Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Welcome to Hardeeville This Week. This is a dynamic and exciting blog site that allows freedom of speech unlike many other blog sites. Please enjoy and remember, topics must be Hardeeville, South Carolina related.
Justice
Dan Martin's go to guy.
Shane Haynes
Rodney Cannon
Brooks Willis
Bea Jones
Bill Horton
Earl Cooler
Dan "Intern Chief" Martin
Hot Blogs & Links
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(24)
-
▼
February
(10)
- More Dan Martin memos of interest.
- Brooks Willis' city phone listed on Realty web site.
- Teaser for FastFrame scam.
- Another interesting article.
- Deleted Bluffton Today post!
- Memo suggesting firing of officers.
- Who will replace Rodney Cannon?
- Another memo from the "acting" Chief Dan Martin.
- Picture of Brooks Willis' city phone number on sign.
- Audio of Shane's meeting with the Police Dept.
-
▼
February
(10)
57 comments:
okay, I think we all get the point that the LT should check out the spell check function on his computer...
You've beaten this point to death, you can keep kicking the dead horse, but it ain't gonna budge...
The more serious issues please
To theunexpectedbill, it's more about the content of the memo than it is about the LT's spelling. The first memo was put out after Shane's meeting with the employees, barring them from City Hall. The second memo is dealing with revenue and the officers writing more tickets. We are aware of the dead horse issue, but we have to work with the memos in the form that we receive them.
Lt. Martin, let's talk about immoral, unethical and illegal. What you did on Friday, February 16, 2007, falls under all of these categories. Details coming soon!
Ditto Shadow.
I think if we look past the langauge and spelling errors, we can be greatly concerned about the lack of emphasis on community patrols, drug busts or keeping the peace.
It quite clearly states that the emphasis needs to be on traffic enforcement. A safer, slower I-95 does not mean a safer H'ville.
I am ashamed that this isn't causing more uproar amongst us.
But I am not surprised Seab hasn't blogged. He is yet to answer my question about why Shane needs two DVD players in the rear of his monster truck. So I don't suppose he will post here when he quite clearly will have to bow to the facts.
shadow -
Understood about the memo regarding the tickets.... It should be understood that the other issue in the memo was about officers hanging out in the office, instead of being out on the street working... I don't agree with the notion that they should be out writing tickets, just that instead of being in the office...
The memo regarding town hall - to me it seems that he's telling the officers to not hang out at town hall, maybe it's a way of keeping them from getting into the mess 'up' there.. I dunno, my jury is still out on this one. I remember a time when a certain officer would hang out at town hall and the office and do little or no work, just politicking (sp?) and I'm not referring to the LT...
anyhoo, jury still out in deliberations...
The only thing to say about Hardeeville today is that the weather is amazing!
Ignorance is bliss.
Yes, fake Wiley Coyote, sometimes it is!
ALL OF THIS ASIDE:
Is anyone intending to attend the poker run in H'ville tomorrow? After all it is for Mark..
I hope that all will be willing to put aside any differences for a one day celebration of the life of a good man, cop, and friend..
Yes!
I will be there somewhere and I agree with your comment. Well said!
Will you be there fake seabee? Ya' know, just 'cause one of your relatives was in doesn't mean you are. Try joining and earning the title before you start calling yourself one.
Fake Wiley Coyote? You mean there is another? I guess when you work for BT, (Biased Today), you know things like that. Seems like I saw the name on a message from you to Shane a while back along with the identities of everyone else blogging on that site who were associated with hardeeville. BTW, manyvictims is right. A person such as yourself insults the entire branch when you call yourself a seabee. I really doubt you have ever had what it takes to become one. Now howzabout responding to some issues here. I guess maybe David Tedder might have told you to stay off of here like he did Shane, (Coach).
Careful now. It seems to me that this is just what seab tries to do everytime. Send the topic at hand or any issues off in another direction by making idiotic statements about the weather or something. Best bet is to just ignore it and wait until he, (or anyone else), actually responds to the real issues.
