Dothan, Alabama LEOs are kids in candy store


PDA






CZ 75 BD
June 21, 2006, 09:09 PM
If this was you me, I doubt we would be typing or reading right now.




http://www.al.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-22/115092715760790.xml&storylist=alabamanews


Dothan gun audit prompts call for disciplinary action
6/21/2006, 5:53 p.m. ET
The Associated Press


DOTHAN, Ala. (AP) — Disciplinary action will be recommended for Dothan police because an internal city audit of firearms in the department's evidence room found little care was given to tracking guns, some of which ended up in the hands of officers.

Chief John Powell's recommendations to the City of Dothan Personnel Board will include letters of caution, reprimand and suspension. But Powell said he will not recommend any terminations and that none of the policy violations reveal criminal action.

"We've followed down all the leads we had and have recovered as many guns as I think we are going to," Powell said Tuesday. "I want to commend the officers that returned the weapons."

Powell stressed that the audit goes back many years and that many of the officers involved were not aware of the department's policy or that they were breaking those policies.

The findings of the audit were reported by The Dothan Eagle, which got a copy of the audit Friday through a public records request.

More than 760 firearms were verified as existing in the room and recorded in the department's computer system, but 170 guns listed were not found.

Among the findings: Guns were taken for personal use and guns listed as destroyed were being used by officers; guns assigned to one officer ended up with another; guns reported stolen were never returned to owners but kept by officers; and weapons were "checked out" to city employees in other agencies and even to private citizens.

___

Information from: The Dothan Eagle


Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
© 2006 al.com All Rights Reserved.

If you enjoyed reading about "Dothan, Alabama LEOs are kids in candy store" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Car Knocker
June 21, 2006, 09:37 PM
none of the policy violations reveal criminal action.

Among the findings: Guns were taken for personal use and guns listed as destroyed were being used by officers; guns assigned to one officer ended up with another; guns reported stolen were never returned to owners but kept by officers; and weapons were "checked out" to city employees in other agencies and even to private citizens.


I always thought that taking something that didn't belong to you was called theft.

Silly me! :rolleyes:

FTF
June 21, 2006, 10:04 PM
We've followed down all the leads we had and have recovered as many guns as I think we are going to," Powell said Tuesday. "I want to commend the officers that returned the weapons."


But Powell will not recommend any terminations and that none of the policy violations reveal criminal actions.

Thank god for the 'blue line'... you can steal as many guns as you want... probably get a promotion for it. :cuss:

kel
June 21, 2006, 10:58 PM
It's just a perk of the job, like drunk driving. Every job has it perks, you know?

carpettbaggerr
June 22, 2006, 01:55 AM
Guns were taken for personal use and guns listed as destroyed were being used by officers I don't really see a problem here. I'd have trouble sending a nice gun off to be destroyed. Melt a rare old S&W or falsify some paperwork? Hmmmmm

DeepHelmet
June 22, 2006, 02:54 AM
Recovered stolen guns are IMMEDIATELY returned to the rightful owner after being processed for prints etc. I've personally called owners to a scene of a traffic stop to recover his guns. He had to wait for crime lab to process them, but then he was off. Keeping those for personal use is clearly theft, and should be prosecuted.

jrou111
June 22, 2006, 02:57 AM
A coworker friend of mine was a gunsmith as a Dothan pawn shop, where the former sherrif and his wife were taking the confiscated guns and pawning them. IIRC, they are in prison now.

Many of the guns had "bodies" on them :eek:

Vex
June 22, 2006, 04:29 AM
Would anyone rather these guns were destroyed? I remember a thread a while back where the majority opinion was that guns should be given back to law abiding citizens or used by police before being destroyed.... and now that this is happening, the majority opinion has conveniently switched to oppose the police?

Hell, for all we know, the cops could be true supporters of the 2A, and are risking their jobs to make sure these guns are properly used instead of destroyed.

The hipocrasy is quite annoying.

mzmtg
June 22, 2006, 05:51 AM
Would anyone rather these guns were destroyed? I remember a thread a while back where the majority opinion was that guns should be given back to law abiding citizens or used by police before being destroyed.... and now that this is happening, the majority opinion has conveniently switched to oppose the police?

Hell, for all we know, the cops could be true supporters of the 2A, and are risking their jobs to make sure these guns are properly used instead of destroyed.

