http://www.johnsoncitypress.com/News/article.php?ID=80616
I'm sort of in a conundrum on this one. Sure, what they did is sort of a PR problem for the department. But is what they were doing in the middle of the night, off-duty (and caught by off-duty's), in a forest really a "fireable" offense?
And the forest rangers were standing around watching for a while and only did anything when another camper approached and they stopped? That seems interesting.
I wonder what this "campground" was like. Was it in the middle of the woods or was it one of those park your car and camp with all sorts of other people around affairs?
And what makes this a "post their faces" major news story? Their jobs? Would three accountants have gotten the same treatment? Were these officers "problem children"?
Interesting and sordid incident.
The "off duty" who caught them was working a paid/contracted off duty detail, it sounds like. That said... I've got a serious question here, based on this:
According to the federal citations charging the three, the forest ranger saw the three at a camp site drinking alcohol in the open and then engaging in sex.
No one has been able to say how long U.S. Forest Service Officer Scott Cairnes and Deputy Derek Hamm stood watching the trio, but in CairnesÂ’ report he wrote that he saw Dennison and Adkins engage in three sex acts and then Adkins and Walsh began to fondle Dennison.
Cairnes and Hamm made their presence known after the campers were startled by a camper at another site closing a truck door and the three stopped what they were doing.
How long were they watching? They saw the trio engage in "three sex acts" -- depending on what that means, we're talking watching for more than just a few minutes. They only took action when someone disturbed them...
OK, I'm going to figure it's an open secret that cops working midnights, especially with secluded areas to patrol, come across people doing things that one might ordinarily feel should be confined to the privacy of one's bedroom. I'll even grant that not every cop that comes across this sort of thing necessarily interrupts right away. Why, some may even wait for a telling moment to approach... But you make yourself look kind of bad when you then tag the couple/trio/whatever for it after waiting.
According to the article, they were charged with "possessing alcohol in a prohibited area, public nudity, and public intoxication." One was also charged with child endangerment because his 2 year old was in a nearby tent, alone. I suspect the real problem here was the intoxication... I'm wouldn't be at all surprised if the conduct of the fired deputies created a situation forcing the working LEOs hands. (Of course, their reaction when suddenly confronted, while in a state of undress, might be somewhat justified...)
This is a classic conduct unbecoming charge -- though it wouldn't regularly lead to termination without there being more to the story. And, no it probably wouldn't be news if it was accountants or janitors. I don't know what their job history is like, nor do I know what anything else covered in any internal investigation might have included (were they cheating on spouses, for example?). LEOs are held to a higher standard -- but, from what I've seen, this would be more likely to lead to things like days off, or demotions... unless there were other factors that made it more problematic. I don't know if sheriff is an elected office there, though, and that definitely could effect the actions taken.
