Post by HuntMeister on Dec 9, 2011 9:04:37 GMT -5
Sounds fishy to me 
...
www.indystar.com/article/20111209/BUSINESS/112090349/-1/NLETTER08/Indiana-conservation-officers-got-a-break-on-licenses-in-Ohio?source=nletter-business
Want to go fishing in Ohio? If you live in Indiana, you'll need to plunk down $40 and fill out an application for a nonresident fishing license. If you try to save a few bucks by pretending you're an Ohio resident, you could be charged with a first-degree misdemeanor and face up to 180 days in jail.
But two Indiana conservation officers, whose job is to enforce hunting and fishing laws, each saved $21 by falsely using an Ohio address on their fishing applications, according to a report by the Ohio inspector general.
Indiana conservation officers Travis Wooley and Dan Sprinkle got the licenses in 2007 with help from two Ohio wildlife officers, who accompanied them to an archery shop in 2007.
The Ohio officers told the shop owner to issue fishing licenses to the Indiana officers, using the address of an Ohio Division of Wildlife district office as their home addresses, the report said.
The Ohio inspector general learned of the incident nearly three years later and launched an investigation. A 10-page report, recently issued, concluded that providing false information on a fishing license is a violation of Ohio law, and the state's wildlife officers "are not exempt from this law."
"There is no justification for ignoring Ohio criminal violations of providing false information on a government document because it may have been a past practice, or because the documents involve an Ohio Division of Wildlife officer, or because other states ignore or allow the practice," the report said.
The Ohio inspector general recommended that the Ohio Department of Natural Resources overhaul its policies to avoid any repeat incidents. It also forwarded its findings for review to the Indiana Department of Natural Resources and the prosecutor's office in Hamilton County, Ohio.
"You have two Ohio enforcement officers coaching people on how to break the law," said Carl Enslen, Ohio deputy inspector general. "They're saying, 'Here's how you break the law.' . . . What's sad is the amount of money at stake."
The two Ohio officers have since received a written reprimand from the supervisor.
But the Indiana Department of Natural Resources confirmed this week it has decided not to discipline the Indiana officers, saying the Ohio prosecutor closed the case without filing any charges.
"Ohio determined that they didn't break the law," said Col. Scotty Wilson, director of law enforcement for the Indiana Department of Natural Resources. "They felt our officers weren't culpable."
The incident raises the question of whether police officers who break the same kind of rules they are supposed to enforce should be disciplined or whether there are extenuating circumstances that could excuse them.
"The trend at workplaces over the last 10 years has been toward zero tolerance on misbehavior," said Karl Ahlrichs, a human-relations consultant at Gregory & Appel in Indianapolis. "I can't comment on this case, but in general, there is a heightened sensitivity to people who break rules when they clearly should have known better."
Wooley and Sprinkle, the Indiana officers, could not be reached for comment. They work out of District 9 headquarters in Brookville, in the rural, southeastern part of the state, about 20 miles from the Ohio state line. The district's commander, Lt. Anthony Stoll, declined to answer any questions about the case or comment about the two officers.
Wilson also declined to provide a phone number for the two officers or to relay a message to them, seeking comment. He said his office cooperated fully with the Ohio investigation.
The prosecutor's office in Hamilton County, Ohio, declined to comment.
According to the Ohio inspector general's report, the whole thing started on June 8, 2007, when the Ohio wildlife officers got a call from Wooley and Sprinkle, asking for help getting Ohio resident fishing licenses for themselves.
The two Ohio officers called a retired district supervisor for approval. They said the retired supervisor authorized helping the Indiana officers get Ohio resident fishing licenses by listing the Ohio Division of Wildlife District 5 office address as their home address.
The report did not say why the Ohio officers did not ask the current supervisor for permission.
After apparently getting permission, the four officers, all in uniform, went to a nearby archery shop. There they told the owner to issue Ohio resident applications for Wooley and Sprinkle, using the district office in Xenia, Ohio, on the license applications.
According to the report, the two Ohio officers later acknowledged "they knew providing false information on a fishing license application was a crime; however, because it was for other wildlife officers and approved by a supervisor, it was considered an accepted practice."
The two Indiana officers told investigators that the practice of allowing out-of-state officers to use a false address on a license application also was done in Indiana and Kentucky.
Records gathered in the investigation showed that Wooley earlier received an Ohio resident hunting license and deer permit, also using the District 5 office as his home address.
Some Ohio officials claimed to investigators there was a reciprocity agreement that allowed resident fishing licenses to be issued to out-of-state wildlife officers. The inspector general's officer, however, found that no such reciprocity agreements existed.
Indiana, however, has allowed the practice on a limited basis for many years under state law, Wilson said. Under the policy, Indiana allowed out-of-state employees of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and conservation officers of other states to buy an Indiana license to fish or hunt at residential rates, he said.
But in October, as the Ohio investigation was wrapping up, Wilson issued a new directive. He said that he would have to personally approve of any such application. Since that policy was announced, there have been no requests, said Phil Bloom, an IDNR spokesman.
As for the behavior of the two Indiana officers, Bloom said the situation was far from simple. What happened was that when the archery store owner tried to enter the information on a computer, the computer did not accept the purchase of a resident license with a nonresident address.
"In order to clear the computer system, our guys were told to put in an Ohio address," Wilson said.
He said the incident stemmed from a misunderstanding based on a longstanding practice in Ohio, under which supervisors authorized officers to issue resident licenses to out-of-state wildlife officers, he said.
"We don't condone it," Wilson said. "We don't think it was a good practice. But do we feel they went over there and intentionally broke the law? No. I think it might have just been bad judgment."
