Sheriff pulls out of drug task force

[lefty]

I read the Utica OD today and I was surprised !What is going on why is the Sheriff's Department pulling out of the drug task force? Then the candidates for the office were quoted all saying if elected they would reinstate it, then why pull out in the first place; this does not make sense.

[bobbbiez]

Most likely cause there's trouble between the departments. There always is some jealousy when you have departments working together.

If I'm not mistaken a few years back Utica did the same but then reinstated their officers because the need was there.

I'm not a happy camper because most drug arrest are due to the work of the county drug task force. Not a smart move, but don't think that will last long.

[corner]

the task force is not cost effective onlygets less than a third in of what it costs

[Clipper]

Explain that a little bit corner. I don't understand where there is a cost versus profit factor. Are they supposed to seize enough resources to pay their own way? I guess that would be the ideal situation, but in the mean time, getting the drugs and perps off the streets is enough isn't it?

How many state cops are assigned to the task force?

[lefty]

Mar 28, 2010 14:21:18 GMT -5 corner said:

the task force is not cost effective only gets less than a third in of what it costs

That is not true it is very cost effective if you break ALL of the numbers down correctly. Please do not go by the two numbers reflected in the OD. There are so many other contributing factors to figure in, the Task Force is a good concept. Look at the equipment throughout the years that was bought with seizure money. This money has helped many departments in the area thus reducing the taxpayers burden. I suggest that you telephone your Legislators and demand answers! Look at the opinons of every candidate running for Oneida County Sheriff, each and every one of them stated that they would reinstate it if elected. What does that tell you? Can you place a dollar value on every illegal firearm that the members have taken off the street? Can you place a dollar amount of what innocent life that this might have saved. The answer is probably a resounding NO!

Clipper what do you think?

[clarencebunsen]

If I may contribute a couple cents worth: I don't understand why the amount of cash siezed by the task forceis even relevant much less the topic of discussion it has become in the OD comments.

Law enforcement is not supposed to be a profit center. Picture a month long investigation that results results in taking down a meth lab, 5 felony convictions but no cash siezed. If on the same day a traffic stop results in the seizure of 2 oz. of mj and $500 cash, would you consider the first a failure & the 2nd a success?

I don't agree with seizure laws that result in cash or property flowing back to a law enforcement ageny. The result can be a temptation for law enforcement and a public concern about the legitamacy of some arrests. It is not hard to find examples of misuse of seized funds or property.

[Clipper]

I have often thought that possibly the profit and seized property from drug busts should go to law enforcement, but that in turn, the same amount of money should be taken back into the general fund from the police department budget for reallocation to areas where it is needed to fill a shortfall. Seizing resources from drug dealers and users is a noble process, but the financial gain should be a benefit to the entire budget process, and not just to the police department.

[dgriffin]

Whenever I see a Hummer or other high end police car labeled, "This car seized, etc." my Worry Wanger starts to wiggle and I think, "Did Stalin start this way?"

[bobbbiez]

Mar 28, 2010 14:29:48 GMT -5 Clipper said:

Explain that a little bit corner. I don't understand where there is a cost versus profit factor. Are they supposed to seize enough resources to pay their own way? I guess that would be the ideal situation, but in the mean time, getting the drugs and perps off the streets is enough isn't it?

How many state cops are assigned to the task force?

The task force is suppose to consist of:

6-Sheriff's department
4- UPD
1- N.Hartford
4- RPD
2- DA investigators

[bobbbiez]

Mar 28, 2010 16:20:35 GMT -5 @dgriffin said:

Whenever I see a Hummer or other high end police car labeled, "This car seized, etc." my Worry Wanger starts to wiggle and I think, "Did Stalin start this way?"

If thats what it takes to get these dirt-bags off the street and take away their possessions they bought with drug money then so be it.

[dgriffin]

I'm all for getting the dirt-bags off the street. I just don't want to be mistaken for a dirt-bag and be sitting around for months trying to get my car and property back and spending money on a lawyer to do it.
I like to think one of the purposes of the law is to protect me from "the law." Check out the numbers in the chart below. That's a lot of people who weren't convicted sitting around waiting for their property to be returned. So I think it's a fair question to ask if there are any effective controls in existence in the locality in which one lives.
Also, I've heard of cases where, for example, a woman our age will never get her car back because her errant son who did not live at home borrowed the vehicle and was caught doing a drug deal. (But I have no citation for it.)









Critics target drug raid seizures


Police often keep property even absent a conviction


Thursday, December 13, 2001

By SAM SKOLNIK
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER


Before dawn, heavily armed officers stormed Shane Hendrickson's Tacoma home. They busted open the front door, grabbed the self-employed painter and hauled him off to the police station.

There, they grilled him, accusing him of participating in a major pot-growing operation. Hendrickson steadfastly denied it, and hours later, detectives had enough doubts to cut him loose.

By the time he returned home that day, Oct. 4, Hendrickson's baby-blue 1984 Chevy van -- with Dialed-in Paint Co. stenciled on the sides -- was gone. So were his business papers, including bids for upcoming jobs. And his girlfriend's new computer and all her disks.

In the blink of an eye, Hendrickson, 27, was out of work.

"It just kind of shut me down for a while," he said. "These people think they're above God."

Hendrickson, though, was more fortunate than most. He hasn't been charged with a crime, and, after a month or so, the last of his property was returned -- albeit with a lawyer's help.

