Humboldt Supes give blank check to Sheriff

Peace be with you

I pulled Item D-12 and 13 from today’s Supes meeting.

Item D-12 declares those “light bars” on top of the sheriff’s cars “surplus property,” and allows the Sheriff to sell them for a dollar.  I’m not sure  if it is a dollar per light bar, or a dollar for all of them, but the item declares there value at more than $300.

D-13 on the other hand buys new “light bars” for a total of $18,000.  That’s not mentioning the $2,000 Maintenance Structure, the $3,500 Office Expense – Equipment, the 3,500 Shredder, the $13,200 Carpet, the $8,100 Weapon – Less than Lethal, and the two ever perplexing “Special Department Expenses” totaling $74,815.

I could go on about where’s the need for new light bars when our old ones do the job quite well, or how an open and honest sheriff’s department shouldn’t need to shred as many documents as it takes to justify such an expensive shredder, or even how an eight thousand less lethal  weapon* is not good idea in a free society, but really it is the intention of the $63,315, and $11,500 special department expenses that truly scares the shit out of me.  *(I believe less than lethal was a typo, or perhaps newspeak)

After pointing out to the Stupidvisors that the Agenda packet gave no details as to the specifics of the “special department expensive” they voted unanimously to approve the agenda Item.  Being slightly north of center when it comes to logic, I was thinking “OK, the supes must know what it is for, because only an idiot would vote for something they had know idea what was.”   Deciding to ask the supervisors I easily discovered the flaw in my logic – the supes are in fact idiots!

Not one could tell me what either of “special expenses” were.  The two rookie supes Clif Clendenen and Mark Lovelace acted almost ashamed of their ineptitude, while Duffy (supervisor formally known as Geist), Neeley, and Smith pretended they knew what it was for the whole time, but now suffered amnesia.   Duffy claimed something about $43,000 worth of ammunition, and couldn’t remember the rest. Neeley claimed it was itemized in the packet. You can look for yourself to see she was just blowing smoke out her ass.  But, Smith not only didn’t have a clue, but insinuated that because I wouldn’t vote him shit sucker in a sewage plant he was somehow relieved of his obligations to me as my supervisor.

I never did find out what the money was for, but I suspect we would probably riot if we knew.  Seeing how they slipped that “less lethal weapon” in the request, along with Duffy’s ammo slip, and the way that the 15 in $63,315 stands out against the 00 rounding up on the other items in the request, makes me think they have a particular $63,315 item they plan on purchasing.

I could be wrong, but I would hate for another death to find out I’m right.

love eternal
tad

Advertisements

3 Responses to “Humboldt Supes give blank check to Sheriff”

  1. Moviedad Says:

    Same ol’ story: “Oh, don’t worry your pretty little head about the details.”
    Keep up the good work Tad.

  2. fig Says:

    ______________________________________________

    THURSDAY, JAN. 15 (2009)
    _____________________________________
    POLICE TACTICS:
    lying, falsifying, fabricating…………
    ___________________________
    NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER give the cops the
    benefit of the doubt, it just might get you killed !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    We live in a “police state” not some lala land.
    _____________________________________________-

    Supreme Court loosens law on illegal searches
    The high court rules in a 5-4 opinion that evidence from an illegal
    search can be used if a cop makes an innocent mistake.
    By David G. Savage
    THURSDAY, January 15, 2009

    Reporting from Washington — The Supreme Court pulled back on the “exclusionary rule” Wednesday and ruled that evidence from an illegal search can be used if police made an innocent mistake.

    The 5-4 opinion signals that the court is ready to rethink this key rule in criminal law and restrict its reach. It will also give prosecutors and judges nationwide more leeway to make use of evidence that may have been seen as questionable before.

    Obama, Biden make pre-inaugural visit to the Supreme Court
    Supreme Court refuses to clear way for cable companies to help customers copy shows
    Supreme Court might change civil rights law

    Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the guilty should not “go free” just because a computer
    error or a misunderstanding between police officers led to a wrongful arrest or search.

    He said good evidence, even if obtained in a bad search, can be
    used against a suspect unless the police deliberately
    or recklessly violated his rights.

    The exclusionary rule was applied to
    state and local police in 1961, and its aim was to deter [cops]
    from conducting unconstitutional searches of homes, cars
    and pedestrians. Usually, it means that illegally seized
    evidence must be excluded.
    _____________________________________________________________
    But in Wednesday’s opinion, Roberts said that “the benefits
    . . . must outweigh the costs.” And there is nothing to
    be gained, he said, by throwing out evidence when [cops]
    make honest mistakes.???????????????????????
    [cops making honest mistakes ??
    HAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA !!!!!]

    The ruling upheld the drug and gun charges against an Alabama
    man who was stopped by a sheriff’s department [cop] who had
    been told — erroneously — there was an outstanding warrant
    for his arrest.
    ____________________________________________________________
    [Mr. Mark Anderson], had called and been told by a clerk in a neighboring
    county that Bennie Dean Herring had failed to appear in court on a felony charge. But minutes
    after Anderson found methamphetamine and a pistol in Herring’s car, the
    clerk called back to say the arrest warrant had been withdrawn. This
    fact had not been entered into the sheriff’s department’s computer.

    Roberts said the mistake here was a “negligent bookkeeping error.” It did not reflect a cop’s deliberate decision to violate the rights of the motorist, he said.

    Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy,
    Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined the chief justice.
    ________________________________________________________
    The dissenters said the exclusionary rule should be strictly enforced.

    “Electronic databases form the nervous system of contemporary criminal justice operations,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote. “The most serious impact of the court’s holding
    will be on innocent persons wrongfully arrested
    based on erroneous information carelessly maintained in a computer database.”
    =====================================================

    The exclusionary rule has long been controversial. It was imposed
    on federal courts in 1914 to deter violations of the
    4th Amendment and its ban on “unreasonable searches and seizures.”
    _______________________________________________________________
    In the 1980s, the court retreated somewhat and said
    there was a “good faith exception”

    for [cops] who conduct searches with warrants they believe are valid.
    In 1995, it said that if the judicial system makes an error
    that leads to a wrongful arrest, the evidence need not be suppressed.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    The new ruling, in Herring vs. United States, goes a step further and allows the use of illegally obtained evidence even when the mistake arises from the law enforcement agency.
    __________________________________________________________
    John Wesley Hall, the president of the National Assn. of Criminal Defense Lawyers,
    said the ruling would “reward sloppy police work. They should call it the ‘Barney Fife’ exception to the 4th Amendment,” an allusion to the TV lawman played by Don Knotts.
    ______________________________________________________
    In a second decision, the court said judges may impose long consecutive
    sentences for criminals who are convicted of several crimes and without consulting the jury.
    =========================================================
    The court has said juries, not judges, need to decide
    the key issues that result in a long prison term.
    ________________________________________________
    But in a 5-4 ruling, the court said it would leave it to judges
    to decide whether a criminal should serve extra time for each violation.

    david.savage@latimes.com
    =========================================

    A message to the U.S. SUPREME COURT:
    you call this ruling policing the police ?
    __________________________________________________________

  3. theplazoid Says:

    Peace be with you fig

    Yea, and to add insult to injury they ran an article about a thousand such “mistakes” with the finger print analysis. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-fingerprint15-2009jan15,0,4923346.story I really don’t think this will help to make cops start being honest.

    love eternal
    tad

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s