Umm... anyone else see something wrong with this?

Started by TankerT, January 30, 2007, 03:45:55 AM

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.


DNall

QuoteSearch Continues For Suspects, Off-Duty Deputy Killed in Pursuit  
January 25, 2006
Reported By: KPLC Staff

It all started unfolding Thursday morning around 1:30. What started as an impromptu off-duty investigation, ended in murder.

"It's our worst nightmare, we have lost one of our own," said Lake Charles Police Chief Don Dixon. 

Chief Dixon is talking about 43-year-old Calcasieu Parish Sheriff's Deputy Alan Inzer. Inzer, along with a friend was heading home around 1:30 this morning, but noticed what looked like a robbery at this business at 3118 Ryan Street. Investigators say Inzer stopped and three or four suspects took off on foot.

"Deputy Inzer pursued in his vehicle through a yard," said Dixon. 

Inzer then jumped out and chased one of the suspects on foot down Richard Street. Just moments later 911 received several calls from the Richard Street area about multiple shots being fired.  One of those shots hit the off-duty deputy, who died a short time later.

"Yes, this is personal. It hits home, it hurts. It's a little more difficult," said Dixon. 

"If those people are a danger to policemen, just think what they would do to you. We are not going to let this happen in our community," said Calcasieu Parish Sheriff Tony Mancuso. 

Meanwhile several agencies are assisting Lake Charles Police with the investigation and search for suspects, including the Calcasieu Sheriff's Office, State Police and FBI. In their search for answers, investigators have found several pieces of evidence. "We have recovered a weapon that we believe was involved in the homicide approximately three or four houses northeast of where deputy Inzer was found on Richard Street," said Dixon. 

Leaving no stone unturned, the Civil Air Patrol volunteered their time in taking aerial photos of the crime scene, that spreads nearly a mile. More than 60 officers continue to follow leads in the case, one of which led them to Giovannia Street Thursday morning, where one person was taken into custody. "We have been all over the city. We had an incident with somebody that was taken into custody. We have no idea if they were involved in this or not. That person is being held on a parole violation," said Chief Dixon. 

The only description given by authorities is from an eyewitness, who said the suspects are three black males. As they remain in hiding, authorities say it is just a matter of time before they find them. 

"We are going to identify you. We are going to find you, particularly the ones that are not the shooters... I encourage you to come in now. If you have any opportunity to help yourself now is the time," said Dixon. 

"We're going to do everything we can to bring to justice the people that deserve to be brought to justice and I promise you we are going to do that just like we would do for any citizen," said Sheriff Mancuso.

Yeah, I don't know who approved that mission or if they actually flew it, but that's absolutely illegal. I would be very careful if I were them. I'd hate to see a cop killer get off on a technicality because CAP just had to have a couple more flying hours to produce what I'm sure are worthless photos.

afgeo4

what's illegal?  flying over a crime scene or taking pictures? If there was a sheriff's office deputy onboard taking the pictures I don't see how this would be illegal.
GEORGE LURYE

TankerT

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 30, 2007, 04:12:33 AM
what's illegal?  flying over a crime scene or taking pictures? If there was a sheriff's office deputy onboard taking the pictures I don't see how this would be illegal.

1- It says we took the photos... not the Sherrif's Office Deputy
2- IIRC - We're restricted from pretty much everything when it comes to working with law enforcement exept for Counter Narc, and that has some strict rules.
3 - Posse Comitatus Act comes to mind... (that may or may not be a factor here... I'm not an expert on when it is in effect and when it is not...)

/Insert Snappy Comment Here

DNall

It'd be equally illegal if they flew a cop to take the pix.

While the conditions are debatable, it's illegal for the military to fund or support in any way whatsoever any law enforcement activity not directly related to drugs or terrorism. There's no loop holes. If some idiot lawyer can make a case that the military is illegally funneling funds to law enforcemnt activity by allowing federally funded CAP to support them outside the bounds of PCA, then their client's constitutional rights have been violated, they get off for good, and federal funding to CAP must cease right away. That's not an extreme interpretation, it's pretty standard. You can make a case the other way, but it doesn't matter. Ain't no amount of flying hours worth playing that close to the flame.

Hawk200

I don't see anything wrong with it. It's not assisting in the enforcement of law (which is different than assisting law enforcement), it's just taking pictures. Under our mission parameters it's reconnaissance.