In the past decade, drug-related property seizures have skyrocketed in Washington, with annual proceeds raised from auctions statewide jumping from $1.2 million to a record $6.7 million in 2000. That doesn't count forfeitures made by federal agencies, such as the Drug Enforcement Administration or the FBI.

In King County last year, authorities seized $2.2 million in drug-related assets. But even though four out of 10 criminal cases either never got off the ground or fell apart, the bulk of the cars, cash, cellular phones, stereos and other goods grabbed from those suspects were never returned, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has found.

One out of five people whose property was seized were never charged with a crime. When people were charged, the cases were dropped about 23 percent of the time, according to records obtained from the state Treasurer's Office and a search of computerized court documents.

Washington's powerful property-seizure law, loudly criticized by defense attorneys and civil rights activists, allows police departments, sheriff's offices and drug task forces to take a suspect's property if authorities believe it was used in connection with a drug crime or purchased with tainted money.

Fears of overzealous law enforcement have spurred a drive to revamp the law -- toughening the legal standard for forfeiture and barring police from taking a person's property until he or she is convicted of a crime.

Backers of Initiative 256, which include the American Civil Liberties Union, must collect 197,734 valid signatures by Jan. 4 in order to put the measure before the 2002 Legislature. Lawmakers can pass I-256 outright or put it on the ballot next November.

Forfeiture money helps fund drug enforcement efforts, which critics call a blatant conflict, driving authorities to seize as much as they can from suspects -- even when there's insufficient evidence to support criminal charges.


www.seattlepi.com/local/50450_assets13.shtml

[corner]

originally it was sherrifs rome upd and new hartford with assistance on big busts by parole and state police but task forces are expensive it costs the county last year 160000 got back about 35 in seizures its not supposed to be self supporting but lots of infighting as to who is in charge,,,uniformed can do alot by stopping and busting i can drive behind a upd cruiser on james and see a dozen transactions happening that they apparently dont..

[bobbbiez]

Mar 28, 2010 18:13:48 GMT -5 corner said:

originally it was sherrifs rome upd and new hartford with assistance on big busts by parole and state police but task forces are expensive it costs the county last year 160000 got back about 35 in seizures its not supposed to be self supporting but lots of infighting as to who is in charge,,,uniformed can do alot by stopping and busting i can drive behind a upd cruiser on james and see a dozen transactions happening that they apparently dont..

.................and there are more then a dozen transactions that they see and you don't.

I know I've seen many on Whitesboro St that wish the cops haven't seen their transactions. ;D

One just has to check out the police blotter articles every day to see what I'm talking about. Helps too, when the private citizen reports any suspicious activities they do see or take the time to fill out "Hot Spot" sheets that I will be more then willing to provide to them if they're interested.

[bobbbiez]

Mar 28, 2010 17:49:56 GMT -5 @dgriffin said:

I'm all for getting the dirt-bags off the street. I just don't want to be mistaken for a dirt-bag and be sitting around for months trying to get my car and property back and spending money on a lawyer to do it.
I like to think one of the purposes of the law is to protect me from "the law." Check out the numbers in the chart below. That's a lot of people who weren't convicted sitting around waiting for their property to be returned. So I think it's a fair question to ask if there are any effective controls in existence in the locality in which one lives.
Also, I've heard of cases where, for example, a woman our age will never get her car back because her errant son who did not live at home borrowed the vehicle and was caught doing a drug deal. (But I have no citation for it.)

Yes Dave, laws are made to help protect the good citizen from the bad guys, but today between these so-call-it civil right activists and lawyers who will defend the dirt-bags more rights and protection has gone to the dirt-bags and has been taken away from you and I. Don't know about you, but I'm seeing more rights given to the criminal and I don't understand why others can't see that, and I've had just about enough of the whining. Be careful of what you seek cause it will be used against you.

As far as the woman whose son was caught in her car doing a drug transaction and had her car seized, sorry but I don't have any sympathy for her. Her argument and anger should be directed only to her dirt-bag son and maybe if she jacked his a** he'd think twice about dealing drugs again. ;D

[dgriffin]

Bobbbiez wrote:
"Yes Dave, laws are made to help protect the good citizen from the bad guys,"

I said I expected the law to protect me also from "the law," meaning law enforcement agencies.

And, " ...but today between these so-call-it civil right activists and lawyers who will defend the dirt-bags more rights and protection has gone to the dirt-bags and has been taken away from you and I."

You know, I've heard that so often that I'm beginning to wonder. I read the papers each day and I see people arrested, prosecuted and handed sentences in the county jail and prison. The times I remember saying to myself, ", how did he get off or get such a light sentence?" were for white collar crime, like fraud and embezzlement. A local woman embezzled close to half a million dollars over 4 years and got a few months in the slammer and community service.
She didn't need money for her mother's double bypass and she didn't have any kids, evidently. She simply spent the money on vacations and extra visits to her beautician (that's almost a direct quote.) And I see THAT kind of injustice for the middle class a lot, including public servants who I would really take to the wood shed. How many days will Joe Bruno spend behind bars? But the guys and girls arrested and convicted for drugs and violent crimes seem to draw stiff sentences, from my reading of the newspaper. As they should.

So, either I'm getting senile ... which is entirely possible ... or the newspaper is not covering the drug and violence cases where the defendant gets a ride or gets off, or the newspaper is not covering the disposition and sentencing, or ... and this is a big one I'd imagine .... the perps are charged for their violent crimes, but their cases never come to trial, so I see them charged, but I never see them let go with a slap on the wrist. Am I all wet, or is it this last case you refer to when you say that "the protections have gone to the bad guys and been taken away from you and I."