The hipocrasy is quite annoying.


So I'm a hypocrite because I want cops to be prosecuted for STEALING GUNS in the same fashion that they would prosecute me?

YellowLab
June 22, 2006, 07:12 AM
Ummm it the LAW to destroy them. Its not the LAW to have crooked cops keep them for thier own.

How about if the crooked cops do what WE have to do, VOTE, rally support, get changes LEGALY impemented? Naw..... what was I thinking.

Shut up and PAY YOUR TAXES. sheep.

Vex
June 22, 2006, 11:47 AM
So I'm a hypocrite because I want cops to be prosecuted for STEALING GUNS in the same fashion that they would prosecute me?

Just trying to get a consistent opinion on what to do with these left over guns.


YellowLab, you're right. Insulting me is constructive. :rolleyes:

mzmtg
June 22, 2006, 12:37 PM
Just trying to get a consistent opinion on what to do with these left over guns.



These pieces (PUN!) of evidence should be handled or disposed of as proscribed by state law.

Daniel T
June 22, 2006, 12:38 PM
The hipocrasy is quite annoying.

True, but it's not coming from where you think it is, which isn't a surprise to anyone except maybe you.

HankB
June 22, 2006, 12:41 PM
Vex, do you also feel the officers were doing a good deed when . . . guns reported stolen were never returned to owners but kept by officers;I believe that most THR members - myself included - regard this as, at a minimum, receiving stolen property.

Zero_DgZ
June 22, 2006, 12:56 PM
Not to mention theft of a firearm, which was a felony last I checked. And a shrewd prosecutor could also cram posession of a firearm during a felony in there, too.

Hawkmoon
June 22, 2006, 01:00 PM
... none of the policy violations reveal criminal action.

...

Among the findings: Guns were taken for personal use and guns listed as destroyed were being used by officers; guns assigned to one officer ended up with another; guns reported stolen were never returned to owners but kept by officers; and weapons were "checked out" to city employees in other agencies and even to private citizens.

Apparently theft is not considered a criminal act in Dothan, AL.

"I want to commend the officers that returned the weapons."
Questionable judgment by the chief. If any of us went out and robbed a bank or a gun shop, you you think the chief would hand us a commendation if we gave the loot back five years later? I doubt it very much.

Pilgrim
June 22, 2006, 01:26 PM
I suspect some high ranking friends of the Chief were involved, in and outside the department.

Pilgrim

Vex
June 22, 2006, 06:49 PM
I believe that most THR members - myself included - regard this as, at a minimum, receiving stolen property.

Hank, I'm sorry, but I don't want you to have the misconception that I think stealing is okay. I wasn't condoning the actions of the officers. I was merely playign devil's advocate in an attempt to find out why in one thread the majority opinion is to save the guns, while another thread advocates destroying them.

I want to know if the officers were using the guns for duty, or taking them home for personal enjoyment.

Ironbarr
June 22, 2006, 08:41 PM
Maybe it's how they are "saved" and how they are "destroyed".

.

Hawkmoon
June 22, 2006, 10:45 PM
Hank, I'm sorry, but I don't want you to have the misconception that I think stealing is okay. I wasn't condoning the actions of the officers. I was merely playign devil's advocate in an attempt to find out why in one thread the majority opinion is to save the guns, while another thread advocates destroying them.

I want to know if the officers were using the guns for duty, or taking them home for personal enjoyment.
You're fighting the wrong argument.

I'm all in favor of homeless guns being used, or transferred in some way to legal owners, rather than see them destroyed. But ... there needs to be a legal procedure for doing so. Whether or not you recognize it, what you are calling hypocrisy ... isn't. While I would like to see the homeless gunds saved, that desire stops several meters short of thinking it might be okay for police officers to (a) steal the guns from the evidence locker; (b) prevent the return of stolen guns to identifiable legal owners thereof; (c) falsify official records; (d) ... (what am I forgetting here? There must be more laws being broken than just the trhee I listed.)

I don't see any hypocrisy whatsoever. Are you telling us you think it's okay for the police to steal, falsify, and deprive lawful owners of their property under any circumstances, and for any reason?

Vex
June 23, 2006, 02:04 AM
Are you telling us you think it's okay for the police to steal, falsify, and deprive lawful owners of their property under any circumstances, and for any reason?

