Palm Beach Sheriff’s Deputy on Paid Leave After Child Porn Charges

| |

Top Tier Gear USA

PalmBeachSO

A Palm Beach County (Florida) sheriff’s deputy faces child pornography charges after more than 30 images were found on a laptop and cellphone in his home, according to police officials.

The deputy, Adam Godbey, 38, was arrested last Thursday after the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children received a tip that prompted an investigation, according to a report from the West Palm Beach Police Department. Police were able to connect an IP address involved in uploading the illicit material to Godbey, who now faces 30 counts of possession of child pornography.

Palm Beach County circuit judge Caroline Shepherd ordered Godbey, a four year veteran of the sheriff’s office, to undergo a mental health evaluation and, according to the office, he has been placed on paid administrative leave, a common fate for offending officers.

On Wednesday, the judge set Godbey’s bond at $300,000, put him on house arrest and prohibited any contact with persons under the age of 18.

“The Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office holds its employees to the highest standards and never forgets about its duty to preserve the public’s trust,” the sheriff’s office told the Palm Beach Post.

“Unfortunately sometimes an employee makes a bad decision which leads to misconduct. This misconduct was reported, investigated and determined to be criminal in nature, resulting in the charges. The sheriff’s office will remain vigilant to insure that our efforts are professional and meet the high standards that the public has come to expect.”

In 2015, Godbey was praised by the sheriff’s office after he saved a kitten trapped in the rear axle of a vehicle.

A driver reportedly told the deputy, “you are the best, I love the cops.”

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).


Contributed by Will Porter of The Daily Sheeple.

Will Porter is a staff writer and reporter for The Daily Sheeple. Wake the flock up – follow Will’s work at our Facebook or Twitter.

Wake The Flock Up! Please Share With Sheeple Far & Wide:
  • Pat Taylor ╚(ಠ_ಠ)=┐

    Palm Beach Sheriff’s Deputy on Paid Leave After Child Porn Charges

    Nothing to see here … Move along …

    This piece of crap should be castrated in a public square rather than be rewarded with a paid vacation!

    • Fuck you

      You are a piece of shit sellout. You strike your words and hide them.

      Useless DNA you,

      • Pat Taylor ╚(ಠ_ಠ)=┐

        You are proof that your parents should have abstained from having sex and having such a stupid fudge packing turd like yourself.

        Now, you fucking whining bitch, if you have a brain, run your mouse over the Disqus SPOILER tag you inbred sack of camel shit!

        • Fuck you

          Why would you need a “spoiler” tag to speak your mind?

          Are you afraid?

          • Pat Taylor ╚(ಠ_ಠ)=┐

            You really aren’t all that bright, are you?
            The internet is a new thing for you eh?

          • Fuck you

            Yep. Completely new.

            Fuck you.

          • Pat Taylor ╚(ಠ_ಠ)=┐

            If I recall correct, you declared I was a sell out and afraid to say what I say … Now, even though I have unlocked the cryptic secret making it possible for you to view my words you are now demanding that I owe you proof? … Proof of what you inbred fuckwhit?!

          • Fuck you

            Proof of your right to live.

          • Will Porter

            Judging by the user name, as well as other interactions I’ve seen with the account, I don’t think “Fuck You” is somebody worth talking to. Think he/she is here solely to cause trouble.

          • Pat Taylor ╚(ಠ_ಠ)=┐

            Very true Will Porter, he started out this way and has only regressed further as time passes.

            This user is not worth the powder required to blow it to hell.

          • elbustaroyjetspeekerson

            In case you haven’t seen my other post to you, PT, it’s COB. Seriously. I have proof.

          • Fuck you

            Come on now, bright boy… show me where I’m wrong.

      • skippy1

        It’s a joke. Remember humor?

        • Fuck you

          Nope. There is no humor in war.

    • ReverendDraco✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ᵃᶜᶜᵒᵘᶰᵗ

      That’s actually kind of funny. . . I like it.

