Sheriff V Commissioners

[Homeland]

I read today's enterprise about the scanner issue. I guess my opinion on that is same as when the issue first came out and that is the police should have the ability to conduct day to day duties without compromising their activities.

The thing about this article though was there were two county commissioners who don't like what the sheriff is doing. Why is it the county commissioners are worried about a sheriff's issue. This is a sheriff's issue after all, the rest of communications are not encrypted.

Another observation is these two commissioners in particular seem to question a lot of the sheriff's policy decisions. I find this disturbing that the county commissioners are trying to make policy decisions for a county official who was elected by us, based on his qualifications.

I voted for my county commissioners to do their job which is providing the essential services they need to provided, and to fund our constitutionally mandated and independently elected sheriff.

If you want to make policy decisions for the sheriff, run for the position. If you are better qualified you will be elected. If not, fund him and leave his policy and procedures alone. He is responsible to his constituents!

 

[inkah]

I read today's enterprise about the scanner issue.

Is there an online article anywhere?

 

[Homeland]

Is there an online article anywhere?

St. Mary’s sheriff endorses encrypted channels -- SoMdNews.com

 

[inkah]

St. Mary’s sheriff endorses encrypted channels -- SoMdNews.com

Thank you.

I believe there is a legitimate need for encryption. I listen(ed) to the scanners, and while I am certainly disappointed to lose a great fix for my nosiness, I know I have been shocked by some of the things that come out over the public airwaves.

For me, the issue is not as much about officer safety as it is public safety.

As for transparency - this is a legitimate concern, however, as the article states, there are opportunities to hold officers accountable in other ways that don't involve putting the public at risk. Officers sign up for risk. The public does not.

As for the power struggle with who is more important, who is in charge the mostest and what-nonsense. Pshaw. Grow up and deal with the actual issue. Grown ups are so irritating.

 

[itsrequired]

I have weighed in on this issue already, but will add this. Encryption is not about keeping information away from anyone. Any person who wants to get information about what any cop is doing on the radio can get that information, just not real time.

I don't really get that, as I don't think every thing a cop does during his or her day should be available to the public. There are a lot of people who use government phones all day long and I can't listen to their conversations. Anyway, I digress.

The fact is, there are an overwhelming amount of examples of why police real time conversations should be encrypted, and not many legitimate reasons why they should not.

As far as the sheriff vs. commissioner battle, I think the commissioners should mind their part of the store and let the sheriff mind his. Like the op said, he was voted to do that job, and at least one of the commissioners who are trying to be the exfacto sheriff lost that election. Move on.

 

[kom526]

As far as the sheriff vs. commissioner battle, I think the commissioners should mind their part of the store and let the sheriff mind his. Like the op said, he was voted to do that job, and at least one of the commissioners who are trying to be the exfacto sheriff lost that election. Move on.

Dan Morris is a jackass though I do agree with him about the flush tax and the state's junk science regarding the health of the bay and who's to blame. Beyond that, jackass.

 

[JohnnyReb]

I read today's enterprise about the scanner issue. I guess my opinion on that is same as when the issue first came out and that is the police should have the ability to conduct day to day duties without compromising their activities.

Police do have such an ability, through the use of cell phones, and secure transmissions through their MDTs (Mobile Data Terminals). You will commonly recognize this as the laptops secured in their vehicles.
The thing about this article though was there were two county commissioners who don't like what the sheriff is doing. Why is it the county commissioners are worried about a sheriff's issue. This is a sheriff's issue after all, the rest of communications are not encrypted.

It's an issue that involves the Sheriff, yes. The Sheriff is a user of the radio system, the radio system is not controlled by the Sheriff. The radio system was bought and paid for using taxpayer funds, which was allocated by the county commissioners. The Sheriff does not own the radio system, its a county system.

As a result of going to encryption at the request of the Sheriff, it has caused some political fallout, and the citizens are concerned. This concern is being addressed by the county commissioners, who are doing their job.

All systems of government in this country have a set of checks and balances. This is to prevent one branch of government from becoming too powerful. The Sheriff is directly responsible to the citizens of the county by providing law enforcement functions. The county commissioners control the purse strings. In the event the citizens through their elected officials do not like how the Sheriff is running the office, the county reserves the right to reduce funding of the office of the Sheriff.

Such power is vital to a Representative republic. The county commissioners are our local legislative branch of government. To undermine the powers of our legislative branch, is contrary to the ideals of a Representative republic.

