Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Ethics’ Category

Is DOE guilty of bureaucratic overreach in demanding private records of childcare centers? CCAL argues yes

Posted in Education, Ethics, Public Records on September 29, 2017| 3 Comments »

What childcare facility records are state inspectors legally entitled to examine during their inspections?

That is the question that currently has the Childcare Association of Louisiana (CCAL) and the Louisiana Department of Education (LDOE) at loggerheads.

LDOE maintains it has a right under law to examine all records of childcare centers. CCAL counters that LDOE is guilty of bureaucratic overreach.

The dispute has reached such a point of contention that CCAL has asked Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry for a legal opinion on whether or not childcare centers must surrender video footage and such things as financial, personnel, tax, private emails, and medical information to state inspectors on demand.

The issue promises to be an interesting one for Landry to address.

State inspectors have invoked Louisiana R.S. 44.1 as the applicable law that gives them license to demand—and receive—all video surveillance data, as well as all other personal records of childcare centers.

The only problem is R.S. 44.1 pertains to records of public agencies and childcare centers are, well, ….private businesses. And if public agencies can drag their feet in compliance as they have done—and are continuing to do—why should a private entity not even covered by that statute be threatened with penalties for non-compliance?

One might think that representatives of LDOE, who are presumed to be mighty smart, could discern the subtle difference between public and private. Here is the wording of R.S. 44.1:

General definitions:

  1. (1) As used in this Chapter, the phrase “public body” means any branch, department, office, agency, board, commission, district, governing authority, political subdivision, or any committee, subcommittee, advisory board, or task force thereof, any other instrumentality of state, parish, or municipal government, including a public or quasi-public nonprofit corporation designated as an entity to perform a governmental or proprietary function, or an affiliate of a housing authority.

Childcare facilities wouldn’t appear to qualify as public bodies as defined by R.S. 44.1.

But that hasn’t stopped LDOE inspectors, perhaps taking their cue from the State Dental Board or the Auctioneer Licensing Board, from flexing their muscles.

Recently, inspectors with the childcare licensing division have been coming into privately-owned centers and demanding that if security camera systems are utilized, inspectors should be allowed access to view footage of recordings upon demand.

“Cameras are not a requirement in child care centers, and we feel a host of privacy issues come into play by allowing them such access.” Says Jonathan Pearce of Lafayette, president of CCAL.

“My center received a deficiency write-up in January of this year because I did not allow a specialist to view my private recordings when she asked for them. The violation was given to us because I did not allow her access to my center’s records,” Pearce said, adding that inspectors also have forced owners to disclose email correspondence from owners’ private email accounts on occasions when inspectors investigate individual complaints.

He said inspectors are using regulations contained in Bulletin 137, which says an early learning center “shall allow the Licensing Division staff access to the center, the children, and all files and records at any time during any hours of operation or any time a child is present.”

“The way that is written,” Pearce said, “I would be forced to provide a copy of my tax returns to a specialist if she demanded it.”

He said that rather than remove the deficiency he was issued, the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) Academic Goals and Instructional Improvement Committee met on Aug. 15 of this year and approved amended Bulletin 137 to read “…all files, records and recordings upon request…” (emphasis added)

Pearce said that State Superintendent of Education John White told BESE members that the insertion of “and recordings upon request” was simply a clarification of the current regulation which gives LDOE authority to access digital records.

“The Child Care Association of Louisiana, said CCAL lobbyist Cindy Bishop, “strongly believes that the Louisiana Department of Education does not have the statutory authority to request recordings from video cameras installed in early learning centers. CCAL believes that this is a violation of their members’ privacy rights.  Below is the rationale for our three arguments:

  • The Department of Education should absolutely have immediate access to the center, grounds, staff members for questioning, and any records that are a requirement of the department regarding the health & safety of children. However, access to recordings such as camera systems is not a requirement of the department and those centers who choose to have them installed for the purpose of security should not be forced access of viewing if requested by a specialist. Without some type of subpoena or warrant from a commissioned agent would be an infringement of our rights.
  • The public records act applies to public bodies, agencies and entities. Licensed childcare centers are private entities, or businesses and do not fall under the purview of the Louisiana Public Records Act.
  • Secondly, because the cameras do not provide a 360-degree panoramic view of a classroom, the recordings do not show the activities in an entire classroom and thereby, can be misleading. In our view, it is negligent to judge daily functions in the classroom with such a subjective view.
  • The Childcare Association of Louisiana has been made aware of several instances where an LDOE licensing inspector cited a childcare center for lack of supervision of children based on footage from a video recording. Because there is no audio on many of our childcare centers video recordings and because the surveillance is not 360 degrees, licensed facilities who opt to install video cameras are subject to misinterpretations of their cameras’ footage.
  • If a center chooses to utilize security cameras, it is to protect the owner of the childcare center from liability. There are instances when a parent or an employee, or a former employee makes an accusatory statement about something that happened or did not happen in a childcare center. Having a camera allows the owner of an early learning center to review the video footage to ascertain the situation with greater clarity. It should not be used as a weapon against them giving the department a tool to use to place sanctions against the owner of that system.