You don't have to be a cop to take photos of crime scenes. There are forensic experts, but they don't carry the the same kind of badge or responsibilities that cops do.

Besides, that probably wasn't done on one of the Title 10 missions. It would be that nice corporate umbrella that we keep wielding so we can get those assistance missions.

RiverAux

By the way, the story was featured on CAP News Online. 

The question is whether these CAP members did it as private individuals in private planes and were just identified as CAP members in the story because they happened to be or whether it was an official authorized CAP mission.  I hesitate to make that call based on a single news story given their propensity for getting stuff wrong. 


lordmonar

If flown as a C mission with a plane with the new paint job...PCA does not play.

It is still in violation of CAP regulations....but not the law.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

DNall

Quote from: Hawk200 on January 30, 2007, 04:35:43 AM
I don't see anything wrong with it. It's not assisting in the enforcement of law (which is different than assisting law enforcement), it's just taking pictures. Under our mission parameters it's reconnaissance.
It is actually. Producing take that can be used in civil or criminal prosecution not related to drugs/terrorism is specifically illegal. It's real dicey for the national guard to do this. For sure illegal for the AF, & because they make it possible for us to have this gear, then they are on the hook for what we do with it. Just like letting your drunk buddy drive your care makes you responsible.

QuoteYou don't have to be a cop to take photos of crime scenes. There are forensic experts, but they don't carry the the same kind of badge or responsibilities that cops do.

Besides, that probably wasn't done on one of the Title 10 missions. It would be that nice corporate umbrella that we keep wielding so we can get those assistance missions.
Depends on your location I guess, ours are gun toting commissioned peace officers.

The PCA interpretation above specifically refers to corporate missions. Let me be claer on this... w/ the paint job is legally meaningless. Conducting this mission, in addition to violating CAP regs, is NOT illegal for CAP. The legal violation is by AF in funding CAP, & upon confirmation of such violation requires AF to cease funding.

RiverAux

Folks, if this was a CAP mission approved through the NOC I am very confident that it had to have met whatever legal standards apply.  This isn't the old days when Wing Commanders would approve iffy missions and then try to keep them quiet so nobody knew about them.  Whatever standard applies I'm fairly sure NOC or AFRCC is applying it correctly -- heck, thats the main reason they consolidated mission approval authority. 

DNall

Actually, it doesn't say the flew it at all. It says CAP offered to do so, as in some local aircrew. Who knows if they actually did it.

NOC approval doesn't mean they're doing it right. CAP wants to stretch those limits to get work. Congress & the courts do NOT wish to provide that latitude & legal precedent is quite restrictive from what I've been told. AFRCC would do it right. They have strict limits in this area, and on-call JA for review, & would never let that mission fly. They specifically turn back missing person searches if there's a hint fowl play might be involved. No way in hell crime scene photos are acceptable.

JohnKachenmeister

Dennis:

I love ya like a brutha from anutha mutha, but...

I respectfully non-concur with your assessment of this action.

The article is not real clear, but I will make the following assumptions:

1.  The mission was flown as a Title 36 mission, and not under Title 10.

2.  The mission was flown pursuant to a MOU, even if it were a one-time MOU.

3.  The mission was approved by NHQ/DO, IAW CAPR 900-3.

CAPR 900-3 specifically authorizes "Passive" assistance to law enforcement, and limits CAP assistance to "Patrol, surveillance, and reporting."  That's what they did.  The regulation does not specify the form of the "Reporting," and a photographic report is still a report.

CAPR 900-3 places prohibitions on use of force, restricting the activity of persons, and deputization of CAP personnel.  None of these prohibited activities apparently took place.

CAPR 900-3 also says that flights will be flown in accordance with 60-1, which limits law enforcement support to drug interdiction.  That is confusing, since it appears to prohibit what another regulation specifically authorizes. 

(If you think THAT'S confusing, try figuring out the precedence of foreign decorations between tables 5-2 and 5-3 in CAPM 39-1, but I digress.)

The PCA does not apply, since under the 2000 law, we are NOT an operational part of the USAF unless we are acting under Title 10 in support of the USAF or another Federal agency.

"When in doubt, move to the sound of the guns."  -- Jachim Murat.