Another observation is these two commissioners in particular seem to question a lot of the sheriff's policy decisions. I find this disturbing that the county commissioners are trying to make policy decisions for a county official who was elected by us, based on his qualifications.

They are doing so, because many of their constituents are coming to them concerned about encryption. Again, this is a subject related to the usage of the county's radio system. Its not the Sheriff's radio system. If the commissioners order their radio system to become unencrypted, because encryption is not in the interest of their constituents, it will be.
I voted for my county commissioners to do their job which is providing the essential services they need to provided, and to fund our constitutionally mandated and independently elected sheriff.

Then you also elected those Representatives to maintain a check and balance over the office of the Sheriff. You also elected them to oversee usage of county equipment and facilities in a proper manner, in the interest of the citizens of the county.
If you want to make policy decisions for the sheriff, run for the position. If you are better qualified you will be elected. If not, fund him and leave his policy and procedures alone. He is responsible to his constituents!

It has nothing to do with making policy for the office of the Sheriff. It is impossible for the Sheriff to make policy in the implementation of the county radio system. Its not within his powers to do so. Should the county commissioners continue to fund the Sheriff if the Sheriff is doing something contrary to the desire of the people? Or in the event of mismanagement of the office, should the county commissioners have no way to keep the office of the Sheriff in check?

The notion that the county should mearly fund the office of the Sheriff without oversight is in direct contridiction of our form of government. A check and balance must be in place.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Thank you.

I believe there is a legitimate need for encryption. I listen(ed) to the scanners, and while I am certainly disappointed to lose a great fix for my nosiness, I know I have been shocked by some of the things that come out over the public airwaves.
What thing(s) have you listened to over the open air that shocked you?

For me, the issue is not as much about officer safety as it is public safety.

Can you clarify this statement?
As for transparency - this is a legitimate concern, however, as the article states, there are opportunities to hold officers accountable in other ways that don't involve putting the public at risk. Officers sign up for risk. The public does not.
It's something that is a very legitimate concern. How do scanners place the public at risk? Do you have any examples where a scanner in St. Mary's created a risk to the public?
As for the power struggle with who is more important, who is in charge the mostest and what-nonsense. Pshaw. Grow up and deal with the actual issue. Grown ups are so irritating.

Neither the county comissioners, or the Sheriff are more important. They are both necessary functions of government.

 

[JohnnyReb]

I have weighed in on this issue already, but will add this. Encryption is not about keeping information away from anyone. Any person who wants to get information about what any cop is doing on the radio can get that information, just not real time.


Encryption, by its very nature is about keeping information away from people. That's the only use of encryption. How would your average citizen get the information about what any cop is doing on the radio? Having the office of the Sheriff controlling what information is being given is not working, and I cite Nixle as an example. There are many offenses that occur that are not being relayed to the public, and there is little reason to believe the office of the Sheriff will be forthcoming with unedited information. Most of the offenses that occur do no make its way to a press release, as it was before.
I don't really get that, as I don't think every thing a cop does during his or her day should be available to the public. There are a lot of people who use government phones all day long and I can't listen to their conversations. Anyway, I digress.

I could never listen to the phone calls officers made, or read the transmissions on their MDTs. If there is secure traffic, it could be relayed using those methods. But regardless, as a police officer, you realize as a public employee, what you do is of interest of the public. The people absolutely should be aware of what the Sheriff's office is doing, because its one way of knowing if things are being managed properly. When you are dealing with a governmental agency, that can sieze freedoms, its important to have a level of transparancy.
The fact is, there are an overwhelming amount of examples of why police real time conversations should be encrypted, and not many legitimate reasons why they should not.


If there are overwelming examples of why all rountine communications should be encrypted, you should be able to provide some compelling examples.
As far as the sheriff vs. commissioner battle, I think the commissioners should mind their part of the store and let the sheriff mind his. Like the op said, he was voted to do that job, and at least one of the commissioners who are trying to be the exfacto sheriff lost that election. Move on.

That's an interesing take, considering its not the Sheriff's radio system. Also, the office of the Sheriff constitutionally has the oversight by the county commissioners. What the Sheriff does, or does not do, is very much their business.

 

[JohnnyReb]

The fact is, there are an overwhelming amount of examples of why police real time conversations should be encrypted, and not many legitimate reasons why they should not.

Still waiting for overwhelming examples of why all routine police communications should be encrypted.

