exactly what happened is we have to come out ritual question if i think you've appealed on two distinct bases i believe you're taking issue with whether or not the officer violated you departmental regulations or state law so i can leave you discipline the prior to spawn you have to find flaws first and then my argument to you now is that all of the circumstances under in this case do not rise to the level of cost but even if it does this officer has been on the job for think it's fair to say most of these instances you would like to see some type of progressive discipline you don't want somebody to lose to john because of some technical violation of the first or second time but if you hear some destry of these incidents some suspension it was a progressive discipline here you're saying it's harsh and yet this was not the first or second time it was a problem so how do you respond to that argument but i think it's still putting the horse before the cart because if you don't find cause you can't get to that the person will say and if they're willing to give it to you if it's an indication that there's nothing there but if they're perhaps it and give it to you you know they're certainly the likelihood that he took something but even if you have some  flying secondary if you do find that he did not comply and he'll turn to then i would say that the violation is a technical and minor violation based on the circumstances of this particular case now i would not say that if it was a different type had made a judgement call on and in hindsight maybe he could have done things differently but he made a judgement based on the time frame he made a judgment call based on the fact that even if he called somebody maybe they wouldn't have called him back me please the court statute very clearly says that you can bargain and i settlements for discipline and that's exactly what happened here he bargained for this reduction in rank a bond to really took it he had counsel he signed it and it officers but we're not talking about seniority here we're talking about very specific general orders within that this place department and a very specific state statute that requires a commanding officer to authorize a strip search day in fact in winter park or a ship's shift supervisor is a sergeant or above so there's no indication that officer bell it was adequate to believe that he was still considered a sergeant by his police department that he was ever led to believe that he was in fact the supervising officer on the shaft in fact the evidence was even more clear that that the chief of police was signed duty and available was his intent to have bad videotape stand in for his report and i think there can only be one answer to that me answer is no his testimony was very clear  incident occurred he acknowledged he should have included the specifics required in the general order of the statute and his report and he should have included the search in his written report saying the sergeant was never be previously never never video that's exactly right on this in the point of the report is to record or two or more in a law used to search itself well craig and i think these procedures have been very carefully set forth by the legislator to protect the privacy rights that we hold so dear in this country and it if you go through it and you you make the effort to get the written authorization from a supervisor and if you get that out there is a sure thing you need to moralize very specifically exactly how the search was conducted knew it was going back to down world was the reason what was the reasonable grounds those are all designed to protect the rights of that suspect and it the videotape just doesn't do that in the past but i am athletes in the past in our way the way fifteen separate disciplinary instances over a fourteen year career i can't imagine what job it would be ok to have  serious disciplinary matter over one serious disciplinary matter every year that you were there that's not a quality employee no matter what other accolades he may be receiving he is not following the procedures  as with regards to the interpretation of the stance here and considering whether it was a supervisor or commander and i understand that but i think that such a a far removed by issue from the core of th  violation of the rule is sufficient for discipline there's there's plenty of cases indicating a single violation of a rule is sufficient for discipline then you add that into the significant disciplinary action that it can take in and against  this officer during the the term of his career including a very recent reduction in range i believe the board by appropriately found that there had been sufficient progressive discipline it's not unreasonable for him to think that he was in charge of that and commanding of that situation and that he had the authority to do what he did he did what he did in the best interest of the department he didn't do anything to conceal he didn't lie about this