I'm sorry, but I don't want you to have the misconception that I think stealing is okay. I wasn't condoning the actions of the officers.

Does that anwer your question?

Autolycus
June 23, 2006, 04:02 AM
This is complete garbage.

They stole the guns and they should be forced to fess up to it. Plain and simple. I am willing to bet that the chief probably also got himself a new gun. Please post a follow up if possible.

Byron Quick
June 23, 2006, 05:29 AM
Vex,

I think there should be a legal procedure for guns seized permanently by the police-as well as departmental firearms being replaced-to be sold to the public. As members of the public, the police officers could also buy these guns at public auction.

I also think that the officers involved in this need to be prosecuted if evidence can be gathered. Especially the officers responsible for preventing stolen guns from being returned to the rightful owners. That is a complete and total perversion of their lawful authority.

Personally, if I was a member of the Dothan PD, I wouldn't be too happy knowing I had to count on one of these guys. We already know the department can't trust them, the public can't trust them...can their fellow officers trust them in the crunch?

If I'm not mistaken, incidents such as this in Georgia would initiate an independent investigation of the police department by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation who then turn their findings over to the DA.

nick012000
June 23, 2006, 05:56 AM
I know other confiscated property is sold at police auction. Apparently usually for quite cheap, as well. Why not firearms?

CZ 75 BD
June 23, 2006, 07:32 AM
Review needed
The Dothan Eagle
Thursday, June 22, 2006


After publication of an internal audit report characterizing the Dothan Police Department’s evidence locker as some police officers’ toy chest, Dothan Police Chief John Powell downplayed the situation, saying he was still looking into it. Despite his incomplete review, he stated no criminal action took place. While some suspensions may result, he will not recommend any terminations.
Powell is saying the wrong things. For the credibility of the department, the reputation of the 75 percent of the police force that’s not involved and the accountability of the municipal government, he should be announcing his intent to have the audit and its finding reviewed by the state attorney general to determine whether the department’s “tradition” of making weapons and other items in the evidence room available for the asking - to police officers and, in some cases, civilians, retired or terminated officers and other city employees - violates state or federal law.
The audit, which was presented to Powell and City Manager Mike West on Feb. 7 but not released until June 16 following a public records request by the Eagle, uncovered a startling culture among at least 25 percent of the police force:
- A complete inventory of the evidence room has never been completed.
- 170 firearms listed as being in evidence were not in the evidence room.
- After Powell informed officers to bring back any items they had “checked out” of the evidence room, 40 officers returned 102 firearms and two former officers returned four firearms.
- Officers had stolen guns that had been recovered but not returned to the rightful owners.
- Officers had weapons that had been logged as destroyed.
- Officers had weapons that had been “checked out” by other officers.
- Civilians and non-police city employees were allowed to “check out” weapons from the evidence room.
- Evidence such as power tools, televisions, cameras and stereo equipment were listed as “condemned for law enforcement purposes.” Condemnation of such material is an action of the court.
- There are no controls regarding disposal of the guns.
- Guns marked for destruction were given to officers who asked for them.
- One officer returned 13 guns; another returned seven.
- The audit reports 25 percent of the force - including 18 supervisors - are implicated in the evidence room hand-outs.
The report raises far more questions than it answers. Why would an officer want a weapon that would turn up as stolen, destroyed or returned to an owner if run through a national law enforcement database? While it’s reasonable that an officer would request an additional weapon as a back-up to his standard equipment, why would an officer have seven? Or 13? Of what legitimate use to law enforcement is a power tool or a stereo? Why is the inventory of the evidence room managed haphazardly on index cards in a file box as well as in standard police computer programs? If a police officer has possession of a stolen weapon that has been recovered but not returned to its owner, is he or she guilty of receiving stolen property?
There are written rules, procedures and accreditation guidelines dictating the management of evidence, particularly firearms. This structure was subverted, resulting in wide distribution of weapons that should be under the control of the police department’s evidence room.
The audit report should have triggered an immediate review by an unbiased, external law enforcement entity and public disclosure of the audit findings, followed by an extensive overhaul of the management and tracking procedures of the evidence room.
Instead, the city kept the audit under wraps and disclosed the results only after a public documents request, followed by Powell’s assertion that no laws have been broken and that some of the officers involved may not have known that taking weapons and other items from the evidence room for their personal use was prohibited.
“I don’t want to penalize an officer that is unfamiliar with code and thought it was acceptable practice,” he said.
As a career lawman, Powell is certainly familiar with a concept of justice with an origin so ancient it has its own Latin phrase: Ignorantia juris non excusat - Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
If it were, many defendants would go free.


