An off duty Ada county sheriff’s deputy has proven that even after 21 years on the force coppers still do stupid things. He got caught packing heat–two pistolas–while riding the mechanical bull at a Boise saloon in July. It came to light this last week.
Bartenders spotted guns on their buckin patron and called the Boise coppers who–to their credit–wrote their fellow “professional” a ticket for packing heat on his hip while packing booze in his belly.
The matter is on hold in the court because the judge assigned to the case didn’t want to judge the lawman and disqualified himself.
Meanwhile Sheriff Gary Raney tells the STATESMAN the deputy was “punished,” but since it is a “personnel matter” citizens will never know the extent of the descipline. The sheriff didn’t have to disqualify himself. He came up with a quick guilty verdict and apparently imposed a sentence. Now let’s see if the courts do the same.
To insure more advertising-free Boise Guardian news, please consider financial support.
Aug 27, 2010, 12:56 pm
Small note: This didn’t happen last week… it happened waaaay back on July 3rd…
Aug 27, 2010, 2:52 pm
So the sheriff punished him and he still has to go to court on the citation for off duty activity. Sure he was stupid for doing it. That is why he got a citation just like everyone else would have. But the rest of the world would not be punished for off duty actions by their employer in addition to the citation he got. You cop haters never think about that.
Aug 27, 2010, 4:12 pm
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/
Aug 27, 2010, 5:37 pm
I thought it was doo doo?
Right, I fixed it.
Aug 27, 2010, 9:44 pm
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.
Aug 28, 2010, 12:16 pm
Way to go Smeg. Yes JJ, you are corrct, anyone that is a “public servant” (god I hate that term) are subject to much more scrutiny then people in private sector jobs. That is the point, Joe Computer at Micron, if he got this same ticket for carrying a handgun while intoxicated, but yet had a legal concealed weapons permit, would not receive any punishment at work. He would still have his keyboard, micro processor etc. I think the point is,there is a double standard for government employees. Its not double jeopardy because you are not being tried by two courts on the same matter, after being acquitted in one. Just as in the military, it is not double jeopardy when you receive non-judicial punishment for something you did off a base as well as the fine etc given by civil authorities. Mr Cashier at Wal Mart isn’t going to have his lunch hour taken away for this type of issue. He would pay his fine after conviction and be back to ringing up your Oreos. Anyway, enough said on it. We are all human and we all make mistakes. This deputy will learn a lesson and thts what matters.
EDITOR NOTE–That double standard swings both ways. If the Cashier got busted with a couple of deadly weapons and a belly full of booze chances are pretty good he would have been arrested and booked. The deputy probably was favored with “professional courtesy,” and got off with a cite.
Aug 28, 2010, 1:40 pm
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.
Aug 28, 2010, 4:38 pm
I wonder if the gave him the breath test.. or forcibly took a blood test. i am betting he got some “professional” courtesy. If not, might be hard to prove he was drunk… which leaves simple trespassing for refusing to leave.
Aug 28, 2010, 6:26 pm
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!
Aug 29, 2010, 10:32 pm
If I recall correctly law enforcement can carry concealed weapons off dugy by statute. There is the question of blood alcohol.
Judges, police/sheirffs, officers of the courts, and prison guards fall under this statute if I remember correctly.
I do not remember reading anything about consuming alcohol limiting the conceal carry permits for law enforcment personnel.
Does anyone know the deal here?
Aug 30, 2010, 8:17 am
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.
Aug 30, 2010, 10:51 am
here is what i found..
“A concealed weapon, even with a permit, cannot be carried while one is intoxicated; nor can it be carried into a courthouse; juvenile detention facility; jail; or public or private school or school activity areas or school provided transportation”
the question now becomes did they do a blood alcohol test to prove this guy was beyond the limits of sobriety?
Aug 30, 2010, 11:58 am
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.
Aug 30, 2010, 1:10 pm
It’s interesting. Blood alcohol content as measured by blood test or breath is applicable only to DUI, I think. As I remember, back in the day, they had to prove that you were impaired. That turned out to be hard, so the law was written tying it strictly to the test result.. no need to prove impairment. Much easier to prosecute. Not sure if those numbers apply to any other situation other than being able to say “he would not have been able to drive legally.”
EDITOR NOTE–In this case the judgement of the arresting officers will likely prevail…thick tongue speech, eyes, odor on breath, etc. Coppers certainly know how to tell if someone is under the influence. The BA results are just the key in the lock for DUI.
Aug 30, 2010, 4:17 pm
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.
Aug 30, 2010, 8:40 pm
I do think if he (may have) commited a crime he should see the Judge about it, not just his boss.
Sep 1, 2010, 2:30 pm
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.
Sep 1, 2010, 7:11 pm
Driller, get a grip!!! I have personally seen people receive summons/cites for misdemeanor offenses. This happens every day. Your assumption that there is a “unwritten” directive is pure speculation on your part, and I believe that is now being exposed for what it is!!!