Another former CAP officer

DNall

I understand all that, the issue is AF compliance w/ PCA in the act of funding CAP planes, MX, training that make such a mission possible.

CAP regs on this subject, particularly 900-3 really are mostly unchanged since prior to the 2000 law. There are limited circumstances under which the military, & by proxy CAP (and that's what it is), can help LE in various ways. It doesn't matter if there are any circumstances under which we're an instrumentality of the AF or anyone else. The fact that they provide equipment that is 100% funded by military budget dollars means it cannot be used in violation of PCA any percentage of the time, or if it is then AF has committed a crime by continuing to fund & CAP as an organization may be in breech of fiduciary duty or something along those lines.

The national guard can do stuff like this, not just because they're under state orders in title-32, but because part of the money for their gear, training, maint, etc comes from the state, and so a they can be used to a percentage as a state militia. The people under title 32 are legally a state militia & have to follow a governors orders, but it can mess up the funding if the governor doesn't play within a set of limits on his authority that come with the money. Oldest rule in the book, he who has the gold makes the rules.

Like I said, this is one interpretation & there is a looser one, but it's not well supported in law. My point is how bad do you want to test those limits? And, why is it necessary to do so? Isn't there a plethora of other work for us to do in other directions that are less precarious?

SAR-EMT1

Technically speaking PCA applies to 'any uniformed personnel not associated with the law enforcement agency in question' source: legal secretary neighbor
Technically speaking PCA would even apply to EMTs, Boy Scouts etc. As they all are in a uniform and not directly associated with the Sherriffs Office.

Now I'm not taking a stance on this issue, just clarifying a definition.
Im still waiting for the RAY GUN and the StarFleet insignia  ;D -THEN WE COULD DO SOME LE WORK -  :D lol
C. A. Edgar
AUX USCG Flotilla 8-8
Former CC / GLR-IL-328
Firefighter, Paramedic, Grad Student

RiverAux

QuoteThe national guard can do stuff like this, not just because they're under state orders in title-32, but because part of the money for their gear, training, maint, etc comes from the state,

Bogus argument.  A majority of CAP wings receive state funding too. In some states you might find that the majority of CAP funding is from the state rather than some sort of AF-derived CAP funding.  About 5% of National Guard funding comes from state government.  In CAP about 10% of funding comes from state sources and that does not include local funding sources, squadron dues, or the individual contributions in the form of uniform purchases, etc. 

lordmonar

Also the "source of funding" issue would also apply to all those police departments that received surplus military equipment that they use.

I'm talking night vision, weapons and aircraft.

Bottom line....it does not matter if the USAF bought the aircraft (which they did not...congress did) or not....but who we are.

If we are NOT the USAF-AUX on C missions....then PCA does not apply.  Just as the National Guard are not the Federal Government while on the state dime.

Right or wrong....good for CAP or not....if we are not the USAF-AUX then PCA does not apply.

At least that is my no lawyer read on this issue...and from what I understand it is what both the USAF's and CAP's lawyers are saying.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

DNall

Congress didn't the taxpayers did, come on we had to ask & justify it to AF, then AF asked congress, then it came thru AF budget, the AF managed the contracts, and it had to be considered against other AF priorities. Those planes don't exist w/o AF, niether does the O&M or training budgets, nor maint or radios or vans or anything. CAP can ony exist by proxy of the AF & they cannot fully escape liability regardless of when we are technically the auxiliary, and we are never fully free from PCA. That's just the way it is.

Surplus is dealt with in a dif way, but if you'll look closer it is ONLY delivered for DDR & counter-drug rograms & is supposed to be used for those purposes. If you pitch it for a drug task force & then give it to robery detectives, that's fraud & you won't get anymore - not that there's a lot of follow up accountability.

State money goes to operating budgets... pens, paper, facilities, activities, etc. They don't pay for planes, maint, etc that make it possible for CAP to exist.

RiverAux

The state sure is paying for airplane maintenance where I am...

JohnKachenmeister

LM:

I think you are right on this one.  They can't have it both ways.  When we are an auxiliary of the USAF, we cannot provide assistance to LE without violating the PCA.

But the 2000 law changed our status.  We are NOT an Aux of the USAF when we are not actually perfoming work for the Federal Govt.  Therefore, since during those periods were are not the USAF, PCA does not apply to us.

