By: Joseph M. Andalina
I read about two interesting cases involving law enforcement last week. One is a town in Indiana that provides take home vehicles for police officers and other employees. Not unusual, and most departments that provide take home vehicles usually restrict their use, not allowing them to be used for personal business.
But in this town in Indiana, police officers are allowed to run errands and other personal trips in surrounding counties. Because of that, their union has renegotiated a clause in their contract by which $15 per bi-weekly paycheck is deducted from the officers’ wages to offset the cost of gas to the city. The city will generate $12,000 in revenue by this agreement. Prior to this deal, only non-resident cops paid $10-$20 every other week.
My first thought is that cops should not be paying for city gas. That’s all part of the municipality’s responsibility to provide safety to their citizens. And the city, like most other towns that allow take home vehicles, encourage take home squads for a variety of factors, including saving on gas when an officer doesn’t have to drive to work and back, and can go 10-8 or 10-6 from his home. This obviously also means he is available for duty immediately.
It also has selective enforcement qualities in that police vehicles are seen throughout the county 24 hours a day. Take home cars can make police more visible and it probably helps to reduce some crime. But in general, we don’t like cops paying for the city’s gas. What’s next; oil changes, tire rotations, and car washes?
We do have to say, however, that as the cops report, this is “thinking outside of the box” and it’s their contribution because they do use the cars off-duty. There is something to be said about coming to an agreement that works for all parties. While I don’t think this will be a trend, if it works for you, it works for me.
**
The second item is the police officer recently found not guilty by a judge in a bench trial in the high profile case of a K-9 handler in Chandler, AZ, who forgot about his dog in his car for about 13 hours when he finished his tour of duty. Needless to say, the next morning the officer found his dog dead in the car and was subsequently charged with misdemeanor animal cruelty by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s office and prosecuted by their D.A.
The police officer, sleeping for only 6 ½ hours in the 51 hours leading up to the incident alleges that he was tired and just forgot that he never took the dog out of the car, leaving him up in a closed up squad for 13 hours in the Arizona heat.
Now, anybody who knows anything about K-9 people is that they adore their dogs. Hot dogs and beans for the kids; the choicest cuts of meat for Rover. Your wife in a red teddy or a new collar for Max—duh. The beast sure looks good with that spike loaded ornament.
Yeah, the copper may have been negligent and will beat himself up forever, but charge him, arrest him, and take him to trial where a conviction would cause him to lose his job? Get real Mr. Sheriff/DA, who are accused of ramming this cop for political purposes. Sure, they deny that rationale, but we in this business all know better, don’t we? I love dogs, and this officer should have been more careful. But it must have been an election year for them to go after this good cop to this extent.
Two decent endings to these diverse incidents in my book.
Stay safe.