“CCAL also feels that the wording that would allow licensing access to all records opens up an area that would force us to provide records unnecessary to the scope of practice of the licensing specialist,” Bishop said. “All records in the center could include financial records of a private business, tax documents, personal records that are on the premises of the owner’s property, and medical records protected by federal HIPPA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) laws.

“We believe that this is a privacy issue and that the recordings and records not required by LDOE for the health and safety regulations listed in Bulletin 137 are the exclusive property of the owner of the early learning center,” Bishop said.

Read Full Post »

A witch hunt and a psychic arson investigator at the Fire Marshal’s Office; it just doesn’t get any better than this

Posted in Corruption, Ethics, State Fire Marshal on September 28, 2017| 12 Comments »

The top brass at the Office of State Fire Marshal (OSFM) are doing what bureaucrats always do when they come under criticism from the media—especially when they think subordinates might be feeding information to reporters:

They initiate a witch hunt to ferret out those who might be leaking information.

But unconfirmed reports filtering out of OSFM headquarters reveal an even stranger tactic undertaken in the office’s investigation of a suspected arson in St. Tammany in which the body of Fire District 12 Chief Stephen Krentel’s wife was found with a gunshot wound to her head.

Sources tell LouisianaVoice that OSFM, with all its available arson investigators at its disposal, hired a psychic to solve the suspected arson case. We have to wonder if the psychic was certified by the National Association of Fire Investigators (NAFI) or if he/she was simply certified by OSFM and then allowed carry a weapon.

And all this time, we have been told by State Fire Marshal Butch Browning and Deputy Fire Marshal, Fire Chief, or whatever his title is, Brant Thompson that OSFM had the best-trained, most efficient investigators in the nation. So, why a psychic then?

But back to our original story.

Word relayed to LouisianaVoice is that a meeting room on the second floor of OSFM has had its windows papered over and a sign taped to the door warning unauthorized personnel to stay out while IT workers comb through employees’ state email accounts and cell phone records in an effort to find the mole.

Well, happy hunting, Thompson and Browning. Yes, you have subordinates talking to LouisianaVoice—and a hint: it’s more than one—but they’re not stupid enough to use their state cell phones or state email accounts.

Perhaps the psychic can tell you who’s talking to LouisianaVoice.

As our late friend C.B. Forgotston would say: you can’t make this stuff up.

Read Full Post »

Newly discovered documents reveal duplicitous ruthlessness of state in pursuing prosecution of former ATC head Painter

Posted in ATC, Campaign Contributions, Corruption, Courts, Ethics, Governor's Office, Judges, Lawsuits, Politicians, Public Records, State Agencies, Uncategorized on September 27, 2017| 7 Comments »

Former Director of the Office of Alcohol and Tobacco Control Murphy Painter was acquitted of all the dubious charges brought against him by the Jindal administration after Painter refused to bend the rules for granting alcohol permits to a vendor for Tom Benson’s Champions’ Square in New Orleans. (See our original story HERE.)

But now, three years after his hard-fought battle to clear his name, events are only now coming to light that illustrate just how far the Jindal administration was willing to go in violating Painter’s Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure in order to build what it thought would be a slam dunk criminal case against him.

Instead, the state ended up having to pay Painter’s legal fees of $474,000.

Documents obtained by LouisianaVoice also show that investigators lied—or at least distorted the truth beyond recognition—about Painter and that the state tampered with and/or destroyed crucial evidence, much of it advantageous to Painter’s case.

Benson, after all, was a huge contributor to Jindal campaigns and the state’s agreeing to lease office space from Benson Towers at highly inflated rates apparently was not enough for the owner of the Saints; that liquor permit needed to be approved, rules notwithstanding, and when Painter insisted on playing by the book, he was called before the governor and summarily fired and federal charges of sexual harassment were doggedly pursued by an administration eager to put him away for good.

