Small note: This didn’t happen last week… it happened waaaay back on July 3rd…

Smeg; not entirely true, many states, cities, and counties state employees are subject to immediate discipline including termination for conduct unbecoming of a state/city/county employee. I know some people who have been disciplined for things which occurred in public, while off-duty, and they were not police officers. While everyone makes mistakes and should be given some opportunity to falter and learn, it is also reasonable that employees who make a living enforcing certain rules, should be absolutely responsible for living by those rules. Cops who write traffic tickets all day, should themselves strictly obey the traffic laws and if they blatantly and knowingly disregard the rules, I would expect them to receive a ticket and be disciplined at work. Should IRS auditors not be terminated if they were themselves party to tax evasion. Public servants who are entrusted with the public’s trust are elevated to a higher standard that the general public. I believe most police officers understand that when they sign on the force, it comes with the badge. Same is true for code enforcement, social services, etc.

Case in point from the Gaurdian Report: https://boiseguardian.com/2007/04/14/cops-nab-bieter-staffer-for-dui/

JJ: I do not disagree with you that public servants need to obey the law. However, the link you referenced was not really for a civil servant. It was for a political appointment position that served at the leisure of the Mayor. That position is subject to termination at the whim of the Mayor. If for some reason the Deputy is found not guilty, or the case is dismissed, do you anticipate the Sheriff will un-punish him???? Will you then advocate that the Sheriff apologize for acting too soon with out all the facts. I am just saying that one has to be careful when inflicting “double jeopardy” by using administrative discipline in addition to the criminal case. Like I said, he is not convicted yet.

I would also note that he was drinking, and probably drunk, when Boise police talked to him. And the reason they talked to him is cause he refused to leave the bar when the weapons were observed and he was asked to leave by the proprietor. So here’s a law enforcement officer from the SWAT team displaying all the macho bravado and confrontationalism of 90% of the potential arrests on a given Saturday night in Boise’s most crowded hotspot engaged in behavior that would have gotten anyone else’s concealed weapon permit yanked. In other words, not only was he a potential threat to the community, his status as an officer is allowing whatever penalty he may incur for conduct unbecoming an officer to escape public scrutiny. Its wrong wrong wrong and I cannot tell whether he is being held to the “highest possible standards” Indeed just the opposite appears. He’s getting preferential treatment unless his guns were confiscated and he’s riding a desk.

EDITOR, probablys don’t matter here, every day there are many citizens that are not law enforcement given cites for offenses they could go to jail for. This is a FACT, not a “probably”. SISYPHUS, high standards are what we expect of law enforcment, but again, they are human. They make mistakes, admit to those mistakes, learn from those mistakes, take their punishment, and still go out and do their job protecting those that need it. Again, enough said!

the law says that “any person” may not carry concealed while “intoxicated or under the influence of an intoxicating drink or drug.” The code doesn’t mention only those people with a permit, so I assume it applies to all. It’s a misdemeanor.

Once an officer is certified and passed the Idaho P.O.S.T. requirements they are not required to have a concealed weapon permit. As long as they are carrying proper department I.D. they are not obliged to obtain a permit from the Sheriff like everyone else

Editors note on Steve’s comment: The purpose of writing somone a citation (misdemeanor) versus arresting them is to give them a date to make them promise to appear in court to take care of the manner. There are several reasons why an officer may choose to cite a person into court rather than to arrest such as, the person is not a flight risk (a police officer), the officer belives the person will appear in court, the suspect is not combative, or the jail maybe full and not accepting non violent offenders at the time ect. The officer on the other hand may choose to arrest the offending party because he believes the subject needs to be removed from the premise for his saftey, that the subject is a flight risk, or that he may commit another crime.

EDITOR NOTE–Well stated and we agree with your explanation.

Steve, nobody learns from mistakes if they aren’t punished accordingly. The one thing we can tell from the paucity of information provided is that the officer IS NOT being held to the same standards of everyone else, since anyone else would have had their CWP revoked. Such formalities are avoided from the process HA81 provided (but isn’t it interesting that neither weapon was his service revolver). He was caught drinking, maybe to excess, in a crowded night club, riding a mechanical bull, with, not one, but TWO weapons on his person. Not only that, he became confrontational when asked to leave. Just the appearance alone could have been grounds for termination.

He most certainly did get preferential treatment; any other person would have been immediately arrested and forced to bond out or sit in jail until arraignment the next business day in magistrate court. Law enforcement has discretion whether to arrest or issue a citation, but their “discretion” has been overridden by unwritten department directives, the existence of which is fervently denied, to arrest on all misdemeanors. This deputy was an exception to the shall-arrest policy, and it needs further attention.

Note also that arrests provide income not only to bondsmen, but to the Ada County Sheriff’s Office, which exacts a fee for each release on bond. It’s pure authoritarianism and revenuing, and needs to be exposed for what it is.