This story can be found at: http://www.dothaneagle.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=DEA/MGArticle/DEA_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1149188655001

Thin Black Line
June 23, 2006, 08:07 AM
I threatened to file a civil rights violation in a federal court in my home
state (5 hours one way from the LEA in question) which would have required
them to appear in my home state before a federal judge.

My firearm was returned a week later and before my threatened filing
deadline.

Yes, this would have cost some money up front which I could have sued
the LEA for later --and won.

Fred Fuller
June 23, 2006, 09:08 AM
"After publication of an internal audit report characterizing the Dothan Police Department’s evidence locker as some police officers’ toy chest, Dothan Police Chief John Powell downplayed the situation, saying he was still looking into it. Despite his incomplete review, he stated no criminal action took place."
======================================================

The chief needs to be the first one booted out of the door, and if his wink-wink attitude toward official criminal conduct is not considered a problem by the city leadership then there is a definite problem with the city leadership that the voters in Dothan desperately need to address. I hope they get it done soon.

lpl/nc

Pilgrim
June 23, 2006, 11:17 AM
- The audit reports 25 percent of the force - including 18 supervisors - are implicated in the evidence room hand-outs.
Ahhh, just as I predicted.

Pilgrim

Mannlicher
June 23, 2006, 11:38 AM
As happens over and over, cops get special treatment, and commit acts that would land a private Citizen in jail. Firearms theft is a serious crime, except if you are a cop.

MudPuppy
June 23, 2006, 01:01 PM
Isn't there an indepent agency that should be investigating? (God forbid the BATF be useful to the citizens of the country...)

Just a hypothetical--say I know of someone in a position of authority that seems to have an overflowing gun safe (and otherwise living beyond their assumed normal salary). Is my just be suspicious enough to report that? And who would you even report that to?

Don't get me wrong--I like the police. I don't like crimminals. And you can't (shouldn't) be both!

Diomed
June 23, 2006, 02:36 PM
This isn't particularly uncommon - there's an ongoing case in Hopewell (Va) regarding the evidence locker being more of a Stop'n'Shop. Anywhere you have people in priveleged positions, corruption will surely follow.

The funny thing is, people seem to question authority (in some respects) much more often now than in years past. So, was the problem even worse fifty or a hundred years ago, or have things been going downhill?

ApexinM3
June 23, 2006, 04:05 PM
Powell stressed that the audit goes back many years and that many of the officers involved were not aware of the department's policy or that they were breaking those policies.

Funny, but I always though that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Guaranteed, if that was a civilian/sheeple, there would be a majorcase of SHTF. Stolen property is stolen property, regardless. You take something which does not belong to you, then you are guilty of theft. I don’t see any gray area about it.:cuss:

If the officers in question are guilty of this, they had better be prosecuted just like a normal person would be. If not, then a nasty precedent will be set: It‘s okay to brake the laws of the land, as you are above the law. I don‘t like that..

aryfrosty
June 23, 2006, 11:21 PM
I agreee that there were procedural errors all the way up to criminal acts. But if one of you gentlemen was ever charged with a crime you would clamor for ALL of the evidence to be examined before you were found to be guilty or innocent. No, actually the "law" doesn't say that all seized guns are to be destroyed. The method varies from department to department. In several departments permission has been granted for the agency to auction these guns off. Are they stealing? Of course not. As for "returning stolen guns" to the former owners...I have dealt with recovery of such guns and after the "former" owner has been bellyaching about getting his, or her, guns back I have found in some cases that the "owner" was compensated by the insurance company. So the gun really belongs to them. Who's the theif there? Could it possibly be, gasp, the former owner who has already been paid?? One certain thing. Without all of the facts, and a newspaper isn't a Bible just because it has pages with words on them, not one of us should rush in and condemn the entire Police Department.

Byron Quick
June 24, 2006, 02:43 AM
I'm not willing to condemn the entire department. Apparently 75% had nothing to do with it. I am all for the remaining 25% being accorded their presumption of innocence until being found guilty by a jury of their peers. Just because they were ignorant of the law and lacked integrity is no reason not to charge them with their crimes and then let a jury decide. You know, as is done with non-LEO's.