But he fooled them. He was acquitted, and he filed a civil lawsuit against his accuser, which he won at the trial court level but lost on appeal (See story HERE). He currently has another civil lawsuit pending against the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

Now the state is dragging that litigation out in the hopes that with his limited finances and the state’s ability to draw on taxpayer funds indefinitely, he can be waited out until he no longer has the financial resources to seek the justice due him.

Briefs, motions, requests of production of documents, interrogatories, continuances—all designed to extend the fight and to keep the lawyers’ meters running and the court costs mounting—are the tactics of a defendant fearful of an adverse ruling. If that were not the case, it would be to the state’s advantage to try the case ASAP.

And never mind that every brief, every motion, every interrogatory, every request for production, and every continuance means the state’s defense attorneys are getting richer and richer—all at the expense of taxpayers who are the ones paying the state’s legal bills.

But all that aside, LouisianaVoice has come into possession of documents that clearly show the state was in violation of Painter’s constitutional rights and that an investigator for OIG simply colored the truth in the reports of the OIG “investigation” of complaints against him.

That investigator, who now works for the East Baton Rouge Parish coroner’s office, was inexplicably dismissed from Painter’s civil lawsuit against the state by the First Circuit Court of Appeal. Painter has taken writs on that decision to the Louisiana Supreme Court as that civil litigation rocks on in its sixth year of existence. I’ll get back to him momentarily.

The events leading up to Painter’s firing and subsequent federal indictment began innocently enough with a March 29, 2010, letter to Painter from then-Department of Revenue Secretary Cynthia Bridges. She was writing pursuant to a complaint lodged by ATC employee Kelli Suire who would later the catalyst in Painter’s firing. Bridges, however found no violations by Painter regarding the complaint of “unprofessional” behavior toward Suire, but said concerns about his management style would be left “to the proper authority to discuss with you at a later date.”

Then on Aug. 13, 2010, more than four months following Bridges’s letter, Baton Rouge television station WBRZ reported that Painter “resigned” and the OIG’s office simultaneously raided ATC offices, seizing Painter’s state desktop and laptop computers, three thumb drives, notes, affidavits, reports, maps, ATC documents, telephone reports, and a 2010 Dodge Charger assigned to Painter.

 

There was only one problem with the timing.

Bonnie Jackson, 19th Judicial District Judge, did not sign the search warrant authorizing the raid and search of Painter’s office until Monday, Aug. 16.

That would appear to have made the previous Friday’s raid—pulled off three days before a judge had signed the search warrant—illegal and a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment which says, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (Emphasis added.)

The second violation, the destruction of evidence was not learned until three years later when Painter’s computer was finally returned and he found that some 4,000 files had been deleted. Much of that, of course, would have been routine state business related to ATC operations but there was other information contained in the files, Painter says, that could have helped exonerate him from the charges that were lodged against him by the Jindal administration. It is not only illegal to destroy evidence, but also to destroy state documents—even if they do not constitute evidence.

The third violation, this one by OIG, involved the apparent misrepresentation of testimony given in interviews by an attorney and his assistant who had experienced difficulty in obtaining a liquor license on the part of his client, a business with multiple out-of-state owners, a situation which made the licensure procedure more involved.

The attorney, Joseph Brantley, and Painter had exchanged emails whereupon Painter invited Brantley to come to the ATC offices so that the problem could be worked out. “Why don’t you come by here around 3:00 p.m. or 4:00 if that works for you tomorrow and we will go over ours versus yours,” Painter said in his email at 12:26 p.m. on Sunday, Dec. 14, 2008. Brantley responded three minutes later, asking, “Is it OK if I bring the lady that has been doing the primary work (on the file)?”

OIG investigator Shane Evans, who now works for the East Baton Rouge Parish coroner’s office as its chief investigator, then laid the groundwork for the sexual harassment charges to be brought against Murphy when he wrote in a report of his interview with Brantley on Oct. 13, 2010:

“Mr. Brantley advised that Toby Edwards was a former assistant (paralegal) of his, that she is an attractive woman, and that after the meeting in late 2008, Mr. Painter granted the permit immediately.”

