F.O.P pays Bisard's bill....... wow

[hornadylnl]

but thats not what i asked. the question is would you let them search your personal phone records,texts, an emails without a warrant?

And my response was based on an above post by a LEO who seemed to take offense to having all communications investigated regarding the Bisard incident.

The LEO pulling you over certainly isn't going to inform you of your right to tell him to get bent. They're more than happy to take advantage of the naïveté of the populace.

If these communications aren't incriminating, then they have nothing to hide, right?

 

[Glock18FA]

If these communications aren't incriminating, then they have nothing to hide, right?

Sir, I have nothing to hide. But I sure am not going to let someone go through my personal stuff on principle alone. I would expect the officers to know better than to let someone do that too.

 

[UncleMike]

And you do? Are you 100% sure he did nothing wrong?

Did I strike a nerve?

That is the weakest "veiled" attempt to name call by the way.. now who's the real bastard?

If you weren't so hateful of anyone in the Law Enforcement Profession you might have noticed that I made NO mention of whether he did, or did not, do anything wrong.
I merely alluded to the fact that since "Everyone" knows something we may as well dispense with the formalities of Law and get right to the punishment phase.

BTW.
I've been called a lot worse than a bastard.

 

[hornadylnl]

Sir, I have nothing to hide. But I sure am not going to let someone go through my personal stuff on principle alone. I would expect the officers to know better than to let someone do that too.

That's exactly my point. But any time someone dares to criticize the daily intrusions into our lives, we are met withe the "if you have nothing to hide" garbage.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

But now that he has announced that the FBI investigation took less time than lunch, which would mean that the FBI is also corrupt or incompetent, at least we know whether his assertions are based on logic and deductive reasoning, or sheer emotion.

Do not get your projections on my statements. For the record that is you calling FBI corrupt or incompetent.

No reason to become emotional over this incident; we just need to get to the bottom of it.

I am merely saying that FBI did not take the time to investigate a department with a long history of illegal radios and using personal cell phones to communicate on the job. They don't need a warrant, just a subpoena (heck, the feds don't even need that, they just write themselves warrants).

Get a grand jury together and bring everyone in, bring all their toys, bring all the e-mails, texts and unauthorized communications.

They want a look at my personal e-mail, phone records, text msgs...better have a warrant. Dept does not issue those devices.

Don't need it as stated above, at the state level just need a subpoena which a grand jury or Prosecuting Attorney (like the brand new one that coming in in a few weeks) can get.

IMPD needs to stop using cut outs (cell phones, illegal radios, FBI reports, etc.). Subpoena everyone and everything. Who did what and when?

 

[level.eleven]

Before this case I really hadn't heard much about illegal use of radio frequencies by IMPD. A simple google search reveals that the department has been disciplined several times for such action. I guess a couple times amateur radio operates overheard some not so savory descriptions of events that transpired, including profane descriptions of arrests and so forth that the officer in question had just recently been involved in. Some speculate these channels are used because they aren't monitored or recorded by oversight agencies. I believe the term is they aren't "trunked". I have no knowledge of radio transmissions so if someone with more knowledge steps up it may help in my understanding.

What is worrisome is that there seems to be these cell phones and radios that are being used in place of radio communication that is either recorded or monitored. Again, this is just my opinion after reading a few reports on IMPD getting in trouble with the FCC. There isn't a whole lot information out there on the subject. I have read that this is a problem that isn't unique to Indianapolis, rather something that occurs in departments across the nation.

I have to agree with Kirk on this one. If cops are using their radios illegally or using their personal cell phones to conduct state business, it may be time to bring these communications to light and review the policy and procedure manuals....again.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

What is worrisome is that there seems to be these cell phones and radios that are being used in place of radio communication that is either recorded or monitored.

And yet some in law enforcement act like we do not know about the illegal radios, the burn phones and the personal cell phones.

The use of unauthorized radios and phones in conducting business off the books on traffic stops and investigations is a great concern. It happened in the Bisard incident; we need to know what happened.