You guys just do not let up. I am not a public official, elected or otherwise.
The event for Officer Jones was wonderful and I am glad that the weather was so perfect for the bike ride.
I didn't say you're a public official. I said you're one of Shane's puppets who happens to "work" at BT.
Nope! Not even close!
IF YOU WANT TO KNOW THE REAL TRUTH LOOK HERE...
http://truthandjusticeinhardeev.spaces.live.com/
Seab,
How could you accept that blog without "real proof?" You appear sure of its veracity.
You are only being inconsistent in your behavior based on one of two things, in my opinion.
1. That you know who wrote it or wrote it yourself and espouse the details of it.
2. Or you desperately want it to be true even though a fair amount of it agrees with comments posted on this site.
Curious.
Wow Seab!! Great find!! That site has it all!! The only thing this site has is recordings, documents, photos and testimonials from people who were actually at these incidents and meetings. But that new site you "found" has everything from opinion to....opinion. Kinda funny how you're so quick to say everything on this site is heresay, but yet you believe anything you read elsewhere. BTW, that medication excuse for the mayor's drunk driving is pathetic. In fact, I believe DUI means "under the influence" which means that he could've, (and should've), been arrested and prosecuted for driving while taking any medications just the same as alcohol.
I noticed in one part of that other site where it says...
"The police department has NEVER had a ticket quota. To say this is to lie."
So supervisors demanding that each officer get 10 tickets per shift is NOT a quota? Guess my definition is different.
Another section...
"You can't just hire people based on "I want my buddy working here"
Well at this very moment hardeeville has an officer on the streets who was hired because he was a buddy of a buddy of the lieutenants. In fact, I believe they may have gone to the same high school.
And best of all...
"There is nothing being done behind closed doors."
Guess that explains the executive session filibusters and the ORDERS by Shane Haynes for everyone to keep their mouth shut and not say a word about anything to anyone. I guess that doesn't sound like something being done behind closed doors does it?
Also...
"People in the department who wanted to oust the Chief because THEY knew that THEY could run the police Department better, and used subversive means to try to get rid of the Chief. Some of those people were gotten rid of. Others remained."
This is obviously talking about the lieutenant which is one of the main gripes on THIS site! Why does he remain? And the line about, "It's all about power plays and gossip, and none of it has anything to do with proper police work" is absolutely true. Shane and the rest of council are power/money hungry mongers and as for police work...How can Shane come into hardeeville with a degree in public administration and within 6 years know how to run a police department better than a POLICE CHIEF who has dedicated 27 years to that city? I never saw Jimmy up at city hall trying to tell Shane how many DVD players he should have the citizens buy for his vehicle.
I hate to say it seab, but most of your site only seems to reiterate and confirm most everything on THIS site. Then again, it all sounds like a bunch of heresay to me!! LOL! Maybe if you posted some pictures of the mayor's prescription bottles or something...
It would be difficult for me to post anything on that site, it isn't mine. That link was sent to me in an email. I simply thought that you might be interested.
Mayor's prescription bottles? I do think that might be against the right to privacy act. LOL
Once again responding to ONE point and ignoring all the rest. In fact, the prescription bottle thing was a sarcastic jab at how you seem to ignore all the proof on this site, but yet are so quick to believe some petty excuse offered on another. How about responding to the closed door meetings statement, the ticket quota statement, the "my buddy wants a job" statement, the DUI with prescription medication statement or any one of the statements posted by all these people here? Why do you ignore things like that and try to brush them off as heresay? You said, "IF YOU WANT TO KNOW THE REAL TRUTH LOOK HERE" which tells me that you believe everything posted on that site to be absolutely true without the slightest bit of proof whatsoever. Yet here, you brush things off as heresay even with TONS of hard evidence staring right at you. You shown yourself to be truely biased now so maybe you should stay on that other site from now on and 'celebrate hardeeville' by keeping your head buried in the sand.
talk about OPINIONs?!! Where are the facts, or atleast documented anything on that site? How does one take any of that for anything less than personal opinion without atleast one document?
