An 'FTG' Exclusive
The following submission is part one of a two-part series. An exclusive and detailed interview with the former probation officer, whose identity is being concealed in order to protect him and his family, will be recorded on September 21 and presented in an episode of "The G-Man Interviews" the week of September 24.
I’m not sure how many of America's court officials, police and probation officers will react to what I'm about to reveal. Quite frankly, I'm not concerned. It’s my story. If they don’t like it, I invite them to tell their own story. That said, allow me to introduce myself.
My name is "John". I’m a 45-year-old Caucasian male who proudly served his country as a United States Marine for four years. I'm a former employee of the criminal justice system. Specifically, I served as a probation officer in the state of Illinois for eight years. I decided to become an officer or agent of law enforcement at the tender age of 35. In October of 2008, I began the hiring process with federal and local agencies, with two months left on my 36th year of life, while putting the finishing touches on my Bachelor’s degree. In December of that year, I turned 37 and graduated. Some of you might be saying, “Wait. You’re lying. Maximum age for federal agents, as well as local municipalities in your area, is 37 and 34ish.” You’d be correct. However, my military experience subtracts four years off of my biological age, so at 37 years of age and with four years of active service, agencies considered me 33-years-old.
While in process with two federal agencies and testing for local municipalities, I was hired as a probation officer in a specialized unit where I supervised high-risk felons. It was a prison diversion program whereby without this program, the defendant would be sentenced to prison. While there were many standards if one was placed on this type of probation, my position required me to work in concert with federal, state, county, and local law enforcement agencies. Additional tasks included 24-hour surveillance, home visits, and searches. Yes, searches. In this form of probation, and to qualify, a defendant had to sign a document waiving his/her Fourth Amendment Rights of illegal search or seizure. I required neither reasonable suspicion nor probable cause to search the person or their property. This was particularly appealing to law enforcement agencies, and it was universally adopted by many as a practice. I was required to be unarmed, so I had no choice but to comply because I needed the protection of the officers. It was a symbiotic relationship, and self-preservation is important to me.
The interesting part of the work was the interaction with those on my caseload, particularly on their territory. To that effect, another point of interest was that I would have to regularly be present in court in the event I was asked to testify for my actions. The county for which I worked required our presence in court if someone on our caseload was to be present. No matter the reason. Most of the time, attorneys would request a 30-day continuance, so our presence and time was wasted. That’s certainly how it felt. I'm mentioning this because I want you to know that I have experienced the “street” and “court” side of the criminal justice system. I claim no expertise in either; I claim experience and my own insight, myopic or otherwise, into both worlds.
During my tenure, I experienced a pendulum shift. Initially, I obsessed over when I would be picked up by a law enforcement agency, but that was eventually tempered by the following courtroom proceedings and incidents.
In 2015, South Carolina decided to finally take down the confederate (lack of capitalization was deliberate) flag. My partner and I were discussing this insofar as it was already, in our opinion, a reprehensible symbol. We were discussing how it was even chosen to be displayed on a state building, the timing of when it was chosen to be displayed (during the height of the Civil Rights movement), and how long it took for this to be considered horrific. Our conversation must have been equally offensive to one specific Assistant State’s Attorney (ASA). This individual chided us saying we didn’t know our history and that we, like many, have confused the flag’s meaning. This person continued by asking us why it was okay for any person of color to be proud of their ethnicity but for us to be embarrassed; that it was part of our heritage and culture; and everything was always the white man’s fault. This was someone who prosecuted people!
Not race-related, it was common practice in the circuit for which I was employed for government employees to sit in the jury’s box when waiting for a specific case to be called. During normal courtroom procedures (e.g. bond reduction hearings, petition to revoke hearings, continuances, plea deals, etc.), recess would be called, the judge would disappear, and that’s when a considerable amount of attorney negotiating would take place. On one such occasion, when I first began, I remember a defense attorney pleading with the ASA for a specific deal to be made on a DUI; the ASA didn’t budge. The defense attorney switched tactics and launched into alleging the ASA had no real case or evidence to support it, which garnered the same response of impasse. The defense attorney made a final attempt by stating if the ASA would be willing to acquiesce to the deal as offered, the defense attorney would, in turn, take any deal the ASA found fitting for the next DUI case.
A younger, Black male was being held on $150k for Manufacture/Delivery of Cocaine. The specifics of the case revealed that the individual in question had approximately 1 gram of cocaine. It’s around $200 worth. In my time as a probation officer, I’ve been informed by people on my caseload who used cocaine that it’s basically for personal use and could be gone inside one weekend. The young male in question was refused a bond reduction due to a gun charge stemming from a case 14 years prior. The next case was a white male who, during his bond reduction hearing, was retired and also there for a bond reduction. It was alleged that he had committed two separate counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse. His bond was set at $100k and reduced to $75k where he posted his 10% and was released.