 

[itsrequired]

Still waiting for overwhelming examples of why all routine police communications should be encrypted.

A police officer arrests someone off of a traffic stop. Now criminals know this car is parked somewhere, and the owner is not coming back for it.

A sexual assault dispatch goes out. Now people who know who lives in that house has information about a sexual assault victim.

A domestic assault is alleged and suspect information goes out on the radio. The allegation proves to be false through the investigation. Everyone who knows the suspect however, now believe the person has assaulted their spouse.

Information comes in about the location of a subject who is wanted. That information going out over the radio could lead to the wanted person getting away.

Someone has just committed a crime and wants to know what the police response is.

Someone is going to rob your house, keeps tripping the alarm to know how long it is taking the police to respond.

Someone has a particular vendetta against an officer who has arrested them and they want to ambush them.

Those are a few, there are many many more.

Encryption, by its very nature is about keeping information away from people. That's the only use of encryption. How would your average citizen get the information about what any cop is doing on the radio? Having the office of the Sheriff controlling what information is being given is not working, and I cite Nixle as an example. There are many offenses that occur that are not being relayed to the public, and there is little reason to believe the office of the Sheriff will be forthcoming with unedited information. Most of the offenses that occur do no make its way to a press release, as it was before.

Any citizen can do a ride along and listen to what police are doing. The sheriff's office doesn't control any information when a person is arrested. There is a public document created that anyone can obtain. As far as other reported crimes; if it is an ongoing investigation, the sheriff's office doesn't have any obligation to report it to anyone while they are conducting an investigation. They have to report part 1 crimes to the department of justice. If you are suggesting they are covering up crimes, I suggest you contact the appropriate authorities.

 

[Underthedome]

These reasons don't stand up to scrutiny.

A police officer arrests someone off of a traffic stop. Now criminals know this car is parked somewhere, and the owner is not coming back for it.

I can't recall anyone having a problem with their vehicle after being arrested. If they have, that is what insurance is for.

As for calls about sex assaults, the dispatcher just puts that out as an assault. They are smart enough to not do anything else. The MDT (Mobile Data Terminal) can have anything else about the call! So privacy is still maintained.

Concerning domestics...when the cops show up at the house everyone around is going to know somethings up anyway. Chances are there has already been prior problems. Again, the MDT could be used here as well as the phone.

As for criminals monitoring to check response, no scanner is needed there. They would just trip whatever alarm and wait for the vehicle to show up.

You don't need a scanner to learn where officers are located. They are in marked numbered vehicles and stop at many of the same locations all day long.

Now for the real bad news about encryption.

It diminishes the public's trust in the police.
It complicates interoperability with other police agencies.
Many agencies won't end up with the encryption key because they won't want to share it. If they do share it most agencies won't spend the extra money for a radio that is compatible or the money to reprogram the ones that are. Where most already have a scanner in their patrol vehicle that most cops know how to program. If an officer needs help he doesn't care who shows up. It can be Park Police, La Plata, P.G., FBI, or Joe Citizen. They will never hear the call because St. Mary's is encrypted.

 

[JohnnyReb]

A police officer arrests someone off of a traffic stop. Now criminals know this car is parked somewhere, and the owner is not coming back for it.

Is it not policy to make proper disposition of a vehicle after an arrest is made?
A sexual assault dispatch goes out. Now people who know who lives in that house has information about a sexual assault victim.

When has sexual assault victim information been broadcast on the open air? Did SMCSO through policy, or standard practice broadcast sexual assault victim information on the open air prior to encryption?

A domestic assault is alleged and suspect information goes out on the radio. The allegation proves to be false through the investigation. Everyone who knows the suspect however, now believe the person has assaulted their spouse.

So the purpose of encryption should be to stop county gossip?

Information comes in about the location of a subject who is wanted. That information going out over the radio could lead to the wanted person getting away.

Potentially yes. How often this happens with the aid of a scanner has to be rare, at best. One wonders how the vast majority of agencies can possibly arrest wanted people without encryption. In my experience, many suspects are unaware they even have a warrant.


Someone has just committed a crime and wants to know what the police response is.

Wants to know what the police response is? In what fashion and what crime? I don't know of many instances where there have been suspects listening to scanners, just out of curiosity of what a response will be to the crime they committed. However, I could see major crimes in progress like a bank robbery, being dispatched via MDT, or an encrypted channel.