I know, I know, it's all rhetorical...
Just when I thought Dan couldn't get anymore stupid he proves me wrong. Dan when did you move to 50 Pebble Beach Cove Apt# M120 ? Are you really that stupid to go change your address on your license to that of another officer. Yep you are!
I heard about that as well. I guess him, his wife, his two kids and all their pets moved into that small apartment where 1 or 2 officers already live, huh?. Wait a minute...This is Dan we're talking about. Lying to the state government on a DMV form is child's play to him! Hell, he's been lying to SLED for years about where he lives! Did anyone really think another lie was beyond his capabilities? Sad thing is that the city will let him do such things without fear of any consequences whatsoever. Why? Liars, cheats and thieves enjoy one another's company. In case anyone is interested, you can still find his patrol vehicle, along with him and the rest of his family, living right there in Rincon Georgia. And a great big "shame on you" to the officer/s allowing him to use their address. I've heard of brown nosing before but this takes the cake.
While some of these blogs may be true and some may be opinion, they are very informative. However what disturbs me the most is that this is a public website and if in fact an officer does reside at the address that is specified in the earlier blog, then why would you want the general public to have this information? Don't you think that this would put this officer, (if this officer actually resides at this address), in harms way? If you are or were an officer, as I believe that most of you are, then would you want your personal information put out there like that? What if something were to happen to this officer or his/her family if he/she has any residing with him/her, by the wrong element? Would you be able to live with yourselves knowing that you put this address on this site for all to see? Just curious.
Oh and one more thing. Abe, you said "And a great big "shame on you" to the officer/s allowing him to use their address." Well I think that while most of you,including administrator1 are intelligent individuals. I say shame on Pop 50 for putting the address on the site, and shame on adminstrator1 for allowing it to be posted. Obviously someone's personal vendetta for one indivdual has clouded others judgement for another's safety and privacy.
Pop-50, initially I was wondering why you didn't just put a street name, but then, someone like Seab would have had to scold you and say it was another lie, etc...
and the part about "shame on you" to the officer(s) allowing him to use their address.... this is what I meant before when I said that these were grown MEN being paid to make grown MEN decisions... don't blame it all on Dan, these other guys are accountable too... and YES they do KNOW better...
Don't blame it on leadership, this comes down to a matter of personal decision-making.
So all these years that he's been living in Georgia, which state has he been filing his income taxes in? Don't tell me he's been filing in GA and SC both. I think there's a word for that...evasion! The IRS would probably be very interested in that. And unexpectedbill is right. Anyone at that department that sees these things happening and just looks the other way is guilty as hell in my book. That one that got up and left during Shane's bible school meeting was the ONLY one with any cojones.
Well yet again the evasion of why the address was put on the site to begin with. The only focus is on him using the address. How do you know that the officer/s even knew about the address being used? Do you have any proof of that? If this is a proof site as you call it..and in most cases I see you have proof...then where is the proof of this?
Furthermore, How could it be evasion on taxes? There is nothing wrong with living in one state and filing in another. You still have to file in the state that you live in, but all you have to do is put that you did not earn any income in that state. I know some people that live in SC and work in GA and that is what do.
As far as the one that got up and left the department after the meeting having the only cojones. Well maybe he/she didn't have to worry about a paycheck or taking care of a family. Maybe the ones that stayed had to for their families sake. Realistically who is going to pay their bills, or feed their kids? You Wiley? Maybe you should continue working on the issues that have been put on this site as opposed to judging personal decisions made by others. Just a suggestion.
