pageok
pageok
pageok
Does It Violate the Fourth Amendment For Cops to Take Some Time Out and Play Wii During the Execution of a Warrant?:
The headline is not from the Onion. Tampa Bay Online reports:
  With guns drawn and flashlights cutting through darkened rooms, Polk County undercover drug investigators stormed the home of convicted drug dealer Michael Difalco near Lakeland in March.
  As investigators searched the home for drugs, some drug task force members found other ways to occupy their time. Within 20 minutes of entering Difalco's house, some of the investigators found a Wii video bowling game and began bowling frame after frame.
  While some detectives hauled out evidence such as flat screen televisions and shotguns, others threw strikes, gutter balls and worked on picking up spares.
  A Polk County sheriff's detective cataloging evidence repeatedly put down her work and picked up a Wii remote to bowl. When she hit two strikes in a row, she raised her arms above her head, jumping and kicking.
  While a female detective lifted a nearby couch looking for evidence, another sheriff's detective focused on pin action.
  But detectives with the Polk County Sheriff's Office, the Auburndale, Lakeland and Winter Haven police departments did not know that a wireless security camera connected to a computer inside Difalco's home was recording their activity.
Here's a photo of the action:

  Assuming playing Wii didn't lead the police to discover any evidence, I don't think the defendant can get any of the evidence suppressed. And it's hard to know what the damages are in a civil suit, even assuming that there was in fact an unauthorized Wii seizure (a wee seizure, I suppose!). But c'mon, folks: Wii is for home, not work, especially when you are conducting a police raid.

  Thanks to Gregory McNeal for the link.
Steve2:
Professor Kerr, in the interest of not commenting about your pun, could a legal issue stem from the extra duration of the search/seizure-of-everything-else on account of the time spent lollygagging?
9.22.2009 6:12pm
Steve:
I wouldn't call it playing with the Wii. I'd call it "examining addictive materials imported from overseas."
9.22.2009 6:14pm
Jim at FSU (mail):
Oh hey, polk county. What a surprise.
9.22.2009 6:15pm
Blargh:
It's preferable to them beating the hell out of the guy and shooting his dog, I guess.
9.22.2009 6:15pm
Mike& (mail):
More evidence in support of Scalia's New Police Professionalism meme.
9.22.2009 6:16pm
Oren:
Can we at least dock their pay for the day?
9.22.2009 6:18pm
Laura(southernxyl) (mail) (www):

Jim at FSU (mail):
Oh hey, polk county. What a surprise.


I have been here two years and am resigned to seeing the most bizarre headlines, scrolling down, and finding that I am reading about my new home. It's gotten to the point that I am surprised when something stupid happens anywhere else.

We still love it here.
9.22.2009 6:18pm
ShelbyC:
It may or may not be a siezure, but it's a taking, and probably some form of theft as well. These folks should be procecuted.
9.22.2009 6:19pm
ShelbyC:
And as a practical matter, I wonder what it does to the cop's credibility when they testify about what they found?
9.22.2009 6:22pm
Blargh:
Actually though, I think this is an example of pretty good police work. Read the whole article, and you'll see they surveilled the guy for some time and took him into custody away from his home and weapons. So, when they raided the house, there was nobody there to kill cops, and much less chance of the cops killing innocent people inside. Again at least they didn't blow away some poor grandma.
9.22.2009 6:23pm
OhioLawdog (mail):
I'm a little rusty on criminal law but . . .

What about the unauthorized (and unnecessary) use of electricity? Also, although damages would be nominal, isn't it technically a seizure (that violates the constitution) if they they continue to play the game after they know that it's not related to the warrant?
9.22.2009 6:46pm
PatHMV (mail) (www):
Blargh, I think you're right, but it's a sad day when we say "hey, the cops didn't intentionally endanger themselves, the suspects, and innocent citizens nearby" and consider that an achievement, rather than the minimum we should expect.

They played with something that didn't belong to them. They don't get to joy ride in the Ferrari, they don't get to snort the coke, they don't get to borrow the porn, no matter how much of a scum bag the suspect may be. It's not their stuff, and that's not why the citizens are paying their salary.
9.22.2009 6:47pm
Pinkycatcher:
Couldn't the search of the computer/Wii console be considered to be an overbroad use of the search warrant?
9.22.2009 6:59pm
ArthurKirkland:
Ten or 15 years ago, officers executing a warrant -- in the home of a man later established to be falsely accused -- removed (without logging) some intimate interspousal videotapes from the suspect's home. They showed them at card games, bachelor parties and other get-togethers for more than a year, even provided copies to people outside the department. A decent officer finally disclosed the situation after the criminal changes were dismissed. Not one person was disciplined for this conduct, although the municipality paid to settle a civil claim.

