Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Written Proposals

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • erichard78
    replied
    We currently have on red light camera and have just added two more, those cameras are in the 30 warning period. I like the idea of the added fine for running a red light and causing a crash.

    As for the comment about the rifle mounts, we currently use Big Sky mounts but are looking at Santa Cruz mounts. Santa cruz has a universal mount that can switch from shotgun to rifle easily. I am going to instal one today to test it out. Our current rack only accepts shotguns and per our G.O.s the rifles have to be kept in the trunk. I dont like this because if the situation comes when I need it I might not have the ability to run to my trunk and get it out.

    Leave a comment:


  • ryker
    replied
    Originally posted by just joe View Post
    If you're going to charge for anything, charge for multiple false business and residential alarms.
    x100 on that

    I noticed that a nearby city has the fines posted - every violation that was the resulting accident has a 500.00 increase in the fine amount. Run a red light 135.00 - run a red light and crash 635.00

    Leave a comment:


  • ryker
    replied
    Originally posted by erichard78 View Post

    I am also putting a proposal together to get funding to switch our current shotgun mounts to a universal mount that can accept both shotguns and rifles.
    Weapon mount? We just toss them in the floor board or wedge them behind the headrest with a bottle of hand sanitizer. How is that for cost effective A few officers bought hunting style truck racks.

    Leave a comment:


  • PhilipCal
    replied
    Wow, What an amazing mindset!! These stores have the ability to prevent the drive-offs and don't use it. Sends the wrong message? Sends a "Y'all come to the Gas-skip artists. Then, they want the PD to act as a collection agency. Not criticising you Rich, but that is one&&^%$ up attitude on the part of the merchants.

    Leave a comment:


  • erichard78
    replied
    I did not say that we feel a theft of gas or "drive off" is by anyway a civil issue. Some people suggested that we make someone from the gas station come in and fill out a similar form due to two reasons:

    1. The stations in our town have the ability to make the pumps "pay to pump" meaning there credit card must be approved first or they pay cash inside. They do not do this because they feel since Naperville is such a great place to live this sends the wrong image.

    2. When we track the person down who stole the gas they refuse to press charges just want us to get the money for them. We are not a collection agency.

    That being said we feel if it requires more work on their part they will do more to protect themselves from the drive offs or when we catch the guy be more willing to press charges.

    Leave a comment:


  • ddurkof
    replied
    I have worked at a department that performed the unlocks for people and one officer was jammed up over $70.00 worth of damage even with the waiver signed. Since the the woman couldn't get very far with the $$ complainant she filed a complaint against the officer, I believe, making up excrement against the officer. Did it go anywhere? No, but it did have an IA for the complaint. PITA for the officer, time wasted by the IA. I did have one woman complain that I took too long to get there, less then 5 minutes. Also there seems to an increase in these calls when it rains. I admit I am terrible at unlocking cars, it might be Freudian.

    Leave a comment:


  • PtlCop
    replied
    Originally posted by erichard78 View Post
    Our department does charge for business alarms. After so many false alarms they are charged $100 each. We are also in the process of trying to reduce reports we have to take. We now have a civil report so that if someone has a civil complaint they have to come to the front desk and fill the report out themselves. An officer is only required to pull an incident report number and verify the persons ID. We are trying to add lost property, drive offs and other incidents to the list.

    As far a s one comment about leaving someone in a dark parking lot in the middle of the night because they dont have cash on them we are proposing to add the lockouts to our machine we issue parking tickets from so that no money is handled by the officers and the person has two weeks to pay.

    The trend in our area is charging for more nonessential services. I would be fine if we changed our policy to only do lock outs in emergency situations and that would be proposed as an option.

    My department has 190 sworn in a town of 160,000. A typical night shift patrol has between 13 - 18 officers on the road. It is a strain on the limited resources we have we are always fighting to get more officers on patrol.

    The other trend in our area is administrative tow fees for arrests. Our regular tow fee is $150. Many towns have added the administrative fee for no insurance, suspended plates, etc. Average fee is an additional $300. Some towns have gone as far as $500 for tinited windows or loud muffler. We are trying to find happy mediums.
    "Drive off" as in theft of gas? How is that a civil complaint?

    Leave a comment:


  • K9Tom
    replied
    Originally posted by erichard78 View Post
    Our department does charge for business alarms. After so many false alarms they are charged $100 each. We are also in the process of trying to reduce reports we have to take. We now have a civil report so that if someone has a civil complaint they have to come to the front desk and fill the report out themselves. An officer is only required to pull an incident report number and verify the persons ID. We are trying to add lost property, drive offs and other incidents to the list.

    As far a s one comment about leaving someone in a dark parking lot in the middle of the night because they dont have cash on them we are proposing to add the lockouts to our machine we issue parking tickets from so that no money is handled by the officers and the person has two weeks to pay.

    The trend in our area is charging for more nonessential services. I would be fine if we changed our policy to only do lock outs in emergency situations and that would be proposed as an option.

    My department has 190 sworn in a town of 160,000. A typical night shift patrol has between 13 - 18 officers on the road. It is a strain on the limited resources we have we are always fighting to get more officers on patrol.