In his report of his interview with Edwards, also on Oct. 13, 2010, Evans wrote:

“During the meeting with Mr. Painter, he told Ms. Edwards that he had run her driver’s license and looked at her photograph. He said that was the only reason that he had granted them the meeting. (That is blatantly false: Copies of the Dec. 14, 2008, email exchange between Painter and Brantley obtained by LouisianaVoice clearly show that Painter invited Brantley to a meeting before he ever knew of Edwards’s existence.) She took his statement as the only reason he decided to meet with them is because he thought she was attractive. Ms. Edwards said his statement and demeanor made her very uncomfortable. She said she was very glad Mr. Brantley was present.

“She also said that she found it unusual that the permit had been repeatedly turned down but once she met with Mr. Painter face-to-face, her client immediately received the permit.”

Another report by OIG, the result of a second interview with Edwards on Nov. 5, 2012, described both Brantley and Edwards as “uncomfortable” during the meeting with Painter.

A second interview of Brantley on Nov. 7, 2012 produced yet a fourth OIG report that said, in part, that Edwards wore a “professional,” semi-low-cut shirt. “Mr. Brantley noticed that Mr. Painter noticed and glanced at Ms. Edwards’s chest during the meeting.

“…According to Mr. Brantley, Mr. Painter ‘clearly looked at’ Ms. Edwards’s chest,” the report says. Mr. Brantley even told Ms. Edwards that Mr. Painter was attracted to women, maybe more ‘than the average guy.’ Although Ms. Edwards would have attended the meeting anyway, Mr. Brantley took her to the meeting ‘for effect.’ He thinks that the meeting was more successful than it would have been otherwise if Ms. Edwards had not attended.

Pretty damning stuff, right?

Well, it would be except for affidavits signed and sworn to by Brantley and Edwards (now Pierce), which provide quite a contrasting version of events.

Brantley, after reviewing the OIG reports, flatly denied ever telling Evans or any other OIG investigator that Edwards took part in the meeting with Painter because Painter was fond of females.

“I brought her because she had more knowledge about the file than did I and she was more capable of answering any questions that may have arisen.”

Edwards pointedly noted that the meeting took place in a room “with all glass windows and doors.” She said she also learned at the meeting that Painter was a long-time acquaintance of her father, a former deputy sheriff in East Feliciana Parish and joked to her that he didn’t know her dad “had a daughter that was so pretty.” She said he then excused himself for a few minutes and later returned with a license for Brantley’s client.

Here are both of those affidavits:

 

So, with a little tweaking of the facts, a man’s career was ruined, his occupation stripped from him and his finances gutted—all because he insisted that a major campaign contributor submit the proper forms before obtaining a liquor license for his Sunday parties outside the New Orleans Superdome.

This is Louisiana at its worst, folks, and it’s a clear example of how the political establishment can crush you if you don’t have the right contacts and sufficient financial resources to match those of the state’s taxpayers.

Read Full Post »

Treasurer candidate Neil Riser at center of 2013 move to skip bid law in favor of Vantage Health purchase of state building

Posted in Campaign Contributions, Contracts, Corruption, DOA, Elections, Ethics, Finances, Governor's Office, Legislature, Legislators, Politicians, Public Records, Senate on September 26, 2017| 12 Comments »

Before Louisiana voters trek to the polls in record low numbers on Oct. 14, there are a few things to consider about State Sen. Neil Riser, one of four candidates for the job of state treasurer, who, besides failing to help landowners being fenced out of their hunting lands, actually took campaign cash from a family member of the one erecting the fences.

Riser, author of that infamous bill amendment in the waning minutes of the 2014 legislative session that would have given State Police Superintendent Mike Edmonson an additional $100,000 or so per year in retirement benefits, has received some other interesting contributions as well.

The Louisiana Safety Association of Timbermen gave $2,500 to his senate re-election campaign in March 2014 and only 18 months later filed for BANKRUPTCY on behalf of its self-insurance worker’s compensation fund, leaving quite a few policy holders in the lurch.

Several nursing homes have contributed $2,500 each to his treasurer campaign. The nursing home industry, heavily reliant on state payments on the basis of bed occupancy, consistently benefited from favorable legislation by the Louisiana Legislature over the past decade that discouraged home care for the elderly.

But by far the biggest beneficiary of Riser’s legislative efforts is Vantage Health Plan, Inc., of Monroe which contributed $1,000 in 2015 to his Senate re-election campaign and another $1,000 to his treasurer campaign in March of this year.

Vantage has received six state contracts totaling nearly $242 million during the time Riser has served in the State Senate.

