Columbia County Observer

Comments  (to add a comment go here)

On May 30, 2012, DD of Lake City wrote:

I just want to say that I have come to depend on the Columbia County Observer to tell me what is really going on.  Thank you for your hard work and dedication to the truth.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On May 30, 2012, Terry Rauch of Lake City wrote:

Most people think "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply to law enforcement officers, but it does. Why would the sheriff office make any motion in this matter if this matter is alleged?

Yes, you do lose your license but you have the right to be heard by a judge on your actions and a judge will decide if you lose your license based on the evidence produce at a hearing.

If the sheriff office took an action then they are stating this man is guilty. This matter happen when the person in question was "off duty" on his "personal time." I see no reason for the sheriff office to do anything until a judge passes judgment on this matter. Although I am not an expert on the policies of the Columbia Sheriff Office, I do have "common sense" and it's telling me don't make judgment too quickly until you know all of the facts.

Let's try something new, let's uphold the laws of our land. Which from what I can see the sheriff office is doing.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On May 31, Rudolph Davis of Lake City wrote (Mr. Davis is a candidate for Sheriff - Ed):

I speak from the policies of most law enforcement agencies; If an officer get arrested for DUI, and he/she refuses to take the breathe test, he/she should immediately be place on administrated leave with pay, and an internal investigation should be initiated.

The criminal investigation and the internal investigation operate on two different principles, and they can run concurrent to one another. After the internal investigation is completed, and if the policy violations are sustained against the officer, the officer should be disciplined but if the policy violations are not sustained, the officer should return to work.

The Officer Bill of Rights covers how an internal investigation should be conducted on an officer, and that it should not precede more than 180 days, not that you have to wait 6 months to 2 years to start the internal investigation, which this criminal case could take in court. An internal investigation can be extended pass 180 days, if there is just cause to extend it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On June 1, Thomas wrote:

 While I am absolutely not condoning or defending the actions of the CO and am strongly opposed to driving a vehicle intoxicated, I would like to make some points.

• This is America and all citizens, yes even those in law enforcement, are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. If the Sheriff were to fire the CO prior to being convicted there could be liability issues for the County for wrongful termination.

• The CO apparently did refuse the intoxilizer test however that does not necessarily equate to an automatic suspension of his license. He may apply to the courts for a hardship work permit only license that a judge may issue. In addition if all elements of implied consent were not correctly followed the refusal may not stand a legal challenge.

• The Sheriffs Office spokesman is correct, you don't want to start an internal administrative investigation until the criminal case is concluded. Under F.S. 112, the law enforcement officers bill of rights, officers are compelled to cooperate in internal investigations. This can cause conflict with the criminal case with issues such as the right against self incrimination, being forced to give a statement, etc. arise. Most agencies don't mix these issues except in extreme cases.

• Finally, while it sounds a bit cavalier, unless the CO is required to operate a county vehicle as part of his job at the jail it really does not matter how he gets to work at the jail, taxi, wife, Mom, etc. as long as he does not violate the law and drive on a suspended license to work.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On June 3, 2012, citizen49a from Lake City wrote:

We have an admitted former pot smoker and cocaine user for president, so why not a sheriff's deputy who apparently likes to drive illegally under the influence? Come on, this is Columbia County, where the in crowd in government gets to do what they like. The rest of us, well, we get to pay them taxes that get spent in secret meetings and obey laws that don't apply to them.

This would be front page news in any other city of this size in the state. Here, it just didn't happen as far as the local paper is concerned. That's the way it is with just about anything of substance that might step on the wrong person's toes here. It just never happened. Rather convenient for the sheriff, with an election coming up questions about this would inappropriate right now, I guess.

This work by the Columbia County Observer is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.