      • Will Porter

        I thought it was clever. Kinda looked like a redacted document.

      • Pat Taylor ╚(ಠ_ಠ)=┐

        What’s with this simpleton character?

        He must have bumped his damned head

  • CozmicSeer

    Why keep paying him from taxpayer funds even though anyone else that committed this crime would be sitting in jail with no income(and probably treated like the POS that cop’s think these child porn related adults are). Why is this still allowed as the evidence seems to be very convincing, assuming that the West Palm Beach Police Department has proof?

    • Snake Plissken

      They protect their own but need to throw the public a bone once in a while.

    • Elaine.Benes, II

      If everyone will take notice, people in positions which are funded by the tax-payers are the ONLY ones who get to be on “paid leave” when they commit crimes. The reason why is clear. It’s because the Sheeple/Slaves/Tax Payers have been letting this type shit go on for decades now, never speaking out, never demanding that the entities stealing a third of all our incomes be accountable for ANYTHING, much less how THEY blow OUR money. Hell, theyve got us so well-programmed we now dutifully purchase our kids school supplies ALL year while they drop $30B bombs on civilians in other countries just to watch them explode and we stiil believe its all for a War Against Terror. We have all been staring at our Smart Phones (we don’t even get THAT joke on us) and have effectively ALLOWED ourselves to be poisoned and made sick by the food and medicine they sell us and we buy, by the shit they are spraying on us, by the radiation from everywhere and everything out there, including our Smart Phones. We just sit here and let them get away with destroying the entirety of World Trade Center in NYC on 9/11/01, not just Towers 1 and 2, but the whole center and tens of thousands of our own Citizens died as a result of that – many that day, many more who helped with search and rescue and cleaning up the evidence (UNBEKNOWNST TO THEM), and many, many more as a result of their “War on Terror” that followed which was planned far far in advance of September 11 and which has now killed hundreds of thousands of innocents for nothing more than black gold and poppy fields to make the richest of the rich richer, make the middle class in America non-existent, and make the poor in those countries we annihilate for their resources dead. We sat and let them move all the jobs overseas, give us home loans and then take those homes away from us when the jobs were gone as we simultaneously watched them declare Wall Street Banksters and Banks “too big too fail” and “bail them out” with Trillions of dollars THEY STOLE FROM US. But we don’t give a shit and that’s why they do whatever the fuck they want to us.

      • Pat Taylor ╚(ಠ_ಠ)=┐

        The algorithm is simple: Governments coerce the pet monkeys to pay taxes into the system — the self-perpetuating machine — and thereby the monkeys become the very source of funding to build, equip, staff and enforce their own incarceration

        • Elaine.Benes, II

          Enforce their own incarcerations and/or deaths. Yeah, they are psychopaths all right, but we are stupid as shit for letting it come to this, for collectively allowing them to do what they have and get away with it. They have used increasingly psychopathic methods over the past several decades and slowly and effectively brainwashed everyone into believing this is just how “it is”, that this is Life”. Everyone needs to wake up, call Bullshit, and do something, ANYTHING they can do to stop feeding the Machine.

          • Pat Taylor ╚(ಠ_ಠ)=┐

            The lie will be maintained and perpetrated through the use of violence over a largely ignorant flock. Too many people hold faith in the watchers not to so harm, these types of people views any criticism of Donut Nazi™ activity as anti cop and as soon as their programming kicks in, the possibility of any rational conversation diminishes rapidly … The average knee jerk reaction from there sorts is to assume the worst of your character and legal history, you know, as you MUST be a criminal with a chip on your shoulder, an axe to grind.

            These people can’t conceptualize that police and law enforcement as we have does not exist in the constitution.
            In this country’s early roots, those which were labeled as police, had nothing to do with law enforcement, they actually provided services to the public at-large.

