Sheriff Sued by Deputies [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Sheriff Sued by Deputies


fuzzyduck
02-22-2012, 00:08
http://missoulian.com/news/local/in-lawsuit-workers-claim-corruption-in-lake-county-sheriff-s/article_fb0504fc-5d13-11e1-a7b0-0019bb2963f4.html

Patchman
02-22-2012, 00:57
This is an interesting article because nowhere is the FBI mentioned. And the FBI loves LE corruption cases.

The article notes that the plaintiffs did not want to file this suit but did so only after attempting to bring an end to the illegal and corrupt practices of the Lake County Sheriff's Department.

The plaintiffs noted that neither the Lake County Attorney's Office nor the Montana Attorney General, or any other law enforcement agency in Montana has shown any inclination to enforce the law against law enforcement officers in Lake County.


Again, I'm curious why the FBI is not mentioned. They're the go-to guys when it comes to investigating LE corruption.

DaBigBR
02-22-2012, 06:48
One of the claims is particularly interesting...the only plaintiff not currently employed by the SO was the subject of a search warrant. He alleges that his computer was searched illegally because the warrant only authorized them to seize the computer, not to search it. HUH?

Dragoon44
02-22-2012, 07:53
Sounds like a group of sniveling whining malcontents.

Dragoon44
02-22-2012, 09:41
One of the guys suing is the loser in the Sheriff's race. I got ten that says the others are his cronies that were promised high ranking positions if he won.

Zut
02-22-2012, 17:58
This is nothing... a few years back we had one Dekalb County Sheriff candidate shoot another candidate before the election, right in his front yard. I think the victim's wife watched the whole thing. It was unbelievable.

darin2
02-22-2012, 19:32
The person is correct. I handle computer search warrants all the time. If the original warrant only states to seize the computer, then you have to get an additional warrant to search it for evidence. If you included in the original warrant that you wanted to seize and search the computer for evidence (email, pictures, etc) then you would be okay.

One of the claims is particularly interesting...the only plaintiff not currently employed by the SO was the subject of a search warrant. He alleges that his computer was searched illegally because the warrant only authorized them to seize the computer, not to search it. HUH?

Dragoon44
02-22-2012, 20:00
Why bother seizing a computer with a warrant if not for the purpose of searching it for evidence?

DaBigBR
02-22-2012, 20:04
Why bother seizing a computer with a warrant if not for the purpose of searching it for evidence?

That's my point. This is an area where I do not have any experience, so I'm in the dark as to why a warrant would only authorize the seizure of the computer, unless the thought was that the "search" requires a separate warrant because the actual analysis would occur at another location (e.g. the police department).

Bodyarmorguy
02-22-2012, 20:28
Wow, the story is interesting to me on a personal note as I used to work with one of the defendants in the suit at my old agency here in FL.

Pepper45
02-23-2012, 00:41
That's my point. This is an area where I do not have any experience, so I'm in the dark as to why a warrant would only authorize the seizure of the computer, unless the thought was that the "search" requires a separate warrant because the actual analysis would occur at another location (e.g. the police department).
I am by no means an expert. However, I have written a warrant for a computer, and the template I used stated seizure and subsequent search.

scottydl
02-23-2012, 08:59
I'm in the dark as to why a warrant would only authorize the seizure of the computer,

There's no reason for that... I'm guessing it was a lack of proper warrant write-up on the affiant's part. They wrote up the seizure but neglected to specify the search, although they obviously wanted to seize the computers so they could search them. The search language was probably left out either by hurried negligence or ignorance, and now the seizee is taking advantage.

Either way, that SO is not going to be a fun place to work for awhile.

teleblaster
02-23-2012, 11:40
Some agencies have a concern that if a warrant has to be executed within 72 hours, since they cannot get the computer searched within that time frame, it is better practice to seek the second warrant when the examiner is ready to conduct the search.

doktarZues
02-23-2012, 21:37
Sounds like a group of sniveling whining malcontents.

That's jumping pretty far into a conclusion based on the info available in the article, no?

The most disturbing part, malcontent the lot of them or not, is they're claiming they don't get backup assistance? I don't know the politics or associated shenanigans that take place within police departments when you run into a nasty scenario of "office politics," but I think that's about the most dangerous and unprofessional stunt any officer (or worse, group of officers) could do.

Does that kind of stuff really go on? The more I think about it the more I think it probably does, but damn.

Dragoon44
02-23-2012, 21:59
That's jumping pretty far into a conclusion based on the info available in the article, no?

Are we reading the same article?

Note that the Supposed "Illegal" activities" accusations came out during the Sheriff's race.

neither an investigation by fish and game or the BATF resulted in any charges.

And one of the Complaints is about a guy that got in SWAT and it's claimed he misrepresented his his service int he Marines.

So all their Accusations turned out to be "Chicken****" with the possible exception of the business of the hard drive and the search warrant. (Which we do not know the actual details of.)

The most disturbing part, malcontent the lot of them or not, is they're claiming they don't get backup assistance?

The key there is "They are claiming" refer to their other claims which other agencies investigated with no results to support their claims.

fuzzyduck
02-24-2012, 00:45
I did some google work and have found what I believe to be an ongoing investigation of some of the allegations related to the Fish and Game violations. So some or all of it may not be bogus. I found this to be interesting because if some of these are true, this is bad juju for the Sheriffs Office.

Isnt it a crime to represent that you served and did not?

I hope that this gets all cleared up one way or the other.

Bodyarmorguy
02-24-2012, 00:52
Isnt it a crime to represent that you served and did not?


You are likely thinking of the Stolen Valor Act of 2005. I could be wrong and please correct me if so, but I think that the act only applies to persons claiming to have received a particular award such as MOH, Purple Heart, etc. and who seek to benefit from it's exploitation.

It may have been expanding to include any claim of service that did not actually take place.

Dragoon44
02-24-2012, 08:17
I did some google work and have found what I believe to be an ongoing investigation of some of the allegations related to the Fish and Game violations.

According to the story the allegations were made in 2010 during the campaign. it's now 2012.

So some or all of it may not be bogus.

Whether any of them have a grain of truth or not, nobody said anything about them until election time and one of them was running for Sheriff.