Against that background, a few games of Wii bowling seem downright tame. Inexcusable, but tame.
9.22.2009 7:00pm
EH (mail):
Blargh: Isn't that merely a good example of "stuff you're supposed to do?"
9.22.2009 7:12pm
tarheel:
Mike&wins the thread so far.

Doubt there is a 1983 action (though I imagine a good plaintiff's lawyer could concoct one), but if there were, he could get nominal damages plus attorneys' fees.
9.22.2009 7:51pm
Perseus (mail):
What about the unauthorized (and unnecessary) use of electricity?

Would it have constituted an illegal seizure had the officers used the bathroom too?
9.22.2009 8:01pm
ShelbyC:

Would it have constituted an illegal seizure had the officers used the bathroom too?


Probably not a seizure, but it's the suspect's toilet, not yours, he's entitled to deny you the use of it, and if he's in custody while you're searching his house, you should probably assume he intends to deny you the use of it.
9.22.2009 8:06pm
JKB:
Well the president did say every one get wii wii'ed up.
9.22.2009 8:12pm
PersonFromPorlock:
This may be a rare instance where that old bureaucratic weasel-word, "inappropriate," is appropriate.
9.22.2009 8:22pm
Blargh:
Blargh: Isn't that merely a good example of "stuff you're supposed to do?"

true dat
9.22.2009 8:35pm
whit:
this is clearly unprofessional, although i can also say as somebody who done dozens of warrants, i do not find it hard to believe.
otoh, the wii could be considered dual use technology and maybe the officers were just ensuring that the software hadn't been modified to enable terrorists!

yea, that's the ticket
9.22.2009 8:41pm
ShelbyC:

otoh, the wii could be considered dual use technology and maybe the officers were just ensuring that the software hadn't been modified to enable terrorists!


Wait, wasn't the warrant for drugs? You're clearly not very good at this, you must be an honest cop :-)
9.22.2009 8:46pm
whit:
shelby, i'm reaching baby! reaching!
9.22.2009 8:48pm
AO:
As cops and prosecutors know - "It's not a warrant 'til you find their porn!"
9.22.2009 9:11pm
Oren:

Couldn't the search of the computer/Wii console be considered to be an overbroad use of the search warrant?

So they can suppress the disclosure of his high score in Wii bowling?
9.22.2009 9:14pm
Splunge:
The problems with this is not what the cops were doing here, but the evident sense of entitlement -- that, because they were cops executing a warrant, they could do just what they pleased, as long as no one was likely to find out, and the guy was a "bad guy" anyway.

That sense of entitlement and arrogance in another situation might lead to some very serious misconduct, and a serious miscarriage of justice. That's the problem with this lack of professionalism. Here's, it's no biggy. Elsewhere, it could conceivably be life and death.

If I were sitting on the city council, I'd fire their asses, every one. The last thing you need is the potential liability of a cop who thinks his badge is a license.
9.22.2009 9:17pm
whit:
thankfully, usually the cops collective bargaining agreement, progressive discipline rules, and common sense, and access to arbitration means that you most likely couldn't fire them for this.

is it unproffesional? yes. firable? not unless the cop already has a pretty serious history
9.22.2009 9:21pm
Dave N (mail):
Not excusing the conduct in the least, but the television and the Wii may have been covered in the warrant (to be seized, not to be used). The article notes:
While some detectives hauled out evidence such as flat screen televisions. . . .
9.22.2009 9:31pm
ShelbyC:

thankfully, usually the cops collective bargaining agreement, progressive discipline rules, and common sense, and access to arbitration means that you most likely couldn't fire them for this.


Yeah, I understand it's pretty tough to discipline cops.

