Post by WaTcHeR on Mar 21, 2006 13:12:33 GMT -5
03/21/2006 - A Clarion County district judge has ruled a wildlife conservation officer did not have the authority to detain five Clarion University students until state police could arrive at the scene and charge the students with underage consumption of alcohol.
Charges against all of the defendants were dismissed last week.
A.K. , 20; V.M., 20; K.O., 20; J.K., 20 and K.K., were charged with underage consumption of alcohol 1:52 a.m. Sept. 2, 2005, on Toby Bridge, Highland Township by state police Tpr. Reed Grenci.
The incident began, however, when Wildlife Conservation Officer Rodney Bimber and deputy wildlife conservation officer Andy Troutman were returning from assisting local and state police.
Bimber and Troutman were stationed at the top of the Toby Hill in Highland Township after a robbery in Clarion Borough watching for any suspicious activity related to the robbery.
Returning to Clarion, Bimber and Troutman allegedly observed a male, who appeared to be intoxicated and staggering, wearing only boxer shorts, on the Toby bridge. As Bimber and Troutman returned to the bridge, the male allegedly ran to “the rock” on the Highland Township side of the bridge and warned a gathering of people that law enforcement officers were coming.
Several people allegedly ran into the woods and Troutman went into the woods to find them while Bimber dealt with the several people who remained at the rock.
According to court documents, Bimber and two wildlife conservation deputies detained the defendants, waiting for state police to arrive at the scene. The people remaining at the rock were wearing only their underwear, having left their clothes in a car parked on the Clarion side of the river.
“We didn’t know what was going on,” Bimber told the Clarion News. “There were people running around behind us and running into the woods.”
Bimber said he kept the defendants on the Highland Township side of the river until Troutman returned.
“I’m not going to allow a group of people who have been drinking to walk across the bridge in the middle of the night,” said Bimber. “If they get hit by a car, guess who’s going to be in trouble? Me.”
Bimber said when Troutman returned, the group was escorted across the bridge to their car where they were permitted to dress.
Attorney Blair Hindman, of the Clarion-based firm of Alexander, Garbarino, Neely and Hindman, which represented the defendants, said each defendant took the stand in their own defense.
“All indicated that Officer Bimber made rude and crude statements at the time of their detention and that he refused to allow the girls to put clothes on while they waited for the arrival of state police,” said Hindman. “The girls complained of being cold and uncomfortable all to no avail.”
Bimber said no rude or crude remarks were made. “Not on our behalf, anyway,” said Bimber.
Hindman said Bimber acknowledged there was no alcohol at the scene nor were the students involved in any loud activities or engaged in obvious infractions of the law.
“They simply were swimming in the river,” said Hindman. “Officer Bimber admitted at the hearing that he forced the young women, at approximately 1 a.m. , to stand outside, soaking wet while wearing only bras and underwear while they waited for state police to arrive so they could be cited for the summary offense of underage drinking.
“When asked why he would take such unreasonable actions toward these young ladies, Officer Bimber stated that even though he had two deputies with him at the time, he took these actions for ‘security reasons.’
“I am not quite sure how the officer could reasonably believe that these young ladies could or would ever be a threat to him under the circumstances that he outlined. The story was certainly incredible.”
Hindman said he argued the underage consumption of alcohol charges should not have been filed because Bimber had no reason to detain the students.
“Officer Bimber’s title is ‘wildlife conservation officer.’ He does not have the same and equal powers as a ‘police officer’ under our laws in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ,” said Hindman. “He seems to believe that he does. He does not. He continues to patrol areas where he has no jurisdiction or authority and continues to harass and annoy citizens of this commonwealth at his leisure.”
District Justice Nancy Kadunce wrote in her decision of the case that while the law allows a wildlife conservation officer to “pursue, apprehend or arrest any individual suspected of violating” the laws of the commonwealth, the wildlife conservation officer must “be acting within the scope of his employment.”
Kadunce ruled, “For Bimber to have been acting within the scope of his employment at the time he detained and questioned the defendants, he would have had to be investigating a suspected violation of a game or wildlife law at the time. There is no evidence to show that Bimber suspected that any of game or wildlife law was being violated when he approached and subsequently detained and questioned the defendants at ‘the rock.’”
Hindman said he believes Bimber has previously acted outside the scope of his employment.
“Officer Bimber has been instructed by both Common Pleas judges and district judges as to his illegal detention of individuals until state police arrive,” said Hindman. “I have personally been involved in several cases where Officer Bimber has acted illegally and blatantly violated our constitution.
“When Officer Bimber was asked about being instructed in many other cases of his illegal actions, he stated that, ‘I don’t always agree with judges’ and attorneys’ interpretation of the law.’
“Judging by his own words, it seems Officer Bimber will continue to break the law until someone finally takes his badge.”
Bimber, however, believes he acted appropriately and in a manner that protected the defendants from possible harm.
“People can try to turn this thing around 100 percent if they want to,” said Bimber. “I did what I did and I’d do it again for the sake of everyone involved. A lot of things didn’t come out at the hearing.”
Bimber referred to state laws which empower wildlife conservation officers to enforce any commonwealth laws on any public property or on law open to the public for hunting.