            Police work is often lionized by jurists and scholars who claim to employ “textualist” and “originalist” methods of constitutional interpretation. Yet professional police were unknown to the United States in 1789, and first appeared in America almost a half-century after the Constitution’s ratification. The Framers contemplated law enforcement as the duty of mostly private citizens, along with a few constables and sheriffs who could be called upon when necessary. This article marshals extensive historical and legal evidence to show that modern policing is in many ways inconsistent with the original intent of America’s founding documents. The author argues that the growth of modern policing has substantially empowered the state in a way the Framers would regard as abhorrent to their foremost principles.

          • Pat Taylor ╚(ಠ_ಠ)=┐

            Uniformed police officers are the most visible element of America’s criminal justice system. Their numbers have grown exponentially over the past century and now stand at hundreds of thousands nationwide. Police expenses account for the largest segment of most municipal budgets and generally dwarf expenses for fire, trash, and sewer services. Neither casual observers nor learned authorities regard the sight of hundreds of armed, uniformed state agents on America’s roads and street corners as anything peculiar — let alone invalid or unconstitutional.

            Yet the dissident English colonists who framed the United States Constitution would have seen this modern ‘police state’ as alien to their foremost principles. Under the criminal justice model known to the Framers, professional police officers were unknown. The general public had broad law enforcement powers and only the executive functions of the law (e.g., the execution of writs, warrants and orders) were performed by constables or sheriffs (who might call upon members of the community for assistance). Initiation and investigation of criminal cases was the nearly exclusive province of private persons.

            At the time of the Constitution’s ratification, the office of sheriff was an appointed position, and constables were either elected or drafted from the community to serve without pay. Most of their duties involved civil executions rather than criminal law enforcement. The courts of that period were venues for private litigation — whether civil or criminal — and the state was rarely a party. Professional police as we know them today originated in American cities during the second quarter of the nineteenth century, when municipal governments drafted citizens to maintain order.6 The role of these “nightly watch” officers gradually grew to encompass the catching of criminals, which had formerly been the responsibility of individual citizens.

            While this historical disconnect is widely known by criminal justice historians, rarely has it been juxtaposed against the Constitution and the Constitution’s imposed scheme of criminal justice. “Originalist” scholars of the Constitution have tended to be supportive, rather than critical of modern policing. This article will show, however, that modern policing violates the Framers’ most firmly held conceptions of criminal justice.

            The modern police-driven model of law enforcement helps sustain a playing field that is fundamentally uneven for different players upon it. Modern police act as an army of assistants for state prosecutors and gather evidence solely with an eye toward the state’s interests. Police seal off crime scenes from the purview of defense investigators, act as witnesses of convenience for the state in courts of law, and instigate a substantial amount of criminal activity under the guise of crime fighting. Additionally, police enforce social class norms and act as tools of empowerment for favored interest groups to the disadvantage of others. Police are also a political force that constantly lobbies for increased state power and decreased constitutional liberty for American citizens.

            THE CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT

            The Constitution contains no explicit provisions for criminal law enforcement. Nor did the constitutions of any of the several states contain such provisions at the time of the Founding. Early constitutions enunciated the intention that law enforcement was a universal duty that each person owed to the community, rather than a power of the government. Founding-era constitutions addressed law enforcement from the standpoint of individual liberties and placed explicit barriers upon the state.

            PRIVATE PROSECUTORS

            For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions — the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state — but for their own vindication. The very term “prosecutor” meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation’s founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name — even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.

            Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant’s fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases. After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant. Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and “not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they … repair the injury.”

            Grand jurors often acted as the detectives of the period. They conducted their investigations in the manner of neighborhood sleuths, dispersing throughout the community to question people about their knowledge of crimes. They could act on the testimony of one of their own members, or even on information known to grand jurors before the grand jury convened. They might never have contact with a government prosecutor or any other officer of the executive branch.

            Colonial grand juries also occasionally served an important law enforcement need by account of their sheer numbers. In the early 1700s, grand jurors were sometimes called upon to make arrests in cases where suspects were armed and in large numbers. A lone sheriff or deputy had reason to fear even approaching a large group “without danger of his life or having his bones broken.” When a sheriff was unable to execute a warrant or perform an execution, he could call upon a posse of citizens to assist him. The availability of the posse comitatus meant that a sheriffs resources were essentially unlimited.