Unfortunatly, institutions that use force in the public interest, and search folks' houses looking for evidence of crimes, need more discipline that average, not less.
9.22.2009 9:44pm
whit:
shelby, there are other forms of discipline besides FIRING.

i agree they should be DISCIPLINED. i don't agree they should be fired.

here's a hint. discipline includes such things as oral reprimands, written reprimands, suspensions w/o pay and the highest level is firing.

we both agree they should be disciplined. we disagree on the degree.
9.22.2009 10:05pm
ttre:
Even assuming? Surely even you would agree that this is a violation, even if you think it is a small one.
9.22.2009 10:11pm
supra shoes (mail) (www):
Hi! I like your srticle and I would like very much to read some more information on this issue. Will you post some more?
As we know , we can find lots of fans ,lots of store have been open worldwide.
9.22.2009 10:11pm
ShelbyC:

we both agree they should be disciplined. we disagree on the degree.


And reasonable people (and myself) can probably differ on the degree. To me, this is around the same level of a cop helping himself to a bag of chips and a soda while executing a warrant on a convience store. Fireable?

And BTW, I'm not sure what good it would do to fire the poor folks who happened to get caught on this video. This seems like evidence of a more systemic, or cultural, problem.
9.22.2009 10:12pm
gabriel (mail):
In Georgia this might well fit the definition of criminal trespass, theft of electricity, and possibly burglary. The latter is defined as unlawful entry into any structure for the purpose of committing a theft. The Georgia Courts, reluctant to overturn convictions for any reason, have allowed burglary convictions to stand where persons who were otherwise lawfully inside a building walked through the open doorway of a room and lifted a purse that was in plain view, on the theory that entry into the open room was a separate, independent and unauthorized entry. The warrant authorized entry into the home for the purpose of the search, not for the purpose of stealing electricity. Once an officer enters that room with the purpose of playing the game, the entry cannot be justified by the warrant. Prosecutorial discretion will prevent them from being prosecuted, given the favored status of police, the utter ridiculousness of the conduct, the de minimus value of the theft, and perhaps an underlying problem in conceptualizing electricity (especially a small amount) as "property."
9.22.2009 10:19pm
http://volokh.com/?exclude=davidb :

It's preferable to them beating the hell out of the guy and shooting his dog, I guess.

True enough, but are these our only choices?
9.22.2009 10:32pm
Daniel Chapman (mail):
"Polk County undercover drug investigators stormed the home of..."

That's as far as I got before I had a problem with this incident.
9.22.2009 10:36pm
whit:

And reasonable people (and myself) can probably differ on the degree. To me, this is around the same level of a cop helping himself to a bag of chips and a soda while executing a warrant on a convience store. Fireable?


i would disagree. the chips thang is a theft. i am sure somebody here thinks that using the wii is a "theft" (theft of electricity), but in my opinion that's ridiculous.

stealing is a crime of moral turpitude and a crime of dishonesty. my agency has ZERO tolerance policy with crimes of dishonesty. and i think that's reasonable.

what these cops did was a crime of poor judgment and disrespect towards the person's stuff, but it wasn't a theft. not in any rational sense.

eliminating somebody's career for such a minor thing, especially if they have a good prior record, imo is ridiculous overkill.

this seems tailormade for a written reprimand or a short suspension (1-5 days)
9.22.2009 10:43pm
whit:

And reasonable people (and myself) can probably differ on the degree. To me, this is around the same level of a cop helping himself to a bag of chips and a soda while executing a warrant on a convience store. Fireable?


i would disagree. the chips thang is a theft. i am sure somebody here thinks that using the wii is a "theft" (theft of electricity), but in my opinion that's ridiculous.

stealing is a crime of moral turpitude and a crime of dishonesty. my agency has ZERO tolerance policy with crimes of dishonesty. and i think that's reasonable.

what these cops did was a crime of poor judgment and disrespect towards the person's stuff, but it wasn't a theft. not in any rational sense.

eliminating somebody's career for such a minor thing, especially if they have a good prior record, imo is ridiculous overkill.

this seems tailormade for a written reprimand or a short suspension (1-5 days)
9.22.2009 10:43pm
Avatar (mail):
Leaving aside the reflection on the department's professionalism...

There have been instances where officers confiscated video game systems while executing warrants. Now, nominally, you could hide a hard drive in there (especially on a Playstation 3, which you could have reformatted to Linux), but in almost all cases, it's not actually possible for evidence to be contained on a video game system (at the least, not incriminating evidence of a crime useful to a prosecutor!)

But these seizures are rarely challenged, mostly because there's not a big overlap between "people who have their video game consoles seized in a search" and "people who can afford to retain a lawyer to defend their rights mostly on principle".
9.22.2009 11:01pm
Tim Nuccio (mail) (www):
Well we're all glad that the "good guys" violated yet another person's rights in the name of the "drug war."
9.23.2009 12:28am
ArthurKirkland:
A bag of chips costs a store 30 cents, maybe less.