Someone is going to rob your house, keeps tripping the alarm to know how long it is taking the police to respond.

Couldn't this simply be accomplished from watching from a place of concealment?

Someone has a particular vendetta against an officer who has arrested them and they want to ambush them.
This happens, however if you are in law enforcement, you will also be aware this is most likely to take place at their place of residence. This information is available on many websites online, or even your local court house.

Those are a few, there are many many more.

None which are so profound as to necessitate encryption for daily police operations. I absolutely see a need for encrypted channels, for specific instances and uses. Daily operations do not require encryption, and it serves to do nothing but erode public trust. In this case specifically, St. Mary's county Sheriff's office has had some black eyes in the not so distant past. St. Mary's should be doing everything to earn the public's trust again, as those wounds are incredibly challenging to recover from. Of all agencies in the southern maryland region, the St. Mary's county sheriff's office should strive to be as transparent as possible.


Any citizen can do a ride along and listen to what police are doing. The sheriff's office doesn't control any information when a person is arrested. There is a public document created that anyone can obtain. As far as other reported crimes; if it is an ongoing investigation, the sheriff's office doesn't have any obligation to report it to anyone while they are conducting an investigation. They have to report part 1 crimes to the department of justice. If you are suggesting they are covering up crimes, I suggest you contact the appropriate authorities.

In order to do a ride along, one must assume some level of risk, and be approved by the duty officer for the ride along. To ask that a citizen do a ride along, simply to be able to listen to their police communications is unrealistic.

I'm fully aware of what crimes have to be reported to the DOJ. However, the citizens of the county are not simply interested in what is required to be sent to DOJ, they wish to be informed of crimes that occur in the county of all types.

For example, in recent history, there has been an increase of thefts from motor vehicles in certain subdivisions. This information is not obtainable through Nixel (as its simply not reported), or through press releases. Does this not concern the public? Should citizens have to file freedom of information requests for this information? What has the Sheriff's office done to make these "petty crimes" available to the public?

Before encryption, crimes which were dispatched were able to be listened to and monitored by the public, and press alike. Now the press is forced to wait for a press release by the sheriff's office, and these crimes are not included in that press release, unless the entire call sheet of the day were to be released to them.

Also, whatever information is released, is now completely controlled by the sheriff's office. By that very nature, the information is gone through before its released to the public. Now, news reporters can not go to scenes, and document stories in real time.

Another topic of discussion is how officer safety has been dealt a substantial blow with the use of encryption for all channels. Would you like to weigh in on this topic, or shall I?

 

[glhs837]

You get the same answers every time. Watched the Channel 10 video of the Charlotte Hall County Commissioners meeting. One man got up and raised these same questions. Oddly enough, the Sheriff was there, not sure how often he attends these. And more oddly, to me anyway, was that he later stepped to the mic and there was joking about not having signed in to speak, was given three minutes on the mic.

And the responses were the same. Almost word for word. He didn't address the citizens points, just hit the talking points.

 

[sockgirl77]

Commissioner Cindy Jones (R) said Wednesday, “The decision to encrypt all those channels really is a policy decision that really should have been brought to the county commissioners. I believe what we’re doing right now is not a fair and balanced approach.”

She has opposed almost every request/decision that the SMCSO has made since they released the info on her attempt to hang herself. She's mentally unstable and should have stepped down from her position. But, that's just my humble little opinion.

 

[itsrequired]

Now for the real bad news about encryption.

It diminishes the public's trust in the police.
It complicates interoperability with other police agencies.
Many agencies won't end up with the encryption key because they won't want to share it. If they do share it most agencies won't spend the extra money for a radio that is compatible or the money to reprogram the ones that are. Where most already have a scanner in their patrol vehicle that most cops know how to program. If an officer needs help he doesn't care who shows up. It can be Park Police, La Plata, P.G., FBI, or Joe Citizen. They will never hear the call because St. Mary's is encrypted.

Park Police? La Plata? P.G?

The FBI has SMCSO encrypted radios. You are funny. Who's mpd are you?

 

[itsrequired]

You get the same answers every time. Watched the Channel 10 video of the Charlotte Hall County Commissioners meeting. One man got up and raised these same questions. Oddly enough, the Sheriff was there, not sure how often he attends these. And more oddly, to me anyway, was that he later stepped to the mic and there was joking about not having signed in to speak, was given three minutes on the mic.

And the responses were the same. Almost word for word. He didn't address the citizens points, just hit the talking points.