I'm not "evading" why the address was put on the site because I didn't put it there. That question can only be answered by Pop-50. As for the tax thing, it was just a theory I had which evidently might have been wrong. I also know several people that live in one state and work in another and there's nothing wrong with that. The problem with the lieutenant is that he has been claiming residency in SC with SLED in order to remain working as a police officer but yet has been living in Georgia the whole time. If he has been using a SC address as his primary residence on paper then my question is has he been paying property taxes on that property that he has been claiming to live at? If not, then it should be a pretty easy was for SLED to determine whether or not he really has been living in this state through the years. Granted, that has nothing to do with tax evasion, really, but it is a valid point. As far as "judging personal decisions made by others", aren't you doing the same when you try to legitimize all the remaining officers "personal decisions" to stay there? Everyone that has been on this site since the beginning has been having their questions evaded time and time again along with the media so please don't come in here with 2 or 3 posts on a "lesser" offense and get all snide accusing people of "evading" one of your questions.
Well let me just say Wiley, not that I want to get into a battle of wits with you, but if the lieutenant is supposedly holding an address in SC, didn't POP 50 say it was an apartment? Therefore it would mean he wouldn't have to pay property taxes...hmm. Furthermore if you did some digging like I have then you would find that he did have a residence in SC and was paying property tax on that address. But what is there to gain by slinging mud on another. If you think his actions are so terrible and obviously there is definitely a heart on for him, then why is he still at Hardeeville?
As far as your claim for legitimizing others decisions to stay. I don't need to nor have I. I simply stated that they shoudn't be judged. Me "legitimizing" their decisions is not judging them, it's simply acknowledging the fact that they chose on their own accord and were not influenced by another's actions. Pretty stand up if yuo ask me. But if you really are that inquisitive about why they stayed, then why not go to them personally and ask them. Maybe that could be the topic of your next blog. Because frankly, I have been following this for a while and it seems that your complaints about the lieutenant have gone unheard by those who employ him. So really what is the purpose of putting the truth out there? Will it really do any good?
Believe me I was not being snide in relation to the evasion of the question. But apparently that is common practice on this site. Realistically what is your goal? Is it to have the lieutenant removed? If so will that make you feel like you have big cojones? It appears like you use this site to feel more of a person than you are by bashing and judging another.
Be careful Wiley when karma comes knocking cause you may need to turn into the roadrunner!
If you weren't judging when you said that you were "acknowledging the fact that they chose on their own accord and were not influenced by another's actions", then how was I "judging" when I questioned why they would let him use their address? Seems to me that was a decision the made on their own accord without being influenced by another's actions.
All that aside, I, (as well as most everyone here), DO want the lieutenant removed for all the immoral, illegal and unethical behavior he has been getting away with for so long. What's wrong with wanting a dirty cop off the street? It certainly won't make me feel as if I have "big cojones", but it will make me feel as if justice has been served and perhaps that city really is trying to better itself. As for karma, I don't really believe in such things but if it does exist then the lieutenant has got some heavy sh*t headed his way.
As for the lieutenant having a residence in SC, if you're talking about Carroll street he sold that property quite some time ago but continued using the address for any "official" paperwork that might have had the possibility of making it to SLED.
All that mess aside, it all comes down to the plain and simple fact that he has been employed as a police officer here for a number of years while residing outside of the state. Something that neither the state of South Carolina nor the city of hardeeville allow if you want to practice law enforcement here. Even when he did own the residence on Carroll street he was still living in Georgia for the majority of that time.
First of all I never said you were judging when you commented about the address. I said you shouldn't judge the officer's that chose to stay. You said that the only one that left had cojones. To me that's judging. Me "acknowledging" or "legitimzing" have nothing to with judging. I'm sure that you can look these up in the dictionary and confirm that for yourself. If you ask me the officer's that did stay have big cojones to try and stick it out to see if things get better.
Now if you want to talk about sc law as far as the having a license goes. Well the law states that you must possess a south carolina driver's license. Does not state that you have to reside at that address. Even the Hardeeville website states that you have to possess a valid sc driver's license. I know of people, including one police officer that uses another's address so that they can send their kids to a better school. Same principal different scale. If there's nothing wrong with that then what is so bad about this? Seems to me that the other complaints have not had any effect, so now others are reaching. I guess if you have nothing better to do then to try and ruin someone for personal reasons, it shows what type of character some people have. Seems to me that the city would know where he actually lives by now. If they don't have an issue with it then what can really be done? Seems like everyone here keeps trying and trying and have not succeeded, so now try something petty.