Our Congressional charter allows us to perform services for states and local govts.

And Dennis... Do YOU want to be the wing king and tell the Sheriff to piss off when all he's asking for are aerial photos, and the suspect they're trying to catch killed one of their own deputies?  

I had a much less-serious issue once in the Army.  My reserve center was inm Inkster, Michigan.  Once night three Inkster cops were killed in one incident.  They were caught by surprise, disarmed, and shot one-by-one in the back of the head.  Then the suspects smoked dope and partied all night, had sex with prostitutes, with the officers' bodies in a hotel room with them.  The police outside were of the opinion that the three cops were alive, and were being used as hostages.

When I went to work the next day, I wanted to join the rest of the community in placing our flag at half-staff, but a lieutenant colonel told me that flags on federal buildings cannot be lowered in mourning for local officials.  I had to go over his head to 4th Army, where I pointed out that ours was the ONLY flag in the city at full-staff, and that could be viewed as an insult to the officers and the town.  The 4th Army commander agreed with me, and directed us to lower the colors in mourning.

My point is, sometimes one has to bend a rule or two when things happen.  That's why officers get the big bucks... to know when and how far to bend a regulation.

BTW... Regulatory flexibility is directly proportional with pay grade.  Second lieutenants have none, generals can tie knots and weave baskets with regulations.
Another former CAP officer

AlaskanCFI

#19
As a retired Law dog,  my experience has been that large overhead area photos are not really what you would call crime scene photos.  Just general overhead views which may assist in explaining what happened, may assist is looking for other yet to be found victims, or just keep searchers from getting lost.

Now in the CAP I have taken photos of flooded areas and bridge wash-outs.  Not at the request of the feds, or State.  But for the Borough (our Counties, mine is the size of Ireland).

Now if the State Troopers use my info about road wash-outs and flooding.  Did I help them?

Since the Alaska State troopers call on the CAP for search missions up here, Are we helping Law Enforcement?

If myself and another crewmember are off doing a SAR-EX and we happen to fly over a ship pumping crude oil into the bay, (a criminal act),,
Should we keep our mouths shut and not say a word?  (before you say yes, think about the laws concerning failure to report criminal acts)
How about we fly over a yard where a somebody is being killed or raped...??
[/color]
What if we are out on our own dime just doing a profic, flight.  ???


Yes, there are lawyers (insert curse word here) just waiting to debate all these things, they get away with it more and more due to a population of mammbe-pambies who give them that power.

I see a lot of arguments here on How Not.  Not much on ways of How To


Here's a nice test question.

While flying a AF funded SAR-Ex you note a car first traveling at high speed pull off on a side road and stop at a remote cabin.  The driver gets out pulling who appears to be a young child with him.
A minute later a State Trooper helo contacts you,  saying he was chasing a car with a child molesting kidnapper and a new kidnap victim.  The car matches the one you saw a few minutes ago. 
The Trooper helo reports he lost them and has no idea where to look.

Do you:
A. Give him the cabin position and hang around to see if the car drives off.  Regardless of what happens to your CAP career.

B. Tell the helo that you can't assist law enforcement since you are on Air Force time and thus may be violating the PCA.

C. Tell the helo that you are not allowed to help right now, but then make an anonymous call to the Crime Stoppers line after you return.


If you are worth anything as a human or an American there is only one answer.  And you should not have to think about it.  [/b]


xx
Major, Squadron Commander Stan-Eval..Instructor Pilot- Alaska Wing CAP
Retired Alaska Air Guard
Retired State of Alaska Law Dawg, Retired Vol Firefighter and EMT
Ex-Navy, Ex-Army,
Firearms Instructor
Alaskan Tailwheel and Floatplane CFI
http://www.floatplanealaska.com

JohnKachenmeister

What is "A," Alex.

I'm a retired copper, too.  (And former Navy, and former Army, AND spent time in Marine Green as a HM3 back in the day.)

The aerial photos are for court presentation.  It helps the jury understand where things are in relation to other events, and is useful with huge scenes like the one being discussed.

This is a big reason why I have been proposing that CAP be reorganized at the National level as a unit of the Air National Guard.  The PCA does not apply to the Guard, unless they are called into Federal service.