But it was Riser, along with Sens. Mike Walsworth of West Monroe, Rick Gallot of Ruston and Francis Thompson of Delhi, who pushed Senate Bill 216 of 2013 through the Legislature which cleared the way for the state to bypass the necessity of accepting bids for the purchase of the state-owned former Virginia Hotel and an adjoining building and parking lot. That was done expressly for the purpose of allowing Vantage to purchase the property for $881,000 despite there being a second buyer interested in purchasing the property from the state, most likely for a higher price.

By law, if a legislative act is passed, the state may legally skip the public bid process to accommodate a buyer. This was done even though a Monroe couple, who had earlier purchased the nearby Penn Hotel, wanted to buy the Virginia and convert it into a boutique hotel. Thanks to Riser and the other three legislators, they were never given the opportunity.

And Vantage, from all appearances, really got a bargain. The building was constructed in 1925 at a cost of $1.6 million and underwent extensive renovations in 1969 and again in 1984, according to documents provided LouisianaVoice, all of which should have made the property worth considerably more than $881,000. Read the entire story HERE.

Internal documents revealed concerns by Vantage that if the building were to be offered through regular channels (public bids), “developers using federal tax credits could outbid Vantage.”

Another document said, “VHP (Vantage Health Plan) fears that public bidding would allow a developer utilizing various incentive programs to pay an above-market price that VHP would find hard to match.”

Finally, there was a handwritten note which described a meeting on Nov. 1, 2012. Beside the notation that “Sen. Riser supports,” (emphasis added) there was this: “Problem is option of auction—if auction comes there is possibility of tax credits allowing a bidder to out-bid.”

All of which raises the obvious question of why did the Jindal administration turn its back on the potential of a higher sale price through bidding, especially considering the financial condition of the state during his entire term of office? We will probably never know the answer to that.

One might think that that kind of effort on its behalf would be worth more than a couple of thousand in campaign cash to Vantage. Vantage could have at least shown the same gratitude as the relative of the owner of 55,000 of fenced hunting property in Riser’s district.

When landowners in Winn, Caldwell and LaSalle parishes felt they were being fenced out of their hunting rights back in 2013, they did what any citizen might do: they went to their legislator for help–in this case, Riser, who paid the obligatory lip service of expressing concern for landowners Wyndel Gough, Gary Hatten, and Michael Gough but who, in the end, did nothing to assist them.

Instead, as so often happens today in politics, he sold out to the highest bidder.

One the $5,000 contributors to Riser’s campaign is none other than Hunter Farms & Timber, LLC, of Lafayette. An officer in that firm is Billy Busbice, Jr., of Jackson, Wyoming.

William Busbice Sr., one-time chairman of the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission, and Junior’s father, is a partner in Six C Rentals Limited Partnership of Youngsville, LA. Which purchased and proceeded to fence in some 55,000 acres of prime hunting land a few years back.

The original LouisianaVoice story on that dispute can be read HERE.

All of which only serves to underscore the long-held perception that we in Louisiana, by continually electing the type of public officials who are interested only in the next big deal, get the kind of representation we deserve.

Read Full Post »

POST certification of deputy fire marshals: for the protection of the public or are ulterior (read: financial) motives at play?

Posted in Corruption, Crime, Ethics, Finances, Governor's Office, Legislators, State Fire Marshal, Transparency on September 25, 2017| 7 Comments »

Are State Fire Marshal deputies in violation of the law by wearing firearms while on duty?

That’s a fair question.

Many, if not most deputy fire marshals would prefer not to wear a weapon. Some whom we talked with are downright resentful that they are required to go through Police Officer Standards and Training (POST) certification to be qualified to be armed agents. It’s not the training they object to so much as the requirement that they carry a weapon.

But the fact remains that they are required to do just that.

But there may be legitimate questions as to the actual legality of such a requirement.

In 2009, State Fire Marshal Butch Browning wanted a bill introduced that would redefine and expand the authority of deputy fire marshals, a move opposed by command level brass at Louisiana State Police (LSP) who found the proposal to be inappropriate, based on the mission of the Louisiana Office of State Fire Marshal (LOSFM).

In a March 16, 2009, email to State Police command and on which LSP’s Office of Legal Affairs was copied, Browning wrote, “I wanted to follow up on the legislation on full police powers for our investigators. Currently, they have powers to carry firearms and (to) make arrests for the arson crimes and I have the authority to commission them. Arson is now, more than ever, a bi-product of so many other crimes and our folks regularly uncover other crimes and times where their ability to charge with other crimes might help the arson investigation.

