life Threatening Danger". In recent years the badge has dipped below Zero into the "Negative Allure and Negative Respect" department for those who would otherwise be the cream of the crop. I wouldn't hold that one lapse in judgement against him permanently any more than I'd hold a speeding ticket against a truck driver.

      The other.......eeh.....yeah....about that.
      Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

        Roland on the other hand strikes me as a potentially dangerous nut bag. I've seen his type. The one who thinks he's really Rambo.
        That he declined to give details about multiple incidents is a red flag for me.
        Another indication of Rambo syndrome.
        Then there's that the guy worked for 6 different departments... Another red flag...
        We appear to be dealing with another of this breed of cop here in Michigan. He was a regular on a gun forum that I frequent and whenever someone would post a link to a bad cop, he would always defend him, no matter what. Then he disappeared and someone found this link. An earlier article stated that the woman was so drunk that she was incoherent, had trouble talking and standing, and pissed her pants. He also had worked for at least 3 departments (all very small) within the last few years.
        http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/...e_officer.html

        It kind of reminds me of the Catholic church pedophile scandal. It isn't just the bad cops themselves, but those who protect them and don't prevent them from getting a job somewhere else.

        Comment


        • #5
          That was my take also, to many red flags on Roland, my concern about Woods is
          1. just how much influence Roland may have had on him.
          2. If the department is so lax they hired Roland, just how much training and supervision is offered to officers.
          From what background we have on Yantis, the rancher that was killed, it is possible ( I hate to put a deadman on trial ) that he did not have a good relationship with local authorities to begin with. His had alcohol in his system though not enough in this state to qualify as intoxicated. He was well liked by many, but rumors are he was also a antagonistic person.
          It will be interesting to see how this case proceeds.
          Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by johns624 View Post

            It kind of reminds me of the Catholic church pedophile scandal. It isn't just the bad cops themselves, but those who protect them and don't prevent them from getting a job somewhere else.
            Unless the cop has some buddies (or some dirt) relatively high up, they normally don't get defended more vigorously than "We'll see". No one hates dirty or bad cops more than cops.....and trust me, we have our own 'lists' of cops that we don't want showing up on our scenes......even though they've not done anything 'wrong'.....we have higher standards on the street than the department itself.

            As for preventing them from getting a job, it's a bit more complex than that. Thanks to our wonderful Litigious society, gone are the days where a chief can call a chief and ask 'would you hire him' and get a straight answer. Background investigators get access to personnel and training files, and keep a copy of them in their records as well....but if that cop has managed to skirt getting pink papered, then things won't show.
            Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

            Comment


            • #7
              I was told by someone that as long as they resign, instead of being fired, there's not much that can be done. I think that's the problem, people need to be fired.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
                Unless the cop has some buddies (or some dirt) relatively high up, they normally don't get defended more vigorously than "We'll see". No one hates dirty or bad cops more than cops.....and trust me, we have our own 'lists' of cops that we don't want showing up on our scenes......even though they've not done anything 'wrong'.....we have higher standards on the street than the department itself.

                As for preventing them from getting a job, it's a bit more complex than that. Thanks to our wonderful Litigious society, gone are the days where a chief can call a chief and ask 'would you hire him' and get a straight answer. Background investigators get access to personnel and training files, and keep a copy of them in their records as well....but if that cop has managed to skirt getting pink papered, then things won't show.
                I agree TC, but the situation in McCall and Adams County is another part of the puzzle. There has been scandal after scandal in the city managers office and the PD, in the past few years there has been multiple law suits and investigations by the AG office, out of court settlements. The problem as always is money.
                McCall is a tourist town with a lot of wealthy part time citizens, the county however is struggling. The school district has been riddled with many problems also, the hiring standards are low as are the salaries.
                Add to everything else a problem with meth and continuous fighting between the mayor, city manager, and county officials, it's a real ugly mess.
                Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by johns624 View Post
                  I was told by someone that as long as they resign, instead of being fired, there's not much that can be done. I think that's the problem, people need to be fired.
                  This is one of the huge problems that is leading to the negative relationships for police with the public. I don't feel like digging up all the articles to back up my example that happened locally a few years ago. Long story short, Cop gets pissy and tassers the living crap out of a retired schoolteacher in the back of the cruiser. Cop then gets told he will be fired in 3 days time. He then resigns, so he has a "clean" record and gets a job 2 counties over.

                  As far as UH's stuff in the OP. Officer #1 seems to have given a false statement in the poaching incident, a bit of a red flag there. Maybe not a career ender but in my mind would warrant some monitoring and probably partnering up with a trusted individual in the department if they roll in pairs. #2 doesn't sound like he is of the state of mind to be a Mall Cop much less a real one and others have covered that well enough.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by johns624 View Post
                    I was told by someone that as long as they resign, instead of being fired, there's not much that can be done. I think that's the problem, people need to be fired.
                    It changes the dynamic slightly, but it doesn't stop paperwork from being put in their file.

                    As for Big Dog's variant.....it's normally not that blatant. For the most part people know that there's something to the complaint, and they resign before an investigation can be started. There are actually reasons to do so....since right now I have reduced rights (Garrity Rights), but if I resign I have 5th Amendment and Miranda Rights.

