Zylak living up to promises and more!

K

Kain99

Guest
Sheriff's, State Police Detectives Join Forces

2 Agencies Set Aside Rivalry in New Team

By the old, fiercely territorial rules of St. Mary's County police work, it was clear who should investigate the burglary of Four Star Pizza in Leonardtown -- sheriff's deputies were first on the scene, so sheriff's detectives would try to solve the case.

But when an informant called to name suspects in the June 28 burglary, the case was handed over to Maryland State Police Trooper 1st Class Robert Riley. A sheriff's detective, Clay Safford, took a secondary role.

The cooperative effort -- once a rarity for two agencies that had testy relations in the late 1990s -- is now the norm, police officials said this week. The sheriff's office and the Leonardtown state police barrack merged their separate detective units this month into one team, tentatively called the St. Mary's County Criminal Bureau of Investigation.

Riley and Safford solved the new bureau's first case quickly, arresting two suspects on charges of second-degree burglary. They drew up warrants together, executed a search of a Leonardtown home and found two safes and money stolen from Four Star Pizza.

The new bureau of 13 detectives and six supervisors has solved several other cases, including an armed robbery last week.

And, with deputies and troopers working side by side and sharing information, law enforcement officials said crime trends are being spotted more rapidly, and old cases that have languished may soon be solved.

"The communication level has increased tremendously," Riley said. "There's a lot more talking."

Though rank-and-file deputies and troopers usually work well together, there have long been rivalries between the two department's leaders. In the mid-1990s, for instance, then-Sheriff Richard J. Voorhaar (R) and then-Superintendent David B. Mitchell of the state police clashed over Voorhaar's plan to take over almost all criminal investigations in the county.

"It was a glory issue," current Sheriff David S. Zylak (D) said. "One agency wanted all the glory for making arrests. . . . The bigger picture was lost."

The sheriff's office is the county's primary law enforcement agency, but the state police have maintained a barrack in Leonardtown with criminal investigators since 1951. Detectives used to investigate a case when their agency was the first to arrive at a crime scene.

The separate investigative units sometimes "stepped on each other's toes," said Sgt. Gerald Johnson, who supervises about 10 sheriff's detectives. In many cases, especially narcotics investigations, Johnson said the state police and sheriff's office have investigated the same person or group without talking to each other.

"Then one of us would conduct a raid . . . and all we would do is crush the long-term investigation" for the other department, Johnson said.

The new bureau's detectives will answer to supervisors from both departments. Patches bearing logos for both departments and the bureau's name will be given to each detective so the unit has a "sense of identity," Zylak said.

Citizen complaints against a detective will be reviewed internally by the investigator's agency.

The merger has yet to be approved officially by the current state police superintendent, Col. Edward Norris.

But it took effect for practical purposes July 1, when six detectives from the state police Leonardtown barrack moved their offices down Baldridge Street to the sheriff's department criminal investigations room.

State police Lt. Brian Cedar proposed the idea early this year to Zylak, who campaigned on a pledge to improve cooperation with the state police. Zylak, Cedar and several police officials agreed to the idea after traveling to Dorchester County to see how a similar merger there worked.

Zylak said the state police's wide jurisdiction will make it easier for deputies to make arrests across county borders. And the two agencies will soon have access to each other's computer databases.

"We want this to be a model for the entire state," Cedar said. "If we're not cooperating, the bad guys have a real advantage."

© 2003 The Washington Post Company
 

Elle

Happy Camper!
Now, if only we could find out where all that d*mned lumber went too they'd be perfect!!!!!
 
K

Kain99

Guest
Left overs from years of poor - corrupt administration.

I'm proud of Zylak! During the elections I spoke to one of his campaign people (an ex-officer actually) who told me straight out that he was a great guy.

He wasn't kidding! Next election I think I'm gonna turn my back on my Republican roots and throw my support Zylaks way.
 

SmallTown

Football season!
Originally posted by Kain99

Next election I think I'm gonna turn my back on my Republican roots
 

Attachments

  • frozen.jpg
    frozen.jpg
    10.6 KB · Views: 99
G

giggles04

Guest
Originally posted by Kain99


I'm proud of Zylak! During the elections I spoke to one of his campaign people (an ex-officer actually) who told me straight out that he was a great guy.


He is a great guy getting great things done in that department! I hope he keeps it going!
 

chuckster

IMFUBARED
Originally posted by tys_mommy
Now, if only we could find out where all that d*mned lumber went too they'd be perfect!!!!!

They more or less know where, who and how. Just waiting to see what David does with all the info.

