reply to post by GovtFlu
From what I have seen I think what the court (in this case the Prosecuting Attorney) is not so much the training, but testimony. Defense can call into
question evidence collected by challenging the manner it was collected in.
Anyone can draw blood. Put a piece of tight cloth / rubber around the upper arm, wait for the Antcubital to pop, poke etc. The problem now is having
to testify that the process was done correctly.
Our blood draw kits we use for law enforcment in my state require us to keep eveything as evidence, including the alcohol swab that comes in the kit.
If any of those things are missing, it could be possible to have the evidence thrown out (This is one of those areas of Law where its designed to
protect the accused).
The other thing is even if the evidence was collected correctly, it can be challenged, and if the person who collected it tesifies like a moron (it
happens) it could cause it to be tossed that way also.
If you want to see how the sugness of some cops affect our profession read Arizone Vs. Gant. It is a search incident to arrest case where the evidence
was thrown out becuase during the trial, defense asked the cop a question along the lines of why did you search my clients vehicle.
Instead of replying it was a search incident to arrest, he become arrogant and respnded because I can. So 4 appeals later it goes to the USSC, who
rules in favor of the criminal, and boom, all law enforcement nation wide just got restricted on what we can search when effecting an arrest involving
a motor vehicle.
To the person who made comments about us being cirporations, refusing to acknowledge municipal law enforcement and sheriffs departments. You are not
quite correct. When a city is incorperated, the citizens who are part of that process all decide what type of Government the city will have. The Chief
of Police are gernally appointed by a city manager, who is appointed by City Council, who are in turn elected by the people to represent them.
The authority of Municipal officers comes from the people, the same as Sheriffs deputies. Contrary to popular belief though, the question about
jurisdiction is pretty much a moot point due to traingin and changes in the law. The State I work in, I carry a class A certification. Even though I
work for a city, I have full arrest authority anywhere in my state.
There are some setups where polie chiefs are elected (Wilson Oklahoma is one of them).
Sheriffs departments are reuired ONLY to run and maintain a jail, court, and civil process. They are not required to have a road patrol for
The question you need to ask yourself is which setup (Sheriff or Chief) works best for accountability? As a sheriff, they have to run for re-election,
meaning polotics comes into play every election year. When you have a different sheriff elected, you know have the issues of loosing your command
staff and experience because sheriffs usually will appoint their co workers from other places to those positions. By the time they can be comfortable
in knowing what they are doing, election time comes and you run the risk of yet another sheriff coming in.
As a Chief, you do not have to worry so much about Politics getting in the way of doing the peoples work. Thats what City Council is for.
They both have pros and cons...