Another former CAP officer

O-Rex

Support to Law Enforcement Personnel is okay (when approved through proper CAP-USAF channels) but you cannot chase bad guys.

I'm not real crazy about the pess coverage, though:  "Bad guys beware, CAP will rat you out - look for the red white & blue planes, or the guys and gals wearing the blue uniforms . . . . with no guns."

Some things, even honorable pursuits, are best kept low-key. 


AlaskanCFI

Quote....will rat you out..

You talk like you've done time.. good grief....

Let me explain this. 

A rat is a criminal who tells or informs on another criminal (usually a co-defendant) in order to avoid punishment from US, the good guys. 

A citizen who accepts the responsibility for protecting his country and community can never be a rat.  They are called a good citizen.  It is they, who hold civilization together..

Those who turn their back on their responsibilities, while at the same time accepting the fruits of their community,  are in a social class somewhere below the rats... 



...
Major, Squadron Commander Stan-Eval..Instructor Pilot- Alaska Wing CAP
Retired Alaska Air Guard
Retired State of Alaska Law Dawg, Retired Vol Firefighter and EMT
Ex-Navy, Ex-Army,
Firearms Instructor
Alaskan Tailwheel and Floatplane CFI
http://www.floatplanealaska.com

SAR-EMT1

"You'll never take me alive air force"  NEVER!
C. A. Edgar
AUX USCG Flotilla 8-8
Former CC / GLR-IL-328
Firefighter, Paramedic, Grad Student

JohnKachenmeister

Another former CAP officer

afgeo4

Quote from: DNall on January 30, 2007, 04:32:02 AM
It'd be equally illegal if they flew a cop to take the pix.

While the conditions are debatable, it's illegal for the military to fund or support in any way whatsoever any law enforcement activity not directly related to drugs or terrorism. There's no loop holes. If some idiot lawyer can make a case that the military is illegally funneling funds to law enforcemnt activity by allowing federally funded CAP to support them outside the bounds of PCA, then their client's constitutional rights have been violated, they get off for good, and federal funding to CAP must cease right away. That's not an extreme interpretation, it's pretty standard. You can make a case the other way, but it doesn't matter. Ain't no amount of flying hours worth playing that close to the flame.

<FLIPPING HIS AUX ON/AUX OFF morale patch to AUX OFF>

If the Sheriff's office paid for the mission and our aircraft says Civil Air Patrol on it and not USAF Auxiliary, then what does the military have to do with this? This mission was flown by a non-profit volunteer organization set up by the US Senate in support of a law enforcement agency, but not in a law enforcement capacity. We fly for local agencies in support of disaster relief, even without AFNSEP orders. It's just the issue of the hiring agency paying us properly. That agency can be the local or state police or anyone else.

Also, it is NOT illegal for the military to SUPPORT law enforcement. The National Guard does it. In fact, it's one of their main missions. The State Defense Forces do it as well. It's one of their main missions too. In fact, even the active duty military can support law enforcement (ex: joint task force on electronic crimes staffed by the AFOSI and FBI down in Georgia). It is simply against the law for the FEDERAL military to DO law enforcement.
GEORGE LURYE

JohnKachenmeister

George:

You are correct.  Comparing the NG and SDF's though may be confusing.  NG's and SDF's are exempt from Posse Comitatus anyway.

When I was a reserve company commander I loaned three tactical vehicles to a local police department  for a fugitive search in a remote area.  Letting the cops use your trucks does not violate the PCA.  Letting cops use your troops does.
Another former CAP officer

afgeo4

NGs and SDFs aren't covered by posse comitatus, but they are military. That's the distinction I was trying to make. Not all military are banned from working with law enforcement to begin with.

The military lending out vehicles is no longer an issue. DoD prohibits anyone non-military operating military owned vehicles.
GEORGE LURYE

JohnKachenmeister

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 31, 2007, 08:43:30 PM
NGs and SDFs aren't covered by posse comitatus, but they are military. That's the distinction I was trying to make. Not all military are banned from working with law enforcement to begin with.

The military lending out vehicles is no longer an issue. DoD prohibits anyone non-military operating military owned vehicles.

I think there was a rule like that back when I loaned out the trucks, too.  I got the loan approved by the CG, so I didn't really sweat it.
Another former CAP officer