I had a gun stolen and the insurance company paid off. It was so long ago that I don't even remember what insurance company. Tell you what, though...if my pre-WWII FN Hipower is ever recovered...I'll gladly return the pittance the insurance company paid. On the other hand, if I find that a law enforcement officer decided my recovered pistol looked better in his possession, I will do everything in my power to see him occupying a cell right next to the guy who stole it to begin with.

aryfrosty
June 24, 2006, 06:03 AM
I understand your concerns and share many of the same. I shall iterate...we out here in the world don't know the details yet...and may never unless some of us are called to jury duty.
As for your stolen pistol. I know that hurt. I'd hate to have it happen to me. BUT ! If your insurer pays off on the gun you might never be told it was recovered. Once they pay off you are no longer the owner...they are. And from my personal experiences I fear that what they paid you for your loss would not be acceptable to the insuror.
All that said...those guys in Dothan seem to be wrong completely.

"I am all for the remaining 25% being accorded their presumption of innocence until being found guilty by a jury of their peers."

Sounds to me like you've already tried these guys.

Pilgrim
June 24, 2006, 01:02 PM
I'm not willing to condemn the entire department. Apparently 75% had nothing to do with it.
I imagine there are a number of officers in the 75% ranks who are thinking, "Boy, I sure am glad I didn't take anything." They may be 'innocent' of the pilfering, but they had knowledge of it.

Undoubtedly there are a few officers in the 75% ranks who are figuring out how they can take advantage of this. A one in three chance of promotion or better can be improved by anonymous tips of additional malfeasance.

Pilgrim

jashobeam
June 24, 2006, 01:45 PM
Why do certain THR members find themselves irresistibly drawn to defend or downplay alleged LEO criminal activity?

Would it make me a hypocrite if I were to say that I think people should not own televisions, and later get angry after learning that a police officer confiscated for his own personal use a recovered stolen television rather than return it to its rightful owner?

If I say a certain building is ugly should I not be allowed to be outraged if it is burned to the ground by an arsonist?

I could be anti-RKBA and still get angry about cops who take for themselves guns that belong to other people.

Art Eatman
June 24, 2006, 02:07 PM
Be interesting to see if the newspaper editorial causes some shakeup via local politics. Depends on how much they push it, of course, along with noise from the pro-gun folks of Dothan.

Anybody here from around Dothan? Follow up, and give us a new thread in a week or three?

Pilgrim, you're making unwarranted assumptions, drifting OT toward bashing...

Art

Pilgrim
June 24, 2006, 06:55 PM
Pilgrim, you're making unwarranted assumptions, drifting OT toward bashing...
How so? I taught classes for people interested in pursuing law enforcement careers. Included in my class presentations on corruption was a taped one hour television documentary on crooked cops in which corrupt cops in prison were interviewed. A common theme in those interviews was they did it because to them 'everyone' else was doing it, only they got caught.

Corruption in law enforcement, like any other career field, starts small and then gets larger and larger. It's the first violation of ethics that is difficult, then it becomes easier and easier and more pervasive. It thrives in an environment where co-workers look the other way. As one of the convicted cops in that television show said in his prison interview, "10% of the cops in (his) department were crooks, 10% were completely honest, and the rest wished they were honest."

Before I became involved in law enforcement, I got to know some truck drivers and become acquainted with the trucking industry. I was fascinated by the amount of pilferage that was taking place off of truck loads. It was called 'broken cases' and 'damaged packaging'. It was a way of life and it seemed everyone in the industry knew about it, but chose to look the other way.

Unwarranted assumptions on my part? No, just my life experiences and observations of several occupations and career fields.