He is doing a great job and the boys on the street are now proud to be in a St Mary's Sheriffs uniform.
 
K

Kain99

Guest
Originally posted by chuckster
He is doing a great job and the boys on the street are now proud to be in a St Mary's Sheriffs uniform.

And that right there... Is the key to success! It's about time the deputies had reason to hold their heads high!
 
F

Frostillicus

Guest
Originally posted by chuckster
They more or less know where, who and how. Just waiting to see what David does with all the info.

Sweep it under the rug like he did with his own little scandal?
 

dalopitz

dabailey
what rights do taxpayers have against the sheriff?

If you knew the sheriff was spending a fair amount of taxpayer dollars, needlessly in your opinion, and with no end in sight, what could you do about it?
 

Oz

You're all F'in Mad...
dalopitz said:
If you knew the sheriff was spending a fair amount of taxpayer dollars, needlessly in your opinion, and with no end in sight, what could you do about it?


I'm probably start by being more specific instead of this hit-and-run type of message.
 

kom526

They call me ... Sarcasmo
Kain99 said:
I'm proud of Zylak! During the elections I spoke to one of his campaign people (an ex-officer actually) who told me straight out that he was a great guy.
What else is someone's campaign worker gonna say? "Oh, he's a shiat bag, don't vote for him."? :lol:
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
dalopitz said:
If you knew the sheriff was spending a fair amount of taxpayer dollars, needlessly in your opinion, and with no end in sight, what could you do about it?
You would take it to the County Commissioners, who approve his budget.
 

dalopitz

dabailey
vraiblonde said:
You would take it to the County Commissioners, who approve his budget.
I'll try to make a very long story short. I was talking to a friend who is familiar with the case against one of his police officers (it was in the paper not too long ago). It seems the judge overturned all of the charges but the sheriff refuses to reinstate the guy at his correct rank (the sheriff had given him a year's demotion)even though the judge said there was no grounds. Anyway, this friend was telling me how the sheriff is dragging this out (at taxpayer expense), not abiding by the court order. I know the sheriff is an elected official, who works for the people, yada yada yada, but this is my money he keeps spending. I believe he has some kind of agenda against this officer and it's bordering on harrassment. Not to get into all that, my concern is with the ethics of the sheriff choosing to disobey a court order and continue to fight this (while penalizing this officer). I know the sheriff has to retain an attorney, who's paying for that?
 

Bogart

New Member
dalopitz said:
I'll try to make a very long story short. I was talking to a friend who is familiar with the case against one of his police officers (it was in the paper not too long ago). It seems the judge overturned all of the charges but the sheriff refuses to reinstate the guy at his correct rank (the sheriff had given him a year's demotion)even though the judge said there was no grounds. Anyway, this friend was telling me how the sheriff is dragging this out (at taxpayer expense), not abiding by the court order. I know the sheriff is an elected official, who works for the people, yada yada yada, but this is my money he keeps spending. I believe he has some kind of agenda against this officer and it's bordering on harrassment. Not to get into all that, my concern is with the ethics of the sheriff choosing to disobey a court order and continue to fight this (while penalizing this officer). I know the sheriff has to retain an attorney, who's paying for that?
How is your 'friend' familiar with the case? Is your friend an 'attorney'?
 

Pete

Repete
dalopitz said:
I'll try to make a very long story short. I was talking to a friend who is familiar with the case against one of his police officers (it was in the paper not too long ago). It seems the judge overturned all of the charges but the sheriff refuses to reinstate the guy at his correct rank (the sheriff had given him a year's demotion)even though the judge said there was no grounds. Anyway, this friend was telling me how the sheriff is dragging this out (at taxpayer expense), not abiding by the court order. I know the sheriff is an elected official, who works for the people, yada yada yada, but this is my money he keeps spending. I believe he has some kind of agenda against this officer and it's bordering on harrassment. Not to get into all that, my concern is with the ethics of the sheriff choosing to disobey a court order and continue to fight this (while penalizing this officer). I know the sheriff has to retain an attorney, who's paying for that?
Could it be possible that while the Deputy is not guilty of a "crime" in accordance with the law, but he may be guilty of "misconduct"? The judge cares about crimes, the sheriff is well within his perview as an employer to punish "misconduct' that may not rise to the level of a crime but is inappropriate behavior for a Deputy.

How can a judge "overturn charges"? If the charges are brought by the States Attorney the judge presides over the trial, he does not charge or overturn charges. In some places a judge may overturn a verdict or an award of damages as a result of the trial but not charges.
 
Top