“I’m a little tired of people thinking I’m the bad guy all the time when all I’m doing what the law says I’m supposed to do,” said Bimber.
Charges against all of the defendants were dismissed last week.
A.K. , 20; V.M., 20; K.O., 20; J.K., 20 and K.K., were charged with underage consumption of alcohol 1:52 a.m. Sept. 2, 2005, on Toby Bridge, Highland Township by state police Tpr. Reed Grenci.
The incident began, however, when Wildlife Conservation Officer Rodney Bimber and deputy wildlife conservation officer Andy Troutman were returning from assisting local and state police.
Bimber and Troutman were stationed at the top of the Toby Hill in Highland Township after a robbery in Clarion Borough watching for any suspicious activity related to the robbery.
Returning to Clarion, Bimber and Troutman allegedly observed a male, who appeared to be intoxicated and staggering, wearing only boxer shorts, on the Toby bridge. As Bimber and Troutman returned to the bridge, the male allegedly ran to “the rock” on the Highland Township side of the bridge and warned a gathering of people that law enforcement officers were coming.
Several people allegedly ran into the woods and Troutman went into the woods to find them while Bimber dealt with the several people who remained at the rock.
According to court documents, Bimber and two wildlife conservation deputies detained the defendants, waiting for state police to arrive at the scene. The people remaining at the rock were wearing only their underwear, having left their clothes in a car parked on the Clarion side of the river.
“We didn’t know what was going on,” Bimber told the Clarion News. “There were people running around behind us and running into the woods.”
Bimber said he kept the defendants on the Highland Township side of the river until Troutman returned.
“I’m not going to allow a group of people who have been drinking to walk across the bridge in the middle of the night,” said Bimber. “If they get hit by a car, guess who’s going to be in trouble? Me.”
Bimber said when Troutman returned, the group was escorted across the bridge to their car where they were permitted to dress.
Attorney Blair Hindman, of the Clarion-based firm of Alexander, Garbarino, Neely and Hindman, which represented the defendants, said each defendant took the stand in their own defense.
“All indicated that Officer Bimber made rude and crude statements at the time of their detention and that he refused to allow the girls to put clothes on while they waited for the arrival of state police,” said Hindman. “The girls complained of being cold and uncomfortable all to no avail.”
Bimber said no rude or crude remarks were made. “Not on our behalf, anyway,” said Bimber.
Hindman said Bimber acknowledged there was no alcohol at the scene nor were the students involved in any loud activities or engaged in obvious infractions of the law.
“They simply were swimming in the river,” said Hindman. “Officer Bimber admitted at the hearing that he forced the young women, at approximately 1 a.m. , to stand outside, soaking wet while wearing only bras and underwear while they waited for state police to arrive so they could be cited for the summary offense of underage drinking.
“When asked why he would take such unreasonable actions toward these young ladies, Officer Bimber stated that even though he had two deputies with him at the time, he took these actions for ‘security reasons.’
“I am not quite sure how the officer could reasonably believe that these young ladies could or would ever be a threat to him under the circumstances that he outlined. The story was certainly incredible.”
Hindman said he argued the underage consumption of alcohol charges should not have been filed because Bimber had no reason to detain the students.
“Officer Bimber’s title is ‘wildlife conservation officer.’ He does not have the same and equal powers as a ‘police officer’ under our laws in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ,” said Hindman. “He seems to believe that he does. He does not. He continues to patrol areas where he has no jurisdiction or authority and continues to harass and annoy citizens of this commonwealth at his leisure.”
District Justice Nancy Kadunce wrote in her decision of the case that while the law allows a wildlife conservation officer to “pursue, apprehend or arrest any individual suspected of violating” the laws of the commonwealth, the wildlife conservation officer must “be acting within the scope of his employment.”
Kadunce ruled, “For Bimber to have been acting within the scope of his employment at the time he detained and questioned the defendants, he would have had to be investigating a suspected violation of a game or wildlife law at the time. There is no evidence to show that Bimber suspected that any of game or wildlife law was being violated when he approached and subsequently detained and questioned the defendants at ‘the rock.’”
Hindman said he believes Bimber has previously acted outside the scope of his employment.
“Officer Bimber has been instructed by both Common Pleas judges and district judges as to his illegal detention of individuals until state police arrive,” said Hindman. “I have personally been involved in several cases where Officer Bimber has acted illegally and blatantly violated our constitution.
“When Officer Bimber was asked about being instructed in many other cases of his illegal actions, he stated that, ‘I don’t always agree with judges’ and attorneys’ interpretation of the law.’
“Judging by his own words, it seems Officer Bimber will continue to break the law until someone finally takes his badge.”
Bimber, however, believes he acted appropriately and in a manner that protected the defendants from possible harm.
“People can try to turn this thing around 100 percent if they want to,” said Bimber. “I did what I did and I’d do it again for the sake of everyone involved. A lot of things didn’t come out at the hearing.”
Bimber referred to state laws which empower wildlife conservation officers to enforce any commonwealth laws on any public property or on law open to the public for hunting.
“I’m a little tired of people thinking I’m the bad guy all the time when all I’m doing what the law says I’m supposed to do,” said Bimber.
