Saturday, September 22, 2007

Sheriff, Arrest Those Sheriffs For Walking While Stupid.

The story that appeared in the Trib a few days ago, and now a Sept 21 follow-up story involving allegations that Sheriff Pat Hedges and Undersheriff Steve Bolt are accused of illegally eavesdropping on a co-worker and now a judge ruling that Sheriff Hedges must pay for his own defense in this case (vs having the county pay his legal bills) is bound to be a story with "wrinkles." Any time you read of an "involuntary transfer from the narcotics division to the patrol divisiion," you're looking at a story with . . . uh . . . wrinkles. Which will unfold as this civil case goes to trial. Or a criminal case pops up to run alongside it and a whole lot of worms start creeping out of cans.

Here's the allegation noted in the Tribune: That county Sheriff Pat Hedges and Undersheriff Steve Bolts "illegally taped and recorded a conversation between Chief Deputy Gary Hoving and a sheriff's sergeant. . . . Hoving filed a $1.25 million claim against the county Sept. 7 alleging that the sheriff and undersheriff secretly taped a meeting he had with Sgt. Jay Donovan in mid-October of last year. Hoving alleges in the claim that the taping was set up to capture a meeting between Donovan and Hoving regarding Donovan's involuntary transfer from the narcotics division. Donovan had filed a grievance against Hoving, who had ordered the transfer."

And there you have your wrinkles, . . . grievance . . . involuntary transfer . . . narcotics division . . . secret taping . . .

BUT, here's the biggest question of all about this case. IF true -- IF, I say -- somebody needs to please tell me where and how this county managed to hire any officer -- I say, ANY officer -- who has never seen a single episode of the various Law and Order franchies, any P.I. series of any stripe, Shark, Boston Legal, Ally McBeal, NYPD Blue,any one of dozens of police procedural shows endlessly running on TV who does not know that you do not secretly tape, wire, film anybody anywhere doing anything without a court order.

Unless you're President Bush, of course.

And you don't do that because not only is it illegal, whatever you manage to capture will likely, if discovered, be "poison fruit," and not admissible in court so your efforts will likely be ruined anyway, which means you risk your career and your freedom to even be thinking about doing something that stupid.

And here's the kicker, a clean police department with a clean "wire request" record won't have a lot of trouble getting warrants from clean judges on clean evidence of possible wrondoing that needs a wire to continue the investigation.

So, there's the real question. How is it possible that there's anybody working in the Sheriff's Dept or even the head guy himself who does NOT already know that?


4crapkiller said...

To Ann: You are correct! Nobody is above the law. However the law has been severely eroded, and there is survalence everywhere:
1. Banks, and ATMs
2. Fast food and markets.
3. Casinos
4. Employee email and workplace.
5. Parking lots, and interstate highways.
6. Airports and train stations.
7. Inside School buses.
8. On cruise ships.
9. Public streets.
10. At intersections.
11. At the doors of residences.
12. Cameras in police cars, and at access to courts, sometimes within the courts.
13. At power plants and military installations, within and without.
14. By private investigators and police with powerful microphones that can hear within walls from the outside, and track movement with infra red cameras.
15. Within the Presidents office (that is what brought Nixon down).

All of the above have not required an individual court order, and are fishing expeditions to capture criminals or glean information.

To accuse Shrub of illegal activity is a cheap shot, Balooooon. Look to the bureaucrats in the justice department and the complicity of congressional committees for foreign telephone conversations with SUSPECTED terrorists.

The fact is that if you vote, give money to a candidate, drive a car, purchase anything with other than cash, own a home, pay property taxes, are employed, go to school, or live other than in a deep cave and are self sufficient, there is a profile on you somewhere. There is no such thing as PRIVACY.

Grocery stores track your purchases with the use of their club card. Credit card companies keep track of the same, plus track your movements from state to state, and country to country. Department stores know what size you wear, and your consumer preferences. They can and do produce a profile that allows them to know more about an individual than an individual knows about himself. A pet store can know when you are going to run out of dog or cat food, when your dog or cat needs grooming next, etc. They can profile you and your personality by the type of animals you own.