Wiley said: "What's wrong with wanting a dirty cop off the street?"
While I generally agree with the things posted on this site, because I've been there done that, I have to disagree with you and/or anyone else who suggests that Lt/Dan Martin is a dirty cop. The man may not always act accordingly, and sure a lot of the things he's accused of is immoral and some things possibly illegal, (note: I have NEVER witnessed any illegal activities committed by Lt/Dan Martin) the guy is human.
I don't know what your connection is with him or why the vendetta, but I do believe you go over the line when you reduce it to calling him a 'dirty cop'.
I will say that I generally enjoy reading your comments. On this occasion, you go tooooo far. I understand it's your opinion, but please consider what you're saying/typing and in the context you use it.....
Searching houses without a search warrant, racist comments on hirings, violating city policy and SC law on multiple occassions and targeting other officers, (including your own chief), for termination all seem like dirty practices to me, but maybe Wiley could've found a different description for it. Just my opinion. Then again, if it looks like a duck...
As far as the address issue goes, freetospeak is correct that the law states you must have a SC drivers license but goes on to say that it does not state that you have to reside at that address. I may be wrong on this, but in order to get a SC drivers license don't you have to establish residency here? Plus the fact that I've known people in the past who have gotten tickets for not changing their address on their license to wherever they actually live within 30 days of moving. Doesn't that mean that the state is saying that they MUST reside there? I may be wrong on the 30 days but I think the rest is correct.
If he is using another officers address as his own in order to still live in Georgia then that is wrong, plain and simple. If any of those other officers suddenly found a new home they wanted to move to out of state do you really think city hall would allow them to do so or have a take home car? I doubt it. I'm not sure about what the DMV makes you sign to get a drivers license, but there's probably some kind of form you have to sign stating that you declare yourself to be residing at the address you listed.
This is a SC law listed at the DMV...
"If you have a valid driver’s license issued by the state from which you moved, you can use it for 90 days, after which time you must surrender it and obtain a South Carolina driver license."
And this next one is a GA law listed at their DMV...
If you have moved to Georgia from another state and need to transfer your license, you must do so within 30 days. Present the following documentation to your local driver's license office:
Provide proof of Georgia residency (current utility bill, rental receipt, bank statement, or letter from employer―current within 45 days).
Be 18 years or older.
Provide your Social Security number.
Surrender your out-of-state license.
So if the lieutenant is living in Georgia he is NOT allowed to have their license plus an out of state license. If he is living in South Carolina he is NOT allowed to have their license plus an out of state license. You also have 45 days in SC to transfer your car tags to this state but Georgia requires you to have THEIR tags if you live there. So how does that work?
Does any of this matter anyway? SLED statute 23-23-60 states that to practice law in this state you must provide...
"b) evidence satisfactory to the director that the candidate holds a valid current state driver's license with no record during the previous five years for suspension of driver's license as a result of driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages or dangerous drugs, driving while impaired (or the equivalent), reckless homicide, involuntary manslaughter, or leaving the scene of an accident. Candidates for certification as state or local correctional officers may hold a valid current driver's license issued by any jurisdiction of the United States;"
Just curious.
I do agree with you unexpectedbill in regards to the use of the dirty cop. I'm sure that there are other officer's that have done things that were, maybe out of character or have done something wrong. But that's only cause we are all human, we make mistakes. As far as what abe says about searching houses illegally and racist comments on hiring. If these are true then where is the proof of this. To me if these events occurred, then why is it that they haven't been reported? You provide proof of other things that I have seen on this site, but your remarks there are new to me and as far as I can see, only words. Besides I'm sure that you know people or officer's that still use racial terms when talking to their buddies. If it's good for them...