...www.indystar.com/article/20111209/BUSINESS/112090349/-1/NLETTER08/Indiana-conservation-officers-got-a-break-on-licenses-in-Ohio?source=nletter-business
Want to go fishing in Ohio? If you live in Indiana, you'll need to plunk down $40 and fill out an application for a nonresident fishing license. If you try to save a few bucks by pretending you're an Ohio resident, you could be charged with a first-degree misdemeanor and face up to 180 days in jail.
But two Indiana conservation officers, whose job is to enforce hunting and fishing laws, each saved $21 by falsely using an Ohio address on their fishing applications, according to a report by the Ohio inspector general.
Indiana conservation officers Travis Wooley and Dan Sprinkle got the licenses in 2007 with help from two Ohio wildlife officers, who accompanied them to an archery shop in 2007.
The Ohio officers told the shop owner to issue fishing licenses to the Indiana officers, using the address of an Ohio Division of Wildlife district office as their home addresses, the report said.
The Ohio inspector general learned of the incident nearly three years later and launched an investigation. A 10-page report, recently issued, concluded that providing false information on a fishing license is a violation of Ohio law, and the state's wildlife officers "are not exempt from this law."
"There is no justification for ignoring Ohio criminal violations of providing false information on a government document because it may have been a past practice, or because the documents involve an Ohio Division of Wildlife officer, or because other states ignore or allow the practice," the report said.
The Ohio inspector general recommended that the Ohio Department of Natural Resources overhaul its policies to avoid any repeat incidents. It also forwarded its findings for review to the Indiana Department of Natural Resources and the prosecutor's office in Hamilton County, Ohio.
"You have two Ohio enforcement officers coaching people on how to break the law," said Carl Enslen, Ohio deputy inspector general. "They're saying, 'Here's how you break the law.' . . . What's sad is the amount of money at stake."
The two Ohio officers have since received a written reprimand from the supervisor.
But the Indiana Department of Natural Resources confirmed this week it has decided not to discipline the Indiana officers, saying the Ohio prosecutor closed the case without filing any charges.
"Ohio determined that they didn't break the law," said Col. Scotty Wilson, director of law enforcement for the Indiana Department of Natural Resources. "They felt our officers weren't culpable."
The incident raises the question of whether police officers who break the same kind of rules they are supposed to enforce should be disciplined or whether there are extenuating circumstances that could excuse them.
"The trend at workplaces over the last 10 years has been toward zero tolerance on misbehavior," said Karl Ahlrichs, a human-relations consultant at Gregory & Appel in Indianapolis. "I can't comment on this case, but in general, there is a heightened sensitivity to people who break rules when they clearly should have known better."
Wooley and Sprinkle, the Indiana officers, could not be reached for comment. They work out of District 9 headquarters in Brookville, in the rural, southeastern part of the state, about 20 miles from the Ohio state line. The district's commander, Lt. Anthony Stoll, declined to answer any questions about the case or comment about the two officers.
Wilson also declined to provide a phone number for the two officers or to relay a message to them, seeking comment. He said his office cooperated fully with the Ohio investigation.
The prosecutor's office in Hamilton County, Ohio, declined to comment.
According to the Ohio inspector general's report, the whole thing started on June 8, 2007, when the Ohio wildlife officers got a call from Wooley and Sprinkle, asking for help getting Ohio resident fishing licenses for themselves.
The two Ohio officers called a retired district supervisor for approval. They said the retired supervisor authorized helping the Indiana officers get Ohio resident fishing licenses by listing the Ohio Division of Wildlife District 5 office address as their home address.
The report did not say why the Ohio officers did not ask the current supervisor for permission.
After apparently getting permission, the four officers, all in uniform, went to a nearby archery shop. There they told the owner to issue Ohio resident applications for Wooley and Sprinkle, using the district office in Xenia, Ohio, on the license applications.
According to the report, the two Ohio officers later acknowledged "they knew providing false information on a fishing license application was a crime; however, because it was for other wildlife officers and approved by a supervisor, it was considered an accepted practice."
The two Indiana officers told investigators that the practice of allowing out-of-state officers to use a false address on a license application also was done in Indiana and Kentucky.
Records gathered in the investigation showed that Wooley earlier received an Ohio resident hunting license and deer permit, also using the District 5 office as his home address.
Some Ohio officials claimed to investigators there was a reciprocity agreement that allowed resident fishing licenses to be issued to out-of-state wildlife officers. The inspector general's officer, however, found that no such reciprocity agreements existed.
Indiana, however, has allowed the practice on a limited basis for many years under state law, Wilson said. Under the policy, Indiana allowed out-of-state employees of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and conservation officers of other states to buy an Indiana license to fish or hunt at residential rates, he said.
But in October, as the Ohio investigation was wrapping up, Wilson issued a new directive. He said that he would have to personally approve of any such application. Since that policy was announced, there have been no requests, said Phil Bloom, an IDNR spokesman.
As for the behavior of the two Indiana officers, Bloom said the situation was far from simple. What happened was that when the archery store owner tried to enter the information on a computer, the computer did not accept the purchase of a resident license with a nonresident address.
"In order to clear the computer system, our guys were told to put in an Ohio address," Wilson said.
He said the incident stemmed from a misunderstanding based on a longstanding practice in Ohio, under which supervisors authorized officers to issue resident licenses to out-of-state wildlife officers, he said.
"We don't condone it," Wilson said. "We don't think it was a good practice. But do we feel they went over there and intentionally broke the law? No. I think it might have just been bad judgment."