            LAW ENFORCEMENT AS A UNIVERSAL DUTY

            Law enforcement in the Founders’ time was a duty of every citizen. Citizens were expected to be armed and equipped to chase suspects on foot, on horse, or with wagon whenever summoned. And when called upon to enforce the laws of the state, citizens were to respond “not faintly and with lagging steps, but honestly and bravely and with whatever implements and facilities [were] convenient and at hand.” Any person could act in the capacity of a constable without being one, and when summoned by a law enforcement officer, a private person became a temporary member of the police department. The law also presumed that any person acting in his public capacity as an officer was rightfully appointed.

            Laws in virtually every state still require citizens to aid in capturing escaped prisoners, arresting criminal suspects, and executing legal process. The duty of citizens to enforce the law was and is a constitutional one. Many early state constitutions purported to bind citizens into a universal obligation to perform law enforcement functions, yet evinced no mention of any state power to carry out those same functions. But the law enforcement duties of the citizenry are now a long-forgotten remnant of the Framers’ era. By the 1960s, only twelve percent of the public claimed to have ever personally acted to combat crime.

            The Founders could not have envisioned ‘police’ officers as we know them today. The term “police” had a slightly different meaning at the time of the Founding. It was generally used as a verb and meant to watch over or monitor the public health and safety. In Louisiana, “police juries” were local governing bodies similar to county boards in other states. Only in the mid-nineteenth century did the term ‘police’ begin to take on the persona of a uniformed state law enforcer. The term first crept into Supreme Court jurisprudence even later.

            Prior to the 1850s, rugged individualism and self-reliance were the touchstones of American law, culture, and industry. Although a puritan cultural and legal ethic pervaded their society, Americans had great toleration for victimless misconduct. Traffic disputes were resolved through personal negotiation and common law tort principles, rather than driver licenses and armed police patrol. Agents of the state did not exist for the protection of the individual citizen. The night watch of early American cities concerned itself primarily with the danger of fire, and watchmen were often afraid to enter some of the most notorious neighborhoods of cities like Boston.

            At the time of Tocqueville’s observations (in the 1830s), “the means available to the authorities for the discovery of crimes and arrest of criminals [were] few,” yet Tocqueville doubted “whether in any other country crime so seldom escapes punishment.” Citizens handled most crimes informally, forming committees to catch criminals and hand them over to the courts. Private mobs in early America dealt with larger threats to public safety and welfare, such as houses of ill fame. Nothing struck a European traveler in America, wrote Tocqueville, more than the absence of government in the streets.

            Formal criminal justice institutions dealt only with the most severe crimes. Misdemeanor offenses had to be dealt with by the private citizen on the private citizen’s own terms. “The farther back the [crime rate] figures go,” according to historian Roger Lane, “the higher is the relative proportion of serious crimes.” In other words, before the advent of professional policing, fewer crimes — and only the most serious crimes — were brought to the attention of the courts.

            After the 1850s, cities in the northeastern United States gradually acquired more uniformed patrol officers. The criminal justice model of the Framers’ era grew less recognizable. The growth of police units reflected a “change in attitude” more than worsening crime rates. Americans became less tolerant of violence in their streets and demanded higher standards of conduct. Offenses which had formerly earned two-year sentences were now punished by three to four years or more in a state penitentiary.

            POLICE AS SOCIAL WORKERS

            Few of the duties of Founding-era sheriffs involved criminal law enforcement. Instead, civil executions, attachments and confinements dominated their work. When professional police units first arrived on the American scene, they functioned primarily as protectors of public safety, health and welfare. This role followed the “bobbie” model developed in England in the 1830s by the father of professional policing, Sir Robert Peel.