 

[thompal]

Was he drunk? We don't know. Eyewitness reports say absolutely not. A botched blood draw says he was falling down drunk. Something isn't kosher, sure. In my heart, I tend to suspect the blood draw being faulty more than all of those folks lying.

I will say that I've known several people who could have a STAGGERING amount of alcohol in their system, and still APPEAR to be fine. In fact, one of them had been a hard-core alcoholic for so long, and had such poor functioning organs, that more than 24 hours after they could have possibly taken a drink (because they were admitted to the hospital), a blood draw still showed .20. Were they still impaired? It's hard to know. They had functioned at that level of drinking for so long that it was "normal" for them. Were they legally impaired. You bet.

Eyewitnesses are poor judges of BAC. If I have ONE beer, I consider myself impaired. I drink so little that one drink affects me greatly. An eyewitness would guess that I had consumed a six pack. Then there's those I know that can drink a sixpack before 9am and SEEM fine.

FYI - the reason I DON'T drink is because I met those people and saw what it had done to them.

 

[thompal]

For the record that is you calling FBI corrupt or incompetent.

You mean it's an EITHER/OR?

 

[Love the 1911]

Nothing New

I understand and share the frustration that this incident has caused. However, the words and opinions of a lot of people indicate that this was a purposeful cover-up. I was not on scene and can not say 100% there was no cover-up but neither can most of the people that state how certain they are that there is a cover-up.

As a LEO, this is a problem I face every shift. OWI in particular must be proven about 4 times before a conviction can be handed down. Instead of taking the evidence that was taken, defense attorneys look for any method to get the evidence thrown out. The Bisard case is an extension of that same thing. Next time a non-LEO member of the public kills someone in an accident due to OWI, follow the case. The attorneys will use the same tactics that have been displayed here to get a charge dropped. Is it ridiculous and frustrating? Absolutely. This is the state of the country that we live in though. With a Constitution that is set up to protect citizens from law enforcement more than to protect them from criminals, it will always be an up-hill battle for LE to be effective at the job we are trusted to do.

 

[phylodog]

And yet some in law enforcement act like we do not know about the illegal radios, the burn phones and the personal cell phones.

The use of unauthorized radios and phones in conducting business off the books on traffic stops and investigations is a great concern. It happened in the Bisard incident; we need to know what happened.

There is no policy prohibiting the use of personal cell phones while on duty. I have no idea what a "burn phone" is.

The use of "illegal" radios was very common when I first came on the department. I had no idea there was a problem with it until the department (MCSD) came out and told everyone they had to remove them. Ours were pretty much used for the type of worthless banter coworkers might have while sitting in adjoining cubicles. We did use them to determine who might be closer to a run, who might have a certain piece of equipment someone needed (slim jim or jumper cables, etc.) I pulled mine out when they told us we had to and sold it, that was probably 2002. I haven't seen one in an IMPD patrol car, not saying they're not there, just saying I don't believe they were in widespread use any longer.

 

[Denny347]

There is no policy prohibiting the use of personal cell phones while on duty. I have no idea what a "burn phone" is.

The use of "illegal" radios was very common when I first came on the department. I had no idea there was a problem with it until the department (MCSD) came out and told everyone they had to remove them. Ours were pretty much used for the type of worthless banter coworkers might have while sitting in adjoining cubicles. We did use them to determine who might be closer to a run, who might have a certain piece of equipment someone needed (slim jim or jumper cables, etc.) I pulled mine out when they told us we had to and sold it, that was probably 2002. I haven't seen one in an IMPD patrol car, not saying they're not there, just saying I don't believe they were in widespread use any longer.

I can tell you that there are ZERO "illegal" radios on days east. Those were all removed when the dept told us to. On middle shift, the officers all went to the same ham radio class and are now certified. THEN one of the officers went and licensed a freq from the FCC and that is what they use. We are allowed to have them by dept policy if we are licensed and allowed to transmit on that frequency. This isn't directed to you Cory...but just expanding on your post.

 

[level.eleven]

Well it looks as if the 2002 ban didn't have much effect as it popped up again last year.