Talking points or these are the reasons that people who are in the business understand to be the truth. Talking points would indicate that people got together and discussed the reasons. I can assure you that there has been no such discussion. I am glad to hear other law enforcement professionals feel the same way I do.

 

[Homeland]

The notion that the county should mearly fund the office of the Sheriff without oversight is in direct contridiction of our form of government. A check and balance must be in place.

The county commissioners doesn't have oversight to what the office of the sheriff does. The commissioners may have budgetary oversight, but that only has to do with budget. Any decisions that have nothing to do with budget, have nothing to do with the commissioners. If the commissioners are deciding not to fun an expensive radio system, then so be it. My understanding is they funded this system, but two of them don't like the fact that the sheriff is using it in the manner he deems best for his agency.

It's an issue that involves the Sheriff, yes. The Sheriff is a user of the radio system, the radio system is not controlled by the Sheriff. The radio system was bought and paid for using taxpayer funds, which was allocated by the county commissioners. The Sheriff does not own the radio system, its a county system.

it has caused some political fallout, and the citizens are concerned. This concern is being addressed by the county commissioners, who are doing their job.

Right. That is why it is only the sheriff's channels which are encrypted. The county system is still unencrypted and the commissioners have the ability to do what they like with that part of the system. The taxpayers are the sheriff's constituents as well. They voted HIM in to make decisions as to what happens with the sheriff's office.

All systems of government in this country have a set of checks and balances. This is to prevent one branch of government from becoming too powerful. The Sheriff is directly responsible to the citizens of the county by providing law enforcement functions. The county commissioners control the purse strings. In the event the citizens through their elected officials do not like how the Sheriff is running the office, the county reserves the right to reduce funding of the office of the Sheriff.

Your first point is correct. The sheriff is responsible for the operation of the sheriff's office. Your second point is ridiculous! The county commissioners should not have the ability to reduce a budget because they don't like what the sheriff's ofice is doing! If they want to dictate what law enforcement is doing, they should get a police department. The people determine if they like the sheriff's management, not the commissioners.

It has nothing to do with making policy for the office of the Sheriff. It is impossible for the Sheriff to make policy in the implementation of the county radio system. Its not within his powers to do so. Should the county commissioners continue to fund the Sheriff if the Sheriff is doing something contrary to the desire of the people? Or in the event of mismanagement of the office, should the county commissioners have no way to keep the office of the Sheriff in check?

This has everything to do with making policy for the sheriff. The sheriff isn't doing anything with the county radio system, only the portion which covers his responsibility.

The commissioners responsibility for funding is to fund the appropriate amount of money. Period! The sheriff is elected. If he is doing something contrary to the desire of the people, they will replace him. It is not the commissioners job to keep the "sheriff in check". None of them have the experience he has in law enforcement to do so.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Park Police? La Plata? P.G?

The FBI has SMCSO encrypted radios. You are funny. Who's mpd are you?

I'm not sure what's so funny. The fact that off duty officers from outside agencies can not hear when a St. Mary's deputy needs assistance is troubling. St. Mary's is home to a lot of off duty officers, as was stated by Underthedome. Some of these agencies include U.S. Capitol Police, DC Metropolitan Police Department, U.S. Park Police, Charles County Sheriff's Office, Calvert County Sheriff's Office, La Plata town police, and Prince George's County police.


In the past, off duty officers from those agencies were able to watch out for their brothers and sisters in St. Mary's, listening to personal scanners in their off time.

On duty Charles County officers were able to listen to scanners in their cruisers when they were close to the county line, and were able to assist if necessary. This is no longer possible.


Does Natural Resources Police have the ability to listen to encrypted St. Mary's communications?

 

[JohnnyReb]

Talking points or these are the reasons that people who are in the business understand to be the truth. Talking points would indicate that people got together and discussed the reasons. I can assure you that there has been no such discussion. I am glad to hear other law enforcement professionals feel the same way I do.

I'm sure there are some other law enforcement professionals that feel the same as you, however its most definitely not a unanimous opinion.

I'm familiar with the Charlotte Hall meeting as well. What I found interesting, as to my knowledge, there were only two people from the Sheriff's Office there, Lt. Evans, and Sheriff Cameron. If the Deputies felt that encryption was so vital to their safety, where were all of them?

So people didn't get together to to discuss the reasons for encryption? What do you mean when you say there was no such discussion?