As far as the license info you obtained. You are correct. Georgia does require you to have a georgia license if you reside there. However there is an exception. Military for one, obviously doesn't apply here but I will explain. Being that he is a police officer in another state, he can still possess his license for that state and not have to acquire a Goergia license. This due to the fact that his state law requires him to have one. They will overlook that and he would be placed into the military exception rule. If he were to be stopped by a GA police officer, they wouldn't enforce it anyway, I believe it's called the common curtousey rule that police officer's have between them? Any way there are other police officer's that live in SC and work in GA that still possess a GA license. They just chose to live here because it's better for their family, school, area, etc.
As far as the license plate issue goes. Well dosn't the city administrator drive a vehicle with govt. tags to a residence in GA? Once again if it's good for one... Besides GA can't force them to acquire GA tags on a vehicle that is used for a police dept. This would pertain to the city vehicle he uses of course.
But then I have the million dollar question. How would someone have gotten the address that he is allegedly using? Did someone use their POLICE POWERS to obtain this information by requesting a driver's license check? Maybe they should review the NCIC laws. It clearly states that if anyone uses this for personal reasons, then they are to be fined $50,000 and 10 years in prison. There is a record of who requests these inquiries that is kept in a data base and each year it is audited. You claim he's doing something illegal but looks to me like this person lives in a glass house as well....I don't know about you but no personal vendetta is worth $50,000 and 10 years in prison.
The Georgia DMV says...
"375-2-2-.13 Servicemen. Amended.
(a) The thirty (30) day grace period does not apply to nonresident military personnel. (b) Non-resident military personnel may operate their motor vehicles provided the vehicle bears a current and valid license plate issued by the state of residence"
It says nothing about police officers because, quite frankly, it shouldn't. Cops aren't military. Where is this Georgia "military exemption rule" that says he would be exempt? Plus, we aren't dealing with Georgia DMV law, but SC laws of being a police officer in THIS state. I brought up the whole Georgia DMV rules because I was curious at how he could hold a license for two states when neither of them allows you to do so. As far as "professional courtesy", I know plenty of cops who've gotten tickets in other states and even this state. That "rule" doesn't always work. Anyway, if he was given "professional courtesy" then that would have to mean that there was clearly a violation that they were willing to overlook so even you must be able to see that there is obviously an infraction occurring here.
Yes, the city administrator does indeed drive his city vehicle, (complete with 3 installed DVD players), to his home in Georgia. When I referred to this law I wasn't talking about city vehicles, I was talking about the lieutenant's personal vehicles. If he has established residency here then SC law clearly states that you have 45 days to transfer your out of state vehicle registration to South Carolina while Georgia has a similar law saying pretty much the same thing about living there.
What's all this fuss about? Shane told everyone point blank what was about to go down when he said, "Team Me"!!
Evidently this meant...
Who gets a HUGE pay raise? ME!!
Who gets a decked out city vehicle at the taxpayers' expense? ME!!
Who gets to run a police department into the ground destroying several careers in the process? ME!!
Who gets to milk the city budget for comp time? ME!!
Who gets to build a new building which will ultimately send the city spiraling towards bankruptcy? ME!!
abr froman said: "Searching houses without a search warrant, racist comments on hirings, violating city policy and SC law on multiple occassions and targeting other officers, (including your own chief), for termination all seem like dirty practices to me,"
Repeating free2speak: where is there any evidence of such things as searching a house without a search warrant? BTW, a search of a house CAN be done without a warrant under the right circumstances (see: probable cause, and consentual searches).. I may not agree with the man, but I refuse to believe that.
"Violating city policy"? I'd like to see proof of ANY city policy, and not the EO policy or the Workmens Comp policy that is posted in just about every business. Violating city policy doesn't constitute breaking a law.
The other things you cited such as racist comments, targetting other officers... I never knew him to use racist remarks, but then again, you never really KNOW a person.
These other remarks, welllllll I've worked in a couple of Departments and I've seen it before. It's not to be condoned, but it does happen, and not just at HPD. A retired Police Captain 5 yrs ago once told me that it's the nature of the beast, either be swallowed by the beast or ride the beast. I chose to sidestep the beast and attempt thrusts into the abdomen myself.