These profiles are seen and handled by individuals. In many cases the information gets passed on and is used by criminals for identity theft. Hell, your garbage contains more information about you than you would ever want others to know: drugs you use, condoms disposed, sexual preference, whether or not you are incontinent or a diabetic, menstrual cycles, bills paid and to whom, what you eat, how much alcohol you consume and preference, and the list goes on and on and on.

And then if you are truly paranoid about privacy, you will be looked upon as a nut case, and will certainly live a strange life style.

Technology and convenience is a double edged sword.

In addition, everything I write, or YOU write, or anyone ELSE writes on this blog is accessible and a continuing record. Just google your blog name. Happy with your legacy, "Bush hating" cheap shots, warped reality, sick attempt at humor, and weasel words based thereon?

We will see where this case against Pat Hedeges goes, if it goes. If he violated the law, he deserves to be punished. However, in light of the legal erosion of privacy in the workplace and elsewhere, and the fact that there is a significant amount of politics involved within the Department, the result is very uncertain, and you were correct to express that. Pat Hedges is a good acquaintance of mine, plenty smart, very well educated, and is fully aware of the law. Be very careful what you write about this until all the facts come out.

He does not smoke Monica flavored cigars.

Churadogs said...

Fraud sez:"Pat Hedges is a good acquaintance of mine, plenty smart, very well educated, and is fully aware of the law. Be very careful what you write about this until all the facts come out."

Uh, Fraudy, I hate to point this out but you are a self-proclaimed Fraud (by your own definitions, not mine) which means you have zip credibility, yet here you are claiming that Pat Hedges is a "good acquaintence" of yours. This reminds me of a previous posting of yours wherein you claimed that you had a "man friend" well acquainted with the Supreme court, etc, you remember the infamous My Man Friend ANONYMOUS posting wherein you not so subtly threatened that you and he would hold various ANONYMOUS posters accountable for their ANONYMOUS postings regarding sewer issues if anything they said caused you any financial damage & etc., and then other AONYMOUS posters read your Man Friend Supreme Court Not So Veiled Threat and hooted with laughter? That anonymous posting of yours was a classic!

Please, Pllluuueeeze, don't tell me that you're at it again, only this time with Pat Hedges as your very dear friend and another wink-nudge-heh-heh-veiled threat? "Be careful what you write about this. . . . ????" Yikes, Fraud. Does your very dear, good friend Pat know what you're up to here?

4crapkiller said...


Pop! Doesn't it feel just really stupid when you write something of no substance, based upon speculation, take cheap shots, and then get shot down for your stupidity? Why don't you just continue to support your fellow travellers in opinion at Seems like they don't care who they destroy. They are taking plenty of heat right now over the "Betray us" ad. Senator Clinton also. It will not go away. You will hear more of this than about "Monica flavored cigars".

Feel free to continue to support McPherson's group. You have been more than dishonest in writing opinions in the Bay News soliciting donations to the PZLDF, while being a party in their suit
without full disclosure.

Shame on you, balloooooooooon! If I owned the paper, I would only accept articles from you on Adirondack chairs, African dog breeds, and air drying clothes. At least you have SOME knowledge of that. Otherwise?

Incidentally, NOT "very dear good friend Pat", just "good acquaintance", LIKE I WROTE. Amazing how you twist stuff to try and make a point.

And by the way, It would be very difficult to take anyone anonymous to task for their postings. However, a No on 218, as a public vote and accessible as to APN#, name, and address by a public record request is another story. As long as I am not damaged by a $900 a month discharge permit caused by those who vote NO, I will have no case.

Why do you think former Judge Martha Goldin was trying to change the process (to no effect), and make the public ballot sealed or private? Ask her if there is validity to my former argument. Apparently SHE was not "hooting with laughter". Only YOU!

Hoot on, balloooooooon! When will it stop?