I was conducting an investigation on a white male who was later put on my caseload. He was a heroin user, as was his girlfriend. One night, the male in question and his girlfriend had run some errands, grabbed some food, made their way to a local bar, left that bar, and went back to her place where they shot heroin. She eventually began to overdose, so he put her in his car and chose to take her to the local police station. As it was after hours, he used the “call” phone on the outside of the police station. As officers arrived, the male explained that he believed the female was experiencing an asthma attack; she died in the parking lot. The case took some time to reach a verdict. Based on years of experience, it was my belief that he was working with law enforcement as part of a plea deal. Considering he played a role in her death, I suspect some sort of drug-related homicide might have been in order and something he was trying to get dropped to a lesser charge. Eventually, the case was tried and he was found guilty of lesser crimes and placed on my caseload. Soon thereafter, another male, a Black male, was found guilty of drug-induced homicide and tied back to the individual on my caseload. He was convicted by an all white jury and given a 28-year prison sentence.
On a few occasions, I worked with law enforcement personnel who felt perfectly comfortable using the n-word. While I never heard them use that word in the presence of any Black individual, I can recall at least two specific instances where it was used regarding two suspects who were on my caseload that were Black. After tracking down an individual who had absconded, the absconder had been located and arrested. In what appeared to have been a drunken rant while handcuffed, the individual in question had begun to rhetorically ask why the law enforcement personnel weren’t out “...catching [n-word].” While in her presence, they attempted to de-escalate. Once the individual was placed in the back of the squad car, the law enforcement personnel had begun to freely use the n-word as they joked with one another.
I realize my motivation for sharing these deeply disturbing incidents may be called into question. Some may view the revelations as nothing more than the ramblings of a disgruntled employee. Moreover, they may conclude that because I was unable to achieve my goal of becoming a police officer, this is my way of retaliating. I don’t think that’s accurate. What is accurate is that I want justice and order. I also want all legal guidelines, within the courts and the law enforcement community, to be followed and maintained. I fought hard to serve in that capacity, and it pains me that I wasn’t able to achieve my goal. My main objective, from day one, was to make sure everyone was treated fairly within the criminal justice system, regardless of color, gender or religion.
I’ve also heard the argument that criminal justice and law enforcement professionals, as described here, are few and far between and that the respective profession in general is comprised largely of good men and women. That may be, and I’m uncomfortable speaking in broad terms as to who might/might not be considered “good”, how “good” is defined and by whom. The fact of the matter is walls of silence are maintained with favor and privilege, at best, and a lack of accountability at worst.
I believe in law enforcement. I also believe that the process to become an officer/agent is broken. It's all alleged to be a pass/fail process. Again, based on my experiences, that's true in some cases. The conclusion that I've drawn is that there's plenty of opportunity for subjectivity in a profession that boasts objectivity in hiring practices and objectively executing the duties of that position. To say it’s unimpressive is an understatement, and society deserves better from the individuals who choose this profession.
An editorial decision has been made to cancel the interview with "John". The G-Man Interviews feels this is necessary in order to prevent his identity from being exposed and protect his family.
My name is "John". I’m a 45-year-old Caucasian male who proudly served his country as a United States Marine for four years. I'm a former employee of the criminal justice system. Specifically, I served as a probation officer in the state of Illinois for eight years. I decided to become an officer or agent of law enforcement at the tender age of 35. In October of 2008, I began the hiring process with federal and local agencies, with two months left on my 36th year of life, while putting the finishing touches on my Bachelor’s degree. In December of that year, I turned 37 and graduated. Some of you might be saying, “Wait. You’re lying. Maximum age for federal agents, as well as local municipalities in your area, is 37 and 34ish.” You’d be correct. However, my military experience subtracts four years off of my biological age, so at 37 years of age and with four years of active service, agencies considered me 33-years-old.
While in process with two federal agencies and testing for local municipalities, I was hired as a probation officer in a specialized unit where I supervised high-risk felons. It was a prison diversion program whereby without this program, the defendant would be sentenced to prison. While there were many standards if one was placed on this type of probation, my position required me to work in concert with federal, state, county, and local law enforcement agencies. Additional tasks included 24-hour surveillance, home visits, and searches. Yes, searches. In this form of probation, and to qualify, a defendant had to sign a document waiving his/her Fourth Amendment Rights of illegal search or seizure. I required neither reasonable suspicion nor probable cause to search the person or their property. This was particularly appealing to law enforcement agencies, and it was universally adopted by many as a practice. I was required to be unarmed, so I had no choice but to comply because I needed the protection of the officers. It was a symbiotic relationship, and self-preservation is important to me.
The interesting part of the work was the interaction with those on my caseload, particularly on their territory. To that effect, another point of interest was that I would have to regularly be present in court in the event I was asked to testify for my actions. The county for which I worked required our presence in court if someone on our caseload was to be present. No matter the reason. Most of the time, attorneys would request a 30-day continuance, so our presence and time was wasted. That’s certainly how it felt. I'm mentioning this because I want you to know that I have experienced the “street” and “court” side of the criminal justice system. I claim no expertise in either; I claim experience and my own insight, myopic or otherwise, into both worlds.
During my tenure, I experienced a pendulum shift. Initially, I obsessed over when I would be picked up by a law enforcement agency, but that was eventually tempered by the following courtroom proceedings and incidents.