The electricity required to operate a Wii console and a big-screen television for nine hours can cost more than $100 annually. If nine hours is an average day's use, the cost approximates . . . 30 cents.

I see little difference between eating the chips and playing the game. Or plugging a charger into someone's socket. All, without permission, seem to constitute theft.
9.23.2009 12:30am
LarryA (mail) (www):
But detectives with the Polk County Sheriff's Office, the Auburndale, Lakeland and Winter Haven police departments did not know that a wireless security camera connected to a computer inside Difalco's home was recording their activity.
There's a lesson here. CSI would have intercepted the signals and used them to break the case.

Seriously, video surveillance equipment inside the house of a suspected drug dealer should be rather high on the list of things to seize.
Would it have constituted an illegal seizure had the officers used the bathroom too?
Again, maybe I watch too much TV. I'd think you might want to check the toilets out before you went to using them.
There have been instances where officers confiscated video game systems while executing warrants.
They were already confiscating flat-screen TVs. I presumed it was on their list of things they could work forfeiture on.
9.23.2009 1:09am
Steve:
whit, what about the bathroom question? I personally have trouble seeing it as theft of toilet paper, but I'm curious how it works out in practice.

I wonder if the officers in this case might get a rather rough go of it because aside from the merits of what they did, they made the department look pretty crappy. I suppose that's why there are unions.
9.23.2009 1:38am
Jay:
Serious debate aside, that photo makes me think I really need a nicer TV to go with my Wii. Tennis and bowling are fun on my ancient 29", but playing on that thing looks awesome.
9.23.2009 1:38am
Avatar (mail):
LarryA brings up a good point. Why the -heck- would they seize a television? Was the television evidence somehow? (Maybe "He had no listed job for ten years, but his house was full of top-of-the-line consumer electronics which he paid cash for"? But you could easily submit video of that, not just cart out his goods.
9.23.2009 1:45am
Avatar (mail):
I take it back. The article mentions that they recovered $30,000 worth of stolen property; maybe the TV was part of that.
9.23.2009 1:53am
Skyler (mail) (www):
This reminds me of when I went through airport security (long before 9/11) and the goon at the security gate looked through all my bags. When she got to my camera, she pulled out the spare lens, removed the caps, presumably to make sure nothing was hidden inside. I don't like this very much, but so far there's no legitimate complaint.

What she did next made me want to twist her idiot head off. She started playing with my camera lens, scoping out her buddy and calling out to him and saying "oooh woooh" and making other childish noises and gestures.

I made no complaint against this idiot, but I wish I had. She was lucky I had a plane to catch. Oh, wait, that's by design.

Using your badge to play with other people's property is rude, obnoxious, disrespectful, unprofessional, and inappropriate. We entrust these people to look after our safety, or enforce laws. Using a search warrant as an excuse to play with someone's property is unpardonable. These cops should be cashiered.
9.23.2009 1:55am
whit:

I see little difference between eating the chips and playing the game. Or plugging a charger into someone's socket. All, without permission, seem to constitute theft.


the fact that you see little difference says it all.

heck, the cops can turn the lights on in the house too, while they are there. that costs money. so, i guess that's theft too (rolls eyes)

what the cops did was inappropriate, unprofessional and disrespectful. trying to equate it with a crime of dishonesty like theft is ridiculous.
9.23.2009 3:19am
whit:

whit, what about the bathroom question? I personally have trouble seeing it as theft of toilet paper, but I'm curious how it works out in practice.


i am sure SOME People here would see it as theft. i certainly don't

fwiw, i have never done "#2" at a target location during a search warrant. i have done "#1". so, i guess i stole WATER but not toilet paper.

mea culpa.

thank god i got that off my chest. the guilt is killing me.

i've spent upwards of 6 hours straight in a house during a warrant w/o a break. if you gotta go, you gotta go. on surveillances i carried an empty gallon jug in my car for just that purpose. it's not like i can break surveillance to go use a service station or even worse - get outside my car and draw attention to myself as i relieve myself in a residential neighborhood.

i guess, according to the zero tolerance theft police here, police need to bring porta potties to each warrant, so that there will be no toilet paper/water thefts!

this is a serious injustice that needs to be addressed!