'Dirty cop' in my opinion entails more than what was posted. Everybody is guilty of something sometimes, but Dan Martin is no dirty cop...
Okay abe, we can go round and round about this but I never said that it actually stated this in the amended serviceman section. I am very aware of what it says. All I referenced is that they would not require him to obtain a license in that state because of his state's requirement of having a license to be employed there. So technically he would fall under this section. I have known other officer's that have had been told this by the DMV in GA. Regardless you then mention that he would have to change his vehicle tags to South Carolina being that he has residency here. Well not if he parks his vehicles in GA. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. If he still lives in GA how can he have SC plates. Once again I guess it's a matter of interpretation. The law states that if you are going to reside here and operate your vehicles here then you must acquire valid state tags.
As far as the professional courtesy goes. I'm not saying that they would let him go on the fact that his license wasn't correct. Realistically how would they know that it's not? The only way they could is if they ran it and it came back with a different address then what is shown. But if they don't know that he lives in GA then how could they issue a citation for not acquiring a GA license. Besides I've been pulled over before and asked if my address was correct. In fact it was not and I told the officer this, but did not receive a ticket for this. Too me that would be a petty citation for an officer to write, because I'm sure that if the license was changed by the court date it would be dismissed.
Unexpectedbill, I agree with you. I don't see anywhere that would prove the claim of him being a dirt cop. I think that comment went way too far. And yes you can search a residence under the right circumstances. Unless there is proof of him doing so, then those comments are pointless.
freetospeak... When did we start using NCIC for drivers license records?!? Learn more about what your speaking before you speak. Also Dan has let it be known. Dan you don't have any friends, everything you say gets back here. figure it out!
Racist comments - "We've already got enough of 'those'." This would always be in reference to any minority applicants.
Violating city policy - Taking HUGE comp time payouts almost immediately after a city wide meeting in which EVERY city employee was told that it was now in violation to do so.
Breaking SC law - DUI, public drunk and disorderly conduct on multiple roadways and restaurants.
Warrantless searches - While working narcotics he entered a home without permission because he "thought" he saw a wanted subject running into a back room. Afterward, by his own admission at the preliminary hearing, "EVERY subject in the room was handcuffed and then we did a 'protective sweep' of the house." During this "protective sweep" a handgun was found by the lieutenant stuck back between a wall and the refrigerator in the kitchen in a 3 to 5 inch space. Then again, maybe someone could've been hiding back there but I don't think Karen Carpenter could've even pulled that one off. During the hearing the lieutenant even said that he "shined his flashlight in that space which is when he saw the gun" so it WAS NOT a plain view circumstance.
Questions comes to mind with your last post:
Were you there during this event you described as a warrantless search?
Or, were you there just in the courtroom listening to testimony?
Did the conviction stand or was it thrown out?
If you were part of this, did you take your concerns up the chain?
I believe these are legitimate questions. If I'm being unreasonable please say so.
"The plain view doctrine allows an officer to seize without a warrant, evidence and contraband found in plain view during a lawful observation. In order for the officer to seize the item, the officer must have probable cause to believe the item is evidence of a crime or is contraband. The police may not move objects to get a better view."
"In Horton v. California 496 U.S. 128 (1990), the court eliminated the requirement that the discovery of evidence in plain view be inadvertent. Previously, "inadvertent discovery" was required leading to difficulties in defining "inadvertent discovery." A three-prong test is now used. The test requires the officer to be "engaged in lawful activity at the time," "the object’s incriminating character was immediately apparent and not concealed," and "the officer had lawful access to the object and it was discovered accidentally."
If he was looking in drawers then I think there would be an issue.
Besides, don't they teach you in the academy that you can check in the immediate area for any weapons? i.e. couch cushions, or anwhere a weapon could be concealed and easily obtained? I know of officer's that do use this tactic when they go on domestics...there was never a legal issue there.
As far as him being in the home because he thought he saw a wanted subject run into a back room. Good Faith Exception.
Wiley,you quote things said by him at the hearing. Sounds to me like you were there. Curious how did the judge rule on this case?