In 2015, South Carolina decided to finally take down the confederate (lack of capitalization was deliberate) flag. My partner and I were discussing this insofar as it was already, in our opinion, a reprehensible symbol. We were discussing how it was even chosen to be displayed on a state building, the timing of when it was chosen to be displayed (during the height of the Civil Rights movement), and how long it took for this to be considered horrific. Our conversation must have been equally offensive to one specific Assistant State’s Attorney (ASA). This individual chided us saying we didn’t know our history and that we, like many, have confused the flag’s meaning. This person continued by asking us why it was okay for any person of color to be proud of their ethnicity but for us to be embarrassed; that it was part of our heritage and culture; and everything was always the white man’s fault. This was someone who prosecuted people!
Not race-related, it was common practice in the circuit for which I was employed for government employees to sit in the jury’s box when waiting for a specific case to be called. During normal courtroom procedures (e.g. bond reduction hearings, petition to revoke hearings, continuances, plea deals, etc.), recess would be called, the judge would disappear, and that’s when a considerable amount of attorney negotiating would take place. On one such occasion, when I first began, I remember a defense attorney pleading with the ASA for a specific deal to be made on a DUI; the ASA didn’t budge. The defense attorney switched tactics and launched into alleging the ASA had no real case or evidence to support it, which garnered the same response of impasse. The defense attorney made a final attempt by stating if the ASA would be willing to acquiesce to the deal as offered, the defense attorney would, in turn, take any deal the ASA found fitting for the next DUI case.
A younger, Black male was being held on $150k for Manufacture/Delivery of Cocaine. The specifics of the case revealed that the individual in question had approximately 1 gram of cocaine. It’s around $200 worth. In my time as a probation officer, I’ve been informed by people on my caseload who used cocaine that it’s basically for personal use and could be gone inside one weekend. The young male in question was refused a bond reduction due to a gun charge stemming from a case 14 years prior. The next case was a white male who, during his bond reduction hearing, was retired and also there for a bond reduction. It was alleged that he had committed two separate counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse. His bond was set at $100k and reduced to $75k where he posted his 10% and was released.
I was conducting an investigation on a white male who was later put on my caseload. He was a heroin user, as was his girlfriend. One night, the male in question and his girlfriend had run some errands, grabbed some food, made their way to a local bar, left that bar, and went back to her place where they shot heroin. She eventually began to overdose, so he put her in his car and chose to take her to the local police station. As it was after hours, he used the “call” phone on the outside of the police station. As officers arrived, the male explained that he believed the female was experiencing an asthma attack; she died in the parking lot. The case took some time to reach a verdict. Based on years of experience, it was my belief that he was working with law enforcement as part of a plea deal. Considering he played a role in her death, I suspect some sort of drug-related homicide might have been in order and something he was trying to get dropped to a lesser charge. Eventually, the case was tried and he was found guilty of lesser crimes and placed on my caseload. Soon thereafter, another male, a Black male, was found guilty of drug-induced homicide and tied back to the individual on my caseload. He was convicted by an all white jury and given a 28-year prison sentence.
On a few occasions, I worked with law enforcement personnel who felt perfectly comfortable using the n-word. While I never heard them use that word in the presence of any Black individual, I can recall at least two specific instances where it was used regarding two suspects who were on my caseload that were Black. After tracking down an individual who had absconded, the absconder had been located and arrested. In what appeared to have been a drunken rant while handcuffed, the individual in question had begun to rhetorically ask why the law enforcement personnel weren’t out “...catching [n-word].” While in her presence, they attempted to de-escalate. Once the individual was placed in the back of the squad car, the law enforcement personnel had begun to freely use the n-word as they joked with one another.
I realize my motivation for sharing these deeply disturbing incidents may be called into question. Some may view the revelations as nothing more than the ramblings of a disgruntled employee. Moreover, they may conclude that because I was unable to achieve my goal of becoming a police officer, this is my way of retaliating. I don’t think that’s accurate. What is accurate is that I want justice and order. I also want all legal guidelines, within the courts and the law enforcement community, to be followed and maintained. I fought hard to serve in that capacity, and it pains me that I wasn’t able to achieve my goal. My main objective, from day one, was to make sure everyone was treated fairly within the criminal justice system, regardless of color, gender or religion.
I’ve also heard the argument that criminal justice and law enforcement professionals, as described here, are few and far between and that the respective profession in general is comprised largely of good men and women. That may be, and I’m uncomfortable speaking in broad terms as to who might/might not be considered “good”, how “good” is defined and by whom. The fact of the matter is walls of silence are maintained with favor and privilege, at best, and a lack of accountability at worst.
I believe in law enforcement. I also believe that the process to become an officer/agent is broken. It's all alleged to be a pass/fail process. Again, based on my experiences, that's true in some cases. The conclusion that I've drawn is that there's plenty of opportunity for subjectivity in a profession that boasts objectivity in hiring practices and objectively executing the duties of that position. To say it’s unimpressive is an understatement, and society deserves better from the individuals who choose this profession.
Update: September 26, 7:53 PM (EST)
An editorial decision has been made to cancel the interview with "John". The G-Man Interviews feels this is necessary in order to prevent his identity from being exposed and protect his family.
No comments:
Post a Comment