FCC Indianapolis Police Department Address Unlicensed Operations:

Perhaps this is the "re-ban" Denny is talking about. Do you think the "re-ban" will stick this time?

 

[paddling_man]

I can tell you that there are ZERO "illegal" radios on days east. Those were all removed when the dept told us to. On middle shift, the officers all went to the same ham radio class and are now certified. THEN one of the officers went and licensed a freq from the FCC and that is what they use.

FCC Indianapolis Police Department Address Unlicensed Operations:

Hey?! Stay off frequencies you aren't licensed for!! The downtown spectrum is already a pain in my butt!!!


Signed,
Paddling_Man - Indianapolis NFL Frequency Coordinator (AKA: GDC / Red Hat)

 

[Bondhead88]

At trial. He is entitled to the same protections as anyone else. The FOP is funded by LEO members dues. As such, we decide what we spend it on. Without the DUI charge, he meets the requirements for legal aid and is a member in good standing. So, majority voted "yes".

Gotta love that huge blue wall that is almost impossible to get around, the code of silence and the general lack of respect for the law from the law.

 

[Lars]

I'm not an LEO, I am a tax payer. I'm not even related to, or close friends with anyone who works in Law Enforcement. And I don't see what the problem is with the FOP providing this dues paying member in good standing the services of a lawyer.

• Do I feel badly for the Motorcyclists and their families? Yes.
• Do I want to see justice in this case? Yes.
• Do I think the court of public opinion is where justice is best found? Nope.
• Do I think the officer deserves a defense attorney? Yes.
• Do I care that the FOP is paying for it? No, why would I?

 

[Compatriot G]

I can tell you that there are ZERO "illegal" radios on days east. Those were all removed when the dept told us to. On middle shift, the officers all went to the same ham radio class and are now certified. THEN one of the officers went and licensed a freq from the FCC and that is what they use. We are allowed to have them by dept policy if we are licensed and allowed to transmit on that frequency. This isn't directed to you Cory...but just expanding on your post.

I was just wondering, what frequency did the officer "license" from the FCC? If it is an amateur frequency, then this is not a true statement. An individual can't "license" an amateur frequency from the FCC. If the officer "licensed" a commercial frequency from the FCC, then that is okay. However, if the officers are using amateur gear that has been modified to transmit out of the amateur band, then they are in violation of FCC regulations in regards to type-accepted equipment.

When you say "licensed" a frequency, do you mean the individual went and got a coordinated repeater pair? This isn't done through the FCC. This is done through the Indiana Repeater Council. If this is an amateur frequency and you guys are discussing any sort of "business" on the air, you are in violation of FCC regulations in regards to the type of communications that can be conducted on amateur radio frequencies.

 

[Bondhead88]

I have a general problem with Union dues, how they are used, the fact that public sector workers can unionize in the first place especially the Police force.

I know that's not the topic of this thread and I don't want to start chasing rabbit trails.

To get back on topic, if there is any type of subsidies that go to the dues, tax reduction for the dues of any type then I do not think that they should be able to use them for this.

If not and it is totally the other officers money then they should be allowed to use it as they wish. But like I said I do not believe the police should be allowed to unionize (nor any other civil servant for that matter)

 

[phylodog]

The dues are paid entirely by the officers and there are no subsidies or tax breaks involved. It is not truly a union (at least not in Indianapolis) as the FOP and it's members have no significant recourse should the Mayor or anyone else tell them to pound sand. Collective bargaining has been allowed by IMPD with the FOP acting as the voice of the officers. Membership is voluntary and in no way directly effects an officer's employment as far as assignment, promotion, etc.. Membership in the FOP includes legal representation if a member is sued civilly or charged criminally for something which occurred in the line of duty. That representation is not guaranteed but the circumstances are announced and the members vote on whether to grant the representation or not. Most will get it, more than one have not.

 

[hornadylnl]

Phylo,

I know you asked before and I don't think it's been answered. I'm pretty sure a "burn phone" is a prepaid cell phone. IE, you buy a throw away phone and set it up so that it's anonymous.