Sheriff pulls out of drug task force

[dgriffin]

Mar 31, 2010 22:12:45 GMT -5 wcup102 said:

Maybe I can shed some light on these issues.

First, despite what may be said about about "cost saving measures", "budgetary items", etc., about the pullout, us on the inside know different and see different. Thats all I am going to say, but it is not what they tell the media and what they are reporting. I will say it is mainly on the sheriff's dept. side.

Second, seizures, to my knowledge, are not disposed of until the case is disposed of, conviction or not. I do not know of any seizures that were kept after a not guilty verdict, if anything I think the stuff is returned. The DA's office uses several vehicles that they have siezed which saves on the cost of buying avehicle for their staff. They also use old patrol cars that are no longer used on the street but still have some life in them. Again saving money.

Thirdly, from what I have seen over the years, municipalities do not receive alot of return on the fines and surcharges. There is a formula used to determine what the municipality gets from my understanding. However, if an areest, ticket to summons issued using a city, town or village ordinance as a charge(i.e. open container, parking, etc.) the municipality retains the entire amount because it is a local law offense or violation. The state keeps the lions share of any other state law violation like speeding, stop sign violations, etc.

Hope this helps.

Good to hear from you again, Wcup. Regarding your three points:
First, I have no idea what you mean. I don't want you to endanger your situation, but can you give us a hint? If it isn't money or budget, what is it?

Second, that's good to hear about stuff being returned. I think most of the stories I've read (and I haven't read a lot) claim that although they got their stuff back, it took a long time. But I have nothing but anecdote in that regard. Also, it's good that those cars seized are used by the DA, etc., and I assume they are replacing actual items that were budgeted and then removed when replaced by a seized car, thus saving the taxpayer real money.

Third, I don't know anything about this item.

[lefty]

Mar 31, 2010 22:12:45 GMT -5 wcup102 said:

Maybe I can shed some light on these issues.

First, despite what may be said about about "cost saving measures", "budgetary items", etc., about the pullout, us on the inside know different and see different. Thats all I am going to say, but it is not what they tell the media and what they are reporting. I will say it is mainly on the sheriff's dept. side.

Second, seizures, to my knowledge, are not disposed of until the case is disposed of, conviction or not. I do not know of any seizures that were kept after a not guilty verdict, if anything I think the stuff is returned. The DA's office uses several vehicles that they have siezed which saves on the cost of buying avehicle for their staff. They also use old patrol cars that are no longer used on the street but still have some life in them. Again saving money.

Thirdly, from what I have seen over the years, municipalities do not receive alot of return on the fines and surcharges. There is a formula used to determine what the municipality gets from my understanding. However, if an areest, ticket to summons issued using a city, town or village ordinance as a charge(i.e. open container, parking, etc.) the municipality retains the entire amount because it is a local law offense or violation. The state keeps the lions share of any other state law violation like speeding, stop sign violations, etc.

Hope this helps.

Well if its really not a budget problem then what can it be ?
Something tells me that there is a lot more to this situation then meets they eye. Right now does it really make sence to pull out of this Task Force when each and every one of the candidates has publically stated that they will reinstate it. The current leadership will not be there on January 1, 2011 so why pull out now. This would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face at the expense of the community that you have the sworn duty and obligation to protect.

[bobbbiez]

Well, if it's not a budget problem there it's a problem of who wants control. Which is the down side of consolidating departments.

[bobbbiez]

[quote author=dgriffin board


[/quote]

Bobbbiez, This may not be a great example of the courts trampling on normal citizens by sending repeat offenders back out on the street.


Sorry Dave, but in my book it is.

[lefty]

Apr 1, 2010 20:30:14 GMT -5 bobbbiez said:

Well, if it's not a budget problem there it's a problem of who wants control. Which is the down side of consolidating departments.

That's why you hear about "Consolidation" at election time and then it goes away. There will never be "Consolidation" with the current cast of Politicians or decision makers; every Chief or Department head wants the own little turf for their own empire. Cooperation was better 10 years ago then it is at present who can we blame this on?