    The other trend in our area is administrative tow fees for arrests. Our regular tow fee is $150. Many towns have added the administrative fee for no insurance, suspended plates, etc. Average fee is an additional $300. Some towns have gone as far as $500 for tinited windows or loud muffler. We are trying to find happy mediums.
    Sent you a PM

    Leave a comment:


  • PtlCop
    replied
    Originally posted by PhilipCal View Post
    You did belittle, you continue to do so, and the liability issue is NOT a weak argument. LADEP pretty well stated the case for my agency as well as his. If what you do, works well for you and your Department, that's great. Your Department''s policy simply does not have universal application. We're supposed to be colleagues here. We get enough "attitude" from some of our civilian posters. I'd certainly appreciate not having that same attitude from a colleague.
    Well, I'm sorry if you feel like I belittled you, that was simply not my intention. I think the liability argument is weak, you do not. We're allowed to disagree. Again, I did not intend for you to feel belittled.

    Leave a comment:


  • PhilipCal
    replied
    Originally posted by PtlCop View Post
    I didn't belittle anyone. I pointed out a weak argument. There's a difference.
    You did belittle, you continue to do so, and the liability issue is NOT a weak argument. LADEP pretty well stated the case for my agency as well as his. If what you do, works well for you and your Department, that's great. Your Department''s policy simply does not have universal application. We're supposed to be colleagues here. We get enough "attitude" from some of our civilian posters. I'd certainly appreciate not having that same attitude from a colleague.

    Leave a comment:


  • erichard78
    replied
    Our department does charge for business alarms. After so many false alarms they are charged $100 each. We are also in the process of trying to reduce reports we have to take. We now have a civil report so that if someone has a civil complaint they have to come to the front desk and fill the report out themselves. An officer is only required to pull an incident report number and verify the persons ID. We are trying to add lost property, drive offs and other incidents to the list.

    As far a s one comment about leaving someone in a dark parking lot in the middle of the night because they dont have cash on them we are proposing to add the lockouts to our machine we issue parking tickets from so that no money is handled by the officers and the person has two weeks to pay.

    The trend in our area is charging for more nonessential services. I would be fine if we changed our policy to only do lock outs in emergency situations and that would be proposed as an option.

    My department has 190 sworn in a town of 160,000. A typical night shift patrol has between 13 - 18 officers on the road. It is a strain on the limited resources we have we are always fighting to get more officers on patrol.

    The other trend in our area is administrative tow fees for arrests. Our regular tow fee is $150. Many towns have added the administrative fee for no insurance, suspended plates, etc. Average fee is an additional $300. Some towns have gone as far as $500 for tinited windows or loud muffler. We are trying to find happy mediums.

    Leave a comment:


  • just joe
    replied
    ptlcop--I've damaged cars before. I had one officer who must of just had the right torque on the right spot and a window shattered. I have personally destroyed inside wiring that would not allow the door to lock and unlock anymore. It has been several decades ago, but I also heard (a judge?) say that a release is a document signed under duress because of the need to get into the vehicle, so therefore means nothing.

    Leave a comment:


  • LA DEP
    replied
    Ptlcop....

    Just because you haven't been sued yet, doesn't mean it wont happen.....I don't know about out the in Indiana, but your 'release of liability' forms will NOT always protect you here in CA.....they just then allege negligence in your actions, which resulted in the damage.

    We receive ZERO training on how to open cars, and don't even carry slimjims, never mind wedges ect. I didnt receive 5 minutes of training on how to do it in the academy, and that was 20 years ago; never mind the new recruits going through now.

    We are prohibited by policy to slimjim a car; we simply call for a wrecker....if it is an extreme situation (kid in the car ect) then a window gets busted out.

    If you violate policy and damage a car, the department will probably not cover you in the lawsuit....AND they will throw you right under the bus as far as time on the bricks goes.

    We are not the only agency that doesnt do lockouts here in LA....not by a long shot.....if yours does, have at it......many dont; for one reason or another

    Leave a comment:


  • PtlCop
    replied
    Originally posted by PhilipCal View Post
    I simply replied, and noted Agency policy. I also entered a personal perspective. Thought I was allowed to do that. Obviously, you disagree, and that's fine. It's no reason to belittle those colleagues who disagree with you.
    I didn't belittle anyone. I pointed out a weak argument. There's a difference.

    Leave a comment:


  • PtlCop
    replied
    Originally posted by Citation35HF
    Man! Again you don't get something, and your just being stubborn again because that's the way Hamilton County does it. I hate to comment on another one of your posts, but your always very quick to belittle anyone because they don't do it how your agency does it! I am one county south of you in Indianapolis, and we wouldn't dare do lockouts, our run load is wayyy to high to be able to deal with those. Those wedge's and inflatable balloons you use are an expensive tool that does minimize the possibility of damage to someones car. However most agencies cannot afford those and must rely on the old fashion slim jim, which are metal and have a much higher risk of damaging someone's vehicle. IPD used to do lockouts years ago if someone flagged the officer down and asked. But after multiple lawsuits due to scratched paint jobs, etc, Officers were told THEY WOULD NEVER DO LOCKOUTS on civilian's vehicles. And I would have no trouble telling an old lady in the rain I couldn't do a lockout, but that I would have control/dispatch call a service for her.........
    An IMPD officer slim jim'd my personal car for me two times last year....

    I'm not belittling people, i'm breaking apart stupid arguments like "oh it's a major liability." It's not. It's as absurd an argument as the people who still press on the backs of vehicle's on traffic stops. If an agency doesn't want to do lockouts because they're too busy or they think they're not law enforcement related, that's fine. But don't use "its a major liability" as the argument when that's just simply not the case. You don't think some of the rich folk up here would have sued us by now for some damage to their cars?

    Leave a comment:

MR300x250 Tablet

Collapse

What's Going On

Collapse

There are currently 2857 users online. 168 members and 2689 guests.

Most users ever online was 26,947 at 08:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

Welcome Ad

Collapse
Working...
X