                    Yep, for the privilege of doing the job, I sign over a not insubstantial reduction in my Constitutional and Labor rights.

                    Plus there are two other things in play. 1) If you're terminated, there's always the chance that you file a Wrongful Termination suit. Normally there are enough lawyers with axes to grind to make it at least go to settlement, and the government likes to avoid paying out settlements. 2) If you resign you have very reduced rights to sue, AND you're not eligible for unemployment.....
                    Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Tac maybe that is the way it is up NC way. Down here in Alabama and Georgia, the scenario I used gets played out far too many times. And they do not resign before or during the investigation, it is afterwards when they are given notification that they will be fired. This "notification" gives them a window to resign without having been fired. As far as Unemployment all of the individuals find some podunk county to land with usually with in less than a month. Sadly before the year is out I am sure I will have a fresh example to use.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        First guy did somthing stupid. Second guy looks like bad news.
                        you think you a real "bleep" solders you "bleep" plastic solders don't wory i will make you in to real "bleep" solders!! "bleep" plastic solders

                        CPO Mzinyati

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by BigDog View Post
                          This is one of the huge problems that is leading to the negative relationships for police with the public. I don't feel like digging up all the articles to back up my example that happened locally a few years ago. Long story short, Cop gets pissy and tassers the living crap out of a retired schoolteacher in the back of the cruiser. Cop then gets told he will be fired in 3 days time. He then resigns, so he has a "clean" record and gets a job 2 counties over.

                          Its mostly due to Garrity v. New Jersey ..Which is good law..but just like ALL laws it protects the bad along with the good. LEO have a separate Bill of rights enacted in most states because of getting railroaded in the past with anonymous false allegations and a inner good ole boy mentality...

                          For your reading pleasure..



                          Law enforcement officers, except when on duty or acting in an official capacity, have the right to engage in political activity or run for elective office.
                          Law enforcement officers shall, if disciplinary action is expected, be notified of the investigation, the nature of the alleged violation, and be notified of the outcome of the investigation and the recommendations made to superiors by the investigators.
                          Questioning of a law enforcement officer should be conducted for a reasonable length of time and preferably while the officer is on duty unless exigent circumstances apply.
                          Questioning of the law enforcement officer should take place at the offices of those conducting the investigation or at the place where the officer reports to work, unless the officer consents to another location.
                          Law enforcement officers will be questioned by a single investigator, and he or she shall be informed of the name, rank, and command of the officer conducting the investigation.
                          Law enforcement officers under investigation are entitled to have counsel or any other individual of their choice present at the interrogation.
                          Law enforcement officers cannot be threatened, harassed, or promised rewards to induce the answering of any question.
                          Law enforcement officers are entitled to a hearing, with notification in advance of the date, access to transcripts, and other relevant documents and evidence generated by the hearing and to representation by counsel or another non-attorney representative at the hearing.
                          Law enforcement officers shall have the opportunity to comment in writing on any adverse materials placed in his or her personnel file.
                          Law enforcement officers cannot be subject to retaliation for the exercise of these or any other rights under Federal, or State.

                          As of April 2015, the following U.S. states have enacted legislation to codify their own variations of a Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights:[1]

                          California
                          Delaware
                          Florida
                          Illinois
                          Kentucky
                          Louisiana
                          Maryland
                          Minnesota
                          Nevada
                          New Mexico
                          Rhode Island
                          Virginia
                          West Virginia
                          Wisconsin

                          * Emphasis mine..

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            And none of that has a dang thing to do what I am talking about. This AFTER all the investigation and all that. Instead of "You are fired" it is we are going to fire you in a week or 3 days or some window that allows the officer time to resign and keep a clean work record. Like I said it happens often enough, that I am sure I can post an example. These are also individuals that no sane officer would want to stay in Law Enforcement either, like it or not yall do represent your profession.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by BigDog View Post
                              And none of that has a dang thing to do what I am talking about. This AFTER all the investigation and all that. Instead of "You are fired" it is we are going to fire you in a week or 3 days or some window that allows the officer time to resign and keep a clean work record. Like I said it happens often enough, that I am sure I can post an example. These are also individuals that no sane officer would want to stay in Law Enforcement either, like it or not yall do represent your profession.
                              First off, it "Doesn't keep his record clean.." Record follows you...There is an administrative entity in your state (Florida is The Florida Department of Law Enforcement) that keeps tabs on your employment, license and training..As there is a minimum mandatory amount of training you must do to keep your license..(or Certification)..They MUST report your resignation to that entity. "RESIGNED BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION TAKEN" .For all hiring agencies to see to use or not......If your accused actions were egregious enough, your license will be revoked ANYWAY...Anything else you are drinking the kool-aide...
                              and this..

                              "Law enforcement officers are entitled to a hearing, with notification in advance of the date, access to transcripts, and other relevant documents and evidence generated by the hearing and to representation by counsel or another non-attorney representative at the hearing."

                              has everything to do with what you are talking about....as the proposed disciplinary action is INCLUDED....

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X