Pop 50, as far as your comment goes. Dan's so called "friends" let it be known that they saw the address on paper that was printed from a license inquiry. However you are right about not using NCIC, so kudos to you there. However I am right about the fine and penalty for personal use of an inquiry. You must have a valid legal reason to request one.
The judge kicked it because it was an ILLEGAL search. He stated that everyone in the room was in handcuffs, so why start looking for guns behind a refrigerator?
As far as fines and punishments, are they pretty stiff on DUI's and things like that as well? Wouldn't really be fair to start complaining about one thing not getting prosecuted and not all the others would it?
The test requires the officer to be "engaged in lawful activity at the time," "the object’s incriminating character was immediately apparent and not concealed," and "the officer had lawful access to the object and it was discovered accidentally."
Well first off, the fact that he was in the house uninvited because he "thought" he saw a wanted person is shaky to say the least, but him shining a flashlight behind a refrigerator while looking for additional suspects certainly doesn't sound like it was "accidentally discovered" to me.
First, the protective sweep of a premises clearly is a search under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.(14) The Buie Court defined the protective sweep as "a quick and LIMITED search of premises, incident to an arrest and conducted to protect police officers or others."
So to clarify, you are talking about "Plainview Doctrine" not a protective sweep...even though plainview comes in to effect to a degree, FREE.
A protective sweep is limited in it's scope and duration.
"We should emphasize that such a protective sweep, aimed at protecting the arresting officers, if justified by the circumstances, is nevertheless not a full search of the premises, but may extend ONLY to a CURSORY inspection of those SPACES WHERE A PERSON may be found. The sweep lasts no longer than is necessary to dispel the reasonable suspicion of danger and in any event no longer than it takes to complete the arrest and depart the premises." 494 U.S. at 334-36.
Cursory means "Performed with haste and scant attention to detail."
So to further clarify for you Free...This means a quick look around for suspects where they could reasonably be hidden.
So this means that the officer should never have been looking in that area, described in Wiley's post, under the described circumstances.
Also, posting text about law doesn't mean you understand it or that you can apply it. Good luck if you have chosen a career in Law Enforcement, you will learn how to do these things in time.
Anybody heard from Seab lately? What's wrong Seab cat got your tongue??
Well administrator, it's great to know that you like a debate. That's what makes this fun! However, you might want to brush up on your U.S. Supreme Court rulings. Maybe reference Chimel V. California for instance.
"The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the conviction stating that the officers could search only the immediate area the person was in and only for items that were an immediate threat for the officers safety. The evidence could not be used as it was an illegal search. There was no search warrant to search Chimel's residence, only an arrest warrant."
"An arresting officer may search only the area "within the immediate control" of the person arrested, meaning the area from which he might gain possession of a WEAPON or destructible evidence. Any other search of the surrounding area requires a search warrant."
This would also be known as the "lunging distance".
I guess it would just boil down to where the subjects were at in conjunction to the weapon.
And yes I have chosen a profession in law enforcment and have been doing it now for a number of years. I have never once lost a case on seizures and trust me I've done plenty. Believe me I do understand it, but thank you for your kind words in regards to my career. You as well.
Understood but the officer in question stated that he was involved in a "protective sweep" not a search incident to arrest.
Two different things.
I'm here, I am just lurking to see what else you guys have. Which is so obviouly NOTHING!
Seab,
If there isn't a major breaking piece of news involving HPD in the next 7 days, I will shut this site down.
Why do I say that? Because, as usual, I know what's going on behind the scenes and you do not.
As I stated once before, some things cannot be listed here until the timing is right. I would never hinder or disrupt any ongoing investigations.
Stay tuned!
Of course, even if arrests were made or judges found them guilty, I am sure it would be "heresay."
Keep trying to force our hand Seab; we are better at this than you.
Hey free2speak why do you protect Dan so much? Do you think he's going to be there long enough to bring you to the top? I don't think so, or maybe he's just helping you pay your rent!? wink,wink
Administrator1...5 days and counting...
Post a Comment