Aw Geez...Say It Ain't So...

Yepper, we can file this post under the tried and true axiom that: "If it's not ONE damn thing, it's ANOTHER" (judicially-speaking).

We've had another shooting on the southeast side of the city, and the vic is still alive. This happened around 2300 hrs. last night on the 4700 block of Barrington Drive (near Hessen Cassel). We can add this with the strongarm robbery/mugging at about 0600 hrs. in the 5900 block of Decatur Rd. this past Friday.
But these crimes are only the tip of a MUCH LARGER iceberg, people.

In Marion County, the courts are tossing cases based on evidence gleaned from officers who were not "re-sworn" in when the police departments were merged. Now anyone with half a frigging brain KNOWS that when you're sworn in, there is no "do overs".
You are sworn in...period.
Whether it's a city, county, state, or federal agency...when you are SWORN IN...you don't keep getting "re-sworn" in every time you jump departments, get promoted, or get transferred. And you certainly don't get UN-SWORN when you leave a department for any reason, especially when you retire. On the "idiocy" meter, this one's got it almost PEGGED at the top. Again, it's another case of allowing the perps to get away with whatever, while the enforcement agencies we PAY for with OUR hard-earned money basically get their cajones excised.

But wait...we're not done yet...it gets EVEN BETTER.
Pick up today's paper, and the headline will tell yet another tale of judicial "woe". All of a sudden, we have FWPD officers violating Indiana Constitutional laws when it comes to traffic stops. They (now) apparently cannot ask about DRUGS when initiating a traffic stop. You heard me...they can't do it. How freaking ridiculous is that?
The Indiana Court of Appeals (who just moved to the TOP up my "$hit-list") states that this is a case if "first impression". Gee, we used to call it PROBABLE CAUSE, you freaking morons!

((an officer stops a moped driver who had been SWERVING all over the centerpoint of the road, although the road did NOT have a "formal painted centerline". During the stop, the officer asked the driver if he had any weapons, drugs or anything that could harm the officer. The driver stated he had some pot. He was arrested and charged with misdemeanor drug possession)).

Seems OK with me...nothing I haven't seen or heard before.
Everything (as documented) appears normal. End of story, right?
WRONG.

Allen Superior (read INFERIOR) Court Magistrate Robert Ross (makes me want to change my FIRST name now) tossed out the pot as evidence, saying the officer violated (get this) the state's constitutional protections against UNREASONABLE search and seizure. I think Magistrate Ross needs to pick up a copy of THE LAW OF ARREST, SEARCH AND SEIZURE (by J. Shame Creamer)...hell, he can borrow MY copy, (but I DO want it back, Bobby)!
The officer claimed that the driver was acting nervous (we call it by other names...hinky, twitchy, tweaky, antsy...whatever), and didn't make eye contact (they don't because of pupil dilation). The court said that wasn't enough to justify the "question" (and apparently the arrest).
So...you want to get out of an arrest?
STEP-1: JUST ACT NERVOUS.
STEP-2: GET AN AMBULANCE-CHASING LIBERAL AS A DEFENDER
STEP-3: SPLIT HAIRS WHEN IT COMES TO THE LAW...IT WORKS.
STEP-4: REMEMBER: PERPS RULE -VICTIMS DROOL.

This ruling DOES uphold the officer's right to ask about WEAPONS (well, la-dee-da).

Now forgive me for invoking a bit of logic here, but the COURT wasn't "at the scene", and therefore cannot (in good conscience) make such an arbitrary ruling about whether the officer had a "gut feeling" that something was greasy with this guy. If magistrate Ross would get his well-paid, robed ass on the street and make a few stops in the "Badlands", maybe HE'D get the picture as to what an officer KNOWS by what he's been trained to observe, and what his instincts tell him. The state attorney general has 30 days to decide to appeal the ruling (Yo, Steve Carter...here's your chance to make a difference for everyone and let the LEOs do their jobs).
FWPD spokesman Mike Joyner stated: "there are no specific questions officers are instructed to ask, but each officer develops their own instincts, depending upon the circumstances and their observations". That's like when you're in a drug-infested area, and you make a traffic stop for a burned out bulb...you just KNOW you've got a damn good chance that this gangsta driver in his brand new Escalade with the spinner rims, who's tooling around at 3AM and smells of weed isn't coming home from "work". Let's get real here. Officer Joyner also says: "It gives us no reason to panic, only to reinforce documentation and articulation so we can show we are acting within the scope of the law".

All I can say is...let police work remain in the hands of the POLICE...and NOT some appeals court. This isn't California. We don't need to molly-coddle the perps the way THEY do out there. We need to set strong anti-crime precedents, and not follow a bunch of tree-huggers off the nearest judicial cliff. We pay to hire the officers...the least we can do is let them perform their jobs.

And commend them for doing what they do, to make ALL of us a bit safer.