Pilgrim

aryfrosty
June 24, 2006, 09:35 PM
"I imagine there are a number of officers in the 75% ranks who are thinking, "Boy, I sure am glad I didn't take anything." They may be 'innocent' of the pilfering, but they had knowledge of it." (Pilgrim)

You "taught" classes??? what did you teach them? Bigotry and ignorance? In the statement above you very clearly establish that your opinions aren't worth the paper you wipe with.
I hope I don't offend you.... Clearly you feel that you are the only person who is empowered by omniscience to the degree that you can offend others.
It is, Mr. Moderator, far beyond bashing. It is spiteful and loathsome and is something I never thought to see on the High Road. I have called for patience and open mindedness regarding the Dothan, Alabama situation. I have extended respect to all other's ideas.
I regret that I shall withdraw from the "High Road" as it no longer seems to be so.
Bash on, gentlemen. You are clearly at home with your own kind.

yhtomit
June 24, 2006, 10:05 PM
I've read (and just reread) what Pilgrim wrote, and see nothing like bashing -- if anything, he's being restrained by a) accepting at face value the idea (which seems laughable to me) that 75% of the Dothan officers were neither involved in nor cognizant of this ongoing theft and b) even for the other 25%, affording them the presumption of innocence even as an observer (remember, that's a legal right of the accused, not a requirement for the general public to strain its credulity) despite seemingly clearcut evidence that there was some serious hankypanky going on in the Dothan evidence room.

I wonder how many of the guns that went missing belonged to people whose guns shouldn't have been taken in the first place.

Not to seem too strident, I could see this situation much differently if the evidence room's "fun" contents were converted to the benefit of the police force (nominally the good guys, and I'll join in with Pilgrim's magnaminity -- hey, that might even be a real word! -- by assuming that that's the case here, that Dothan's finest really are something close to Dothan's finest) under some better-designed system. For instance, a policy that firearms in the evidence room which have been carefully photographed, chronographed, forensically fingerprinted, etc, to the extent that could reasonably be expected to prove useful in court, *and* have been there for more than 24 months (or some other reasonable figure), *and* are in calibers in common use in the department, could be scrupulously checked out as backup weapons to active duty or retired officers of the department.

I'm certainly anything but a police officer; perhaps that idea is so wrong it's not even worth rebutting, but heck, from here is seems sort of reasonable. That is, the problem here (as I see it) is not that guns were taken from an evidence room, but that this happened willy nilly, with no respect for the rightful owners, for evidentiary value, or for the orderly and efficient administration of justice. Ahem.

timothy

Don Gwinn
June 25, 2006, 12:05 AM
I have called for patience and open mindedness regarding the Dothan, Alabama situation. I have extended respect to all other's ideas.
I regret that I shall withdraw from the "High Road" as it no longer seems to be so.
Bash on, gentlemen. You are clearly at home with your own kind.

Lighten up, Francis.

This is not a report from some outside interest group. It's from an "internal audit." Internal means that the department itself conducted this investigation, and they decided that it was appropriate to say that 25% of the department was taking stuff that doesn't belong to them.

The simple observation that if 25% of the department is stealing stuff from the evidence lockers, then there must be a lot more than 25% who knew about it is not bashing, nor does it warrant anybody taking their ball and going home in a huff. If you want to leave, fair enough, but don't expect THR to be run differently because you make the threat.

Pilgrim
June 25, 2006, 12:26 AM
You "taught" classes??? what did you teach them? Bigotry and ignorance? In the statement above you very clearly establish that your opinions aren't worth the paper you wipe with.
I taught them that corruption starts with little transgressions, and when those aren't punished one goes on to bigger things. I taught them that ethics means doing the right thing when no one is watching. I taught them that nothing is worth lying about, even the smallest matter, to make sure a crook goes to prison. I also taught them that the only things that appear in the newspaper about them should be things they are proud to have their children brag about in school, not that they had to take the fifth amendment while being questioned in court.

Pilgrim

Byron Quick
June 27, 2006, 01:15 AM
Sounds to me like you've already tried these guys.

If I had, then wanting them to have their day in court, with the presumption of innocence intact, and a verdict to be decided upon by a jury would be rather redundant, wouldn't it?

So many police officers don't get it. And it is harming them. The urge to not wash the dirty laundry in public and to shield colleagues if possible is natural. It is a road to public mistrust by any profession. Police officers need to ask themselves when faced with such situations,"Would we rather shield these officers from prosecution for crimes allegedly committed or have them prosecuted and maintain public trust in our profession?'

CZ 75 BD
June 27, 2006, 01:26 PM
Here is a link to the audit that started the storm.

http://media.gatewayal.com/dea/images/content/news/GunAudit.pdf

If you enjoyed reading about "Dothan, Alabama LEOs are kids in candy store" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!