“Our people need full powers while conducting a (sic) arson investigation. This can be accomplished with adding to the fire marshal’s act or by your commissioning authority,” he wrote. “I have no preference. I just know they need this ability. You (sic) consideration in this matter is appreciated.”

Browning even prevailed upon then-State Rep. Karen St. Germain of Plaquemine (now Commissioner of the Office of Motor Vehicles) to draft a bill to redefine the role of deputy fire marshals. From what we can determine it appears that despite Browning’s pleas to expand the agency’s law enforcement authority the bill received no support from Gov. Bobby Jindal (likely at the urging of then-State Police Superintendent Mike Edmonson) and was never filed.

Why would a person who trained to be a boiler inspector be required to pack heat?

The same goes for nursing home, child care facilities, and hospital inspectors.

Ditto those who inspect carnival rides.

Likewise, for jail, public school and other public building inspectors.

The fact is, the only conceivable area in which a deputy fire marshal might need to be armed is in the area of explosives and arson investigations, according to highly-placed LSP officials who insist there is little or no need for the creation of yet another police agency to augment LSP, Department of Public Service (DPS) officers, sheriffs’ departments, campus and local police departments.

Yet, just a couple of years ago, there they were: Armed deputy fire marshals patrolling the New Orleans French Quarter during Mardi Gras.

In order for Browning to get around the objections of LSP, he instituted cross-training whereby all deputy fire marshals, no matter their specialized training, must be qualified to inspect any type building, any carnival ride, any boiler, any jail, or any night club—and to be arson investigators to boot. That proposal, coinciding as it did with Jindal’s obsession with downsizing and consolidation of state government, tempered the governor’s initial reluctance to go along with Browning.

But in reality, the issue was never about improving response or streamlining the agency at all. It was about improving retirement benefits.

By allowing deputies—all deputies (and virtually all employees would ultimately be designated as deputies)—to become POST-certified and to carry weapons, it qualified employees (even clerical, if they wore a gun, as some now do), to have their jobs upgraded to hazardous duty as are state police and DPS police.

What that means is employees can now qualify to retire at 100 percent of their average salary for their top three years more than a decade earlier than State Civil Service employees. Here’s how it works:

State classified employees under Civil Service accrue retirement at 2.5 percent per year at a rate based on the average of their three highest earning years (excluding overtime) multiplied by years of service. So, a classified employee whose highest three-year average earnings are $50,000 must work 40 years to retire at 100 percent of his salary ($50,000 X 2.5 percent = $1,250 X 40 years = $50,000. Based on that same formula, if he worked 30 years, he would retire at $37,500). (This equation, of course, works for any pay level, not just $50,000.)

But hazardous duty employees accrue retirement at 3.5 percent of the average of their three highest years. That means the same three-year average pay of $50,000 would accrue retirement at a rate of 3.5 percent, or $1,750 per year, allowing him to retire at 100 percent of salary in just over 28 years.

Accordingly, Chief Deputy Fire Marshal Brant Thompson surmised that if deputies achieved POST certification, then they were fully imbued with general law enforcement authority and not the limited law enforcement authority laid out in state statutes. “That assumption is absolutely not true,” according to one long time law enforcement official familiar with how officers are commissioned. “Just because an individual has POST certification doesn’t empower that person to enforce all laws. That authority flows from the law or via the person issuing the commission. I’m not sure who commissions deputy marshals; I suspect it is Browning rather than the Superintendent of State Police.

“I know that when the LSP Colonel (Superintendent) issues a commission to campus police, for example, the commission makes it clear that law enforcement authority is limited to crimes occurring on the campus,” the former law enforcement officer said.

Browning is nothing if not determined in his quest to acquire full law enforcement authority for his marshals. The debate that began in 2009 has continued into 2016, at least. Gene Cicardo, who was appointed chief legal counsel for DPS upon the death of Frank Blackburn last September, was drawn into the dispute and wrote a memorandum to Edmonson and Deputy Superintendent Charles Dupuy that left Browning upset and unhappy, according to sources.

The contents of that memorandum are not known, but LouisianaVoice has made a public records request to LSP for that document.

Cicardo has since returned to private practice in Alexandria.

Meanwhile, we have armed boiler inspectors, carnival ride inspectors, nursing home inspectors and, conceivably, even State Fire Marshal Office clerical employees (aka Executive Management Officers) patrolling for criminal elements in the New Orleans French Quarter during Mardi Gras.

What could possibly go wrong?

 

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »