GPS tracking devices and stuff...

Since we started covering the goings on over at the City of South Miami, several people have been writing in about the former police chief, Orlando Martinez de Castro, putting GPS tracking devices on his foes vehicles in an effort to see what they were up to.  With that said, I don't think you can get any more on point than this video...



If we can take away anything from that video, it's this part:

Walter White:  Hank, isn't that illegal?  I mean isn't there some sort of unlawful search and something...

Hank Shrader: It's known as extralegal.  Trust me, it's our little secret.

Is that right?  Extralegal?  Extralegal means not regulated or sanctioned by law, so in essence, by placing a GPS tracking device on a subjects vehicle, essentially you're breaking the law.  I know there's at least one of our readers that got a warm and fuzzy feeling when they watched this episode of Breaking Bad.

So what's it take to for law enforcement to legally put one of these GPS tracking devices on a subjects vehicle?  According to Florida Statutes here's what's necessary...

F.S. 934.42 Mobile tracking device authorization.—

(1) An investigative or law enforcement officer may make application to a judge of competent jurisdiction for an order authorizing or approving the installation and use of a mobile tracking device.

(2) An application under subsection (1) of this section must include:
(a) A statement of the identity of the applicant and the identity of the law enforcement agency conducting the investigation.
(b) A certification by the applicant that the information likely to be obtained is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation being conducted by the investigating agency.
(c) A statement of the offense to which the information likely to be obtained relates.
(d) A statement whether it may be necessary to use and monitor the mobile tracking device outside the jurisdiction of the court from which authorization is being sought.

(3) Upon application made as provided under subsection (2), the court, if it finds that the certification and statements required by subsection (2) have been made in the application, shall enter an ex parte order authorizing the installation and use of a mobile tracking device. Such order may authorize the use of the device within the jurisdiction of the court and outside that jurisdiction but within the State of Florida if the device is installed within the jurisdiction of the court.

(4) A court may not require greater specificity or additional information beyond that which is required by this section as a requisite for issuing an order.

(5) The standards established by the United States Supreme Court for the installation and monitoring of mobile tracking devices shall apply to the installation and use of any device as authorized by this section.

(6) As used in this section, a “tracking device” means an electronic or mechanical device which permits the tracking of the movement of a person or object.

According to F.S. 934.42 it takes a little more than waking up one day and deciding to put a tracking device on one of your foe's vehicles.  I wonder if a public information request to the fine folks over at the South Miami PD will produce the legal documents necessary to put a tracking device on someone's car?  I'll go ahead and put in a records request and see what happens.

Embattled City of South Miami Police chief, Orlando Martinez de Castro, files a grievance against the City of South Miami!

That's right!  Our sources tell us that embattled City of South Miami Police Chief Orlando Martinez de Castro has filed a grievance against the city for taking the parking department away from him.  Why file a complaint against the city?  What's the big deal about the parking department?  Before we go any further, we have to examine the chief's employment contract, let's take a look...

  City of south Miami police chief orlando martinez de castro employment contract by  

Now, where in the contract does it say anything about the parking department being under the command and control of the city's police chief?  On the contrary, the original employment contract states...

shall not assume other duties and obligations as to other City functions and departments (including, but not limited to managing the general parking enforcement or information technology operations of the City),

So there's a specific exclusion in the original employment excluding the parking and IT department from the Chief's command and control.  The contract goes on to state...

except to the extent the parties mutually agree in writing to make such additional duties part of Employee'sobligations and further agree on additional compensation to be paid to Employee for performing those additional duties.

I have no knowledge of whether or not there was a written agreement to hand over these departments to the chief at a later date, but that point is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.  Why?  Simple, the complaint the chief filed really has nothing to do with the parking department, but it has everything to do with the chief knowing that his days are numbered over at the City of South Miami.  By filing a grievance with the city, at least the way I interpret the contract, the chief will trigger an arbitration clause in his contract which in my opinion is a purely strategic move by the chief in case he gets fired.  Granted, this is pure conjecture on my part, but it seems to make sense.

We'll take a closer look at this contract tomorrow.

Where are all the South Miami cops going?

I overheard some interesting statistics yesterday regarding the City of South Miami police department.  This 2.5 square mile city has a police department that consists of 35 officers and detectives, seems a bit much for such a small city, but whatever.  What's interesting though is that recently, three of those thirty five have left and six more have applied for work in different police departments.  A quick glance at the Leoaffairs.com South Miami forum shows several thread topics where cops are discussing looking at work in other departments.

So what's the deal here?  Based on these stats nearly 26% of the pd is either gone or about to leave, that doesn't say much about the pd and those who lead it.  Could it have something to do with the Chief's overreaching political machinations or just low moral based on the poor leadership under the current administration?  

Regardless, whenever you have a quarter of your police force heading out the door, that kind of turnover is never good for the city...