i do have one kind of funny story along these lines. we were at a residence and had just arrested one of the homeowners for a felony warrant. we were chewin' da fat with the other guys, and one of them noticed that i kept looking at his guitar. he asked me if i played, and i said i did. i asked him, "mind if i try it?" he said "sure" (i am sure some here would see this as a coercive example of police power, and the question was a demand, since nobody would feel free to say no, but i digress). anyway, within a few seconds of starting, PLING! i broke a string.

oops

i pulled $7 from my pocket (a whole set of strings runs about $5 or so) and gave it to the guy.

but i guess i committed vandalism. :)
9.23.2009 3:26am
Hadur:
I look forward to the subsequent court case being put into casebooks, and 50 years from now professors will have to explain to their 1L's what a "Wii" is.
9.23.2009 7:41am
Ryland (mail):
Couldn't this be looked at like theft of services? I read an article some time ago about a man using the public library's free and unsecured wifi from their parking lot after closing and that's what he was charged with. I think it was somewhere in North Carolina maybe?
9.23.2009 8:21am
geokstr (mail):

Hadur:
I look forward to the subsequent court case being put into casebooks, and 50 years from now professors will have to explain to their 1L's what a "Wii" is.

No they won't. It will be obvious what it is from the simulation on the class holodeck.
9.23.2009 9:28am
ArthurKirkland:
The rule should be no use of the bathroom, no glass of water, no use of the telephone, no mints from the dish . . . nothing that isn't directly related (such as illumination or using the door for entry) to conducting the search unless the owner grants permission. Guests ask before using the facilities or the telephone, and government agents intruding (lawfully and properly) do not rise to the level of guests with respect to expectations regarding permissions.

I see no difference between taking a store's can of soda (whose cost approximates a dime, and may not be paid by the store for several months consequent to allowances) for personal consumption and taking electricity (which adds 25 cents to a utility bill that will be due within a month) for personal recreation. If one constitutees theft and/or a crime of dishonesty, so does the other.
9.23.2009 9:52am
Occasional Lurker:
I'm amazed how many people's reactions are framed in terms of whether the behavior was "theft."

I see nothing magic about "theft." I don't see it as fundamentally more dishonest or more immoral than other bad behavior the cops might have engaged in, simply by virtue of its "theftness." If the search was unnecessarily disruptive -- not damaged, but stuff thrown around and in disarray -- I think that's less civilized behavior than eating a little food.
9.23.2009 10:47am
ShelbyC:

i've spent upwards of 6 hours straight in a house during a warrant w/o a break. if you gotta go, you gotta go.


Whit, your position is logical, reasonable, and unacceptable. Primarily because, one you start from the principal that a little unauthorized use of someone else's property is acceptable, you end up with what we see here, and worse.
9.23.2009 10:55am
rick.felt:
One thing is certain: Wii Sports being played in an adult's home is probable cause for a search for marijuana.
9.23.2009 11:48am
Avatar (mail):
A certain amount of reasonable accommodation is fine. Policeman is executing the warrant when the Taco Bell kicks in? Using the restroom doesn't constitute harm to the property owner. Likewise, turning on the Wii to make sure that it's a Wii, and not, say, a computer mounted in a Wii box, that's also reasonable. Taking a quick look through the available games as that happens, now... (Then again, didn't we just talk about the 9th's ruling on "plain view" in the context of computer searching?)

Playing the Wii game in the process of executing the warrant, uh uh. Not because it's theft; police officers are justified in causing a lot of property damage if it's necessary for the search. But because it's not necessary for the search! It's not any more justifiable than if they sat down for half an hour in your easy chair reading your book, or if two of them snuck off to the bedroom and had sex on your bed. Not their house, not their stuff. They're there to do a particular function, and in order to perform that function, given leave to do acts that would be a gross violation of the law if they weren't done by police officers with a warrant.
9.23.2009 2:34pm
Vader:
My take, as a non-lawyer?

Grossly unprofessional conduct warranting administrative discipline.

Does not call into question any evidence seized in any way.
9.23.2009 3:02pm
George Smith:
Did they stop to make a mii?
9.23.2009 3:39pm
whit:

Whit, your position is logical, reasonable, and unacceptable. Primarily because, one you start from the principal that a little unauthorized use of someone else's property is acceptable, you end up with what we see here, and worse


only if you worship at the altar of the slippery slope. i think it's ridiculous. and fwiw, i would bet most NON-lawyers would have no problem with a cop taking a pee at a warrant location, but WOULD have a problem with the cops using the guy's Wii. this is why, generally, i prefer the common sense of the common man to the nitpicky sophistry we see here where people say "it's theft."


