trini19

It is clear to see from the wooden object itself and the blue/green part of the insignia at the left of the picture that this IS in fact a cricket bat from the company G&M.

GUWonder

A cricket fan affiliated with Trinidad?

DanishFlyer

Would a negative search automatically be "negligent or wrongful"? Because those are the circumstances mentioned in the federal tort claim regs.

I'm only happy to be wrong about the compensations on this kind of thing.

So the cricket player gets to complete a form and get a review in a few months. Assuming nothing was found, he should be able to replace the bat :-)

DanishFlyer

ONTRandy

Where I worked, he would get a form (and we would take pictures) to fill out. He would submit it for admin review (which would take a week or two from the time he submitted it), it would be approved and sent to someone in A/P to enter into the payment process (no idea for sure how long that took, but based on what I do now, I'd guess the check would be cut in 30 or so days from the date it got to A/P).

Searching for something based on reasonable and articulable belief that whatever you were looking for would be there, and not finding it is not negligent (assuming no other negligence existed). You win some, you loose some.

GUWonder

This is the form CBP has when someone claims the CBP has messed up their stuff in a material way: https://help.cbp.gov/ci/fattach/get/...th+(SF-95).pdf

DanishFlyer

That makes sense to me (I would think otherwise a bit harsh!).

But in such a case, might there still be liability for the damage (assuming negative search, of course)?

Thanks for interesting info - not as bad a situation as I assumed.

DanishFlyer

jkhuggins

He's deprived of his personal property forever. In a few months, he'll get a check that will allow him to buy a replacement, which may or may not be an adequate substitute for his original bat. In the meantime, he'll probably have to buy that replacement with his own money ... since I presume he's currently playing cricket, not just carrying the thing around for amusement.

IMHO, there's nothing there to smile about.

WillCAD

Were you required to articulate that belief before conducting a destructive search, so that the reasonableness can be judged objectively by others?

HMPS

Depends on the batsman, his lucky streak and superstitions. Many have custom made bats.

DanishFlyer

Well, it is better than what I thought before. Thus the emoticon.

DanishFlyer

ONTRandy

In our case, it depended. A search warrant may not be required for a vehicle, but in most cases is for a house, etc. In the case of a warrant, then yes, the probable cause was included in the declaration for the warrant. In the cases of vehicles, no we, typically didn't get a warrant, but it depended on the uniqueness of that case.

As I recall, in the case of the airport, your stuff is subject to search. It can get a bit more dicey with respect to you and the notion of "detention" and honestly, I haven't been involved in that in several years and am not up-to-date on that case law.

That said, in all cases (where an arrest was made), what we believed at the time, or should have/have not reasonably believed, was subject to review by the court, typically as part of either the preliminary hearing or motion to suppress hearings. If the evidence is suppressed, your case can be in the toilet; nobody wants that (well, at least nobody on the good guys' team).

If someone thought that anything we did was unreasonable, we had to provide them with a vehicle to submit a complaint, which of course was subject to admin review. While from the outside looking in, the citizen complaint process may appear to be a bit of "the fox guarding the hen house," I can tell you that the threat of civil litigation (which almost always focused on "failure to supervise" or endemic policy, procedure, process failures) resulted in even the most goofy of these things being taken seriously (I was accused once of doing something completely tin hat foil crazy, on a date I wasn't working - I still had to be interviewed, tapes reviewed, statements taken, etc. just to document that I was at home with the wife and kids that day).

These things more often than not involve a lot of formality, attorneys, etc. Nobody wanted to go through "an IA," even when you didn't do anything "wrong." A finding that you did something wrong, could result in anything from a verbal reprimand to termination (again, the outcome can be subject to formal court processes, etc.). People like to avoid these sorts of things.

As a general rule, people understand that if your stuff gets ruined, damaged, etc. and nothing was found, you're going to be upset and it needs to be made right. Most departments understand that doing the right thing, and making things right is both right, and less costly as less civil litigation will result. Also, when you don't find something, you look like a bit of a dumbass, people generally try to avoid that feeling.

I would find it hard to believe that someone just said "hmmm, a bat, I suppose you could stash stuff in there, let's just drill some holes in it to make sure it's not there."

GUWonder

I don't find that hard to believe, even if it weren't the case in this situation.

I've seen customs shred US-company-factory-packaged diapers over the "you could stash stuff in there, let's just ____ it to make sure it's not there". I've seen their Danish equivalent waste an hour examining the same diapers with multiple x-ray scans and then trying to examine all sorts of unrelated junk until a supervisor told junior to give it up.

bodapaty

That is NOT a cricket bat. They are just two pieces of wood!!

bodapaty

I can't see any G&M logo. That piece of wood is too thin and flat to be a cricket bat. The edges of a cricket bat are usually at least an inch thick with a slightly rounded look. And usually the top surface is adorned (as are the edges sometimes) with brand names etc. I played cricket in school and I definitely know how a cricket bat looks like.

relangford

Aren't cricket bats solid wood (like baseball bats)? How could someone "hide" something - especially on x-ray - inside? Of course, there seem to be some here who feel "it" wasn't a cricket bat (I wouldn't know, having never been interested in that game ). I was stuck in Bosnia in the 1990s with a bunch of British soldiers who insisted on watching cricket matches on our one-and-only TV set for hours and hours on end, but I did manage to survive cricket season.