I see nothing magic about "theft." I don't see it as fundamentally more dishonest or more immoral than other bad behavior the cops might have engaged in, simply by virtue of its "theftness." If the search was unnecessarily disruptive -- not damaged, but stuff thrown around and in disarray -- I think that's less civilized behavior than eating a little food.




but most police officers, and most police agencies DO see the distinction. theft is a crime of dishonesty, of moral turpitude.

screwing around with a guy's wii is not seen thusly.

if an officer drank a coke from a warrant suspect's refrigerator, i would say he needs to be fired. that's theft, plain and simple. unless he was about to go into shock from low blood sugar and was a diabetic, it is plain and simple - a theft.

the cops in this case were screwing around. the intent was to play the game, the fact that it took a tiny amount of electricity and is thus TECHNICALLY a theft, is not really the point. it's unprofessional and disrespectful, but it aint or shouldn't be considered like a crime of dishonesty.

i would suggest no prosecutor in their right mind would consider charging the cop with theft for playin da wii.

the common sense response is that what the cops did was wrong, and deserves discipline. i am glad to see at least some people can see this, yet not consider it a THEFT (tm) that should be treated like a crime of dishonesty (which should result in firing)
9.23.2009 4:07pm
Leo Marvin (mail):
If the cops found incriminating evidence while playing the game, would it be fruit of the poisonous Wii?
9.23.2009 4:20pm
Lymis (mail):
It sounds as though the discussion is about whether or not their conduct was theft, as though the only possible misconduct in this situation is theft.

I don't think they should be sued or fired, but I do think that they should be disciplined. If nothing else, they delayed the investigation they were tasked with being a part of. In many ways, this is no different than if they were playing PC solitaire back at the office.

Presumably, they were there on the scene to do a job they were being paid to do, whether guarding the scene, collecting evidence, or whatever. They manifestly weren't doing it - leaving us to wonder what else wasn't getting done as a result.

A cop having a donut on patrol while waiting for a call to a crime scene is one thing. What possible public (and therefore, paid) service was this?

Theft isn't the issue. Unprofessionalism and screwing around on the public dime is.
9.23.2009 7:17pm
ChrisTS (mail):
Now that the plausibly sensible discussion is over, shouldn't someone point out that the officer in the video/pic is seriously out of shape?
So, they have no standards for professional conduct; don't they have any standards about being a lard bottom?
9.23.2009 8:44pm
gabriel (mail):
The police go into a rural home to execute a warrant. They turn on the lights and use the well water, thereby using electricity for the lights and the water pump, and using the water. Or perhaps they use kerosene to light the lamps to illuminate the search. Or the candles . . . Is it an unauthorized taking?
9.23.2009 8:56pm
whit:

It sounds as though the discussion is about whether or not their conduct was theft, as though the only possible misconduct in this situation is theft.

I don't think they should be sued or fired, but I do think that they should be disciplined. If nothing else, they delayed the investigation they were tasked with being a part of. In many ways, this is no different than if they were playing PC solitaire back at the office.



your first paragraph is simply not supported by what people are saying. i don't think anybody said that what the cops did wasn't wrong. iow, there is universal (or nearly so ) agreement that what they did was wrong

there is disagreement as to whether it should be considered like a theft (which is mandatory firing - or should be - no matter how small the amount), or like garden variety misconduct - iow doing something disrespectful, and that brought disrepute on the agency, but that was not criminal

clearly, imo it's the latter

theft is a zero tolerance thang. if a cop books a prisoner and the guy has $10,001.01 on him and the cop keeps .01 for himself and books the $10,000 that should be a firing offense.



So, they have no standards for professional conduct; don't they have any standards about being a lard bottom?




i've never worked for an agency that does have such a standard. the union would throw a fit. and if they did manage to pass one, they would have ot pay us to workout ON duty, which the bean counters wouldn't want to do. we used to have a guy who was a walking double bypass waiting to happen. and guess what? it happened.

i'm a competitive athlete. i would LOVE for us to have standards and to have incentives (pay, vacation) for such a standard. but the dept is not going to make the investment and the union won't go for it either.
9.24.2009 3:07am

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.