            Early police agencies provided a vast array of municipal services, including keeping traffic thoroughfares clear. Boston police made 30,681 arrests during one fiscal year in the 1880s, but in the same year reported 1,472 accidents, secured 2,461 buildings found open, reported thousands of dangerous and defective streets, sidewalks, chimneys, drains, sewers and hydrants, tended to 169 corpses, assisted 148 intoxicated persons, located 1,572 lost children, reported 228 missing (but only 151 found) persons, rescued seven persons from drowning, assisted nearly 2,000 sick, injured, and insane persons, found 311 stray horse teams, and removed more than fifty thousand street obstructions.

            Police were a “kind of catchall or residual welfare agency,” a lawful extension of actual state ‘police powers.’ In the Old West, police were a sanitation and repair workforce more than a corps of crime-fighting gun-slingers. Sheriff Wyatt Earp of OK Corral fame, for example, repaired boardwalks as part of his duties.

            THE WAR ON CRIME

            Toward the end of the nineteenth century, police forces took on a brave new role: crime-fighting. The goal of maintaining public order became secondary to chasing lawbreakers. The police cultivated a perception that they were public heroes who “fought crime” in the general, rather than individual sense.

            The 1920s saw the rise of the profession’s second father — or perhaps its wicked stepfather — J. Edgar Hoover. Hoover’s Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) came to epitomize the police profession in its sleuth and intelligence-gathering role. FBI agents infiltrated mobster organizations, intercepted communications between suspected criminals, and gathered intelligence for both law enforcement and political purposes.

            This new view of police as soldiers locked in combat against crime caught on quickly. The FBI led local police to develop integrated repositories of fingerprint, criminal, and fraudulent check records. The FBI also took over the gathering of crime statistics (theretofore gathered by a private association), and went to war against “Public Enemy Number One” and others on their “Ten Most Wanted” list. Popular culture began to see police as a “thin blue line,” that “serves and protects” civilized society from chaos and lawlessness.

            THE ABSENCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL CRIME-FIGHTING POWER

            But the constitutions of the Founding Era gave no hint of any thin blue line. Nothing in their texts enunciated any governmental power to “fight crime” at all. “Crime-fighting” was intended as the domain of individuals touched by crime. The original design under the American legal order was to restore a semblance of private justice. The courts were a mere forum, or avenue, for private persons to attain justice from a malfeasor. The slow alteration of the criminal courts into a venue only for the government’s claims against private persons turned the very spirit of the Founders’ model on its head.

            To suggest that modern policing is extraconstitutional is not to imply that every aspect of police work is constitutionally improper. Rather, it is to say that the totality and effect of modern policing negates the meaning and purpose of certain constitutional protections the Framers intended to protect and carry forward to future generations. Modern-style policing leaves many fundamental constitutional interests utterly unenforced.

            Americans today, for example, are far more vulnerable to invasive searches and seizures by the state than were the Americans of 1791. The Framers lived in an era in which much less of the world was in “plain view” of the government and a “stop and frisk” would have been rare indeed. The totality of modern policing also places pedestrian and vehicle travel at the mercy of the state, a development the Framers would have almost certainly never sanctioned. These infringements result not from a single aspect of modern policing, but from the whole of modern policing’s control over large domains of private life that were once “policed” by private citizens.

  • john folger

    jared the subway cap

  • Spread this to everyone you know. Keep your heads up.

    https://systemspace.link/

  • msKnowItAll

    Ok, so what really happened? Obviously, this story is a cover for something else.

    Will their not open to the public, internal probe reveal anything?

    An unnamed judge? The DS will publish anything.

    • Will Porter

      What do you mean? A cop was caught with child pornography after his IP address was linked with CP activity online. That’s what happened.

      You’re right that I should have included the judge’s name, Caroline Shepherd. That was admittedly an oversight that I will correct.

      You can also always follow the links embedded in the article to get additional details. That’s why they’re there!

      • msKnowItAll

        50 cents he get to plead out to an irrelevant, gloriously arranged lesser charge. It serves no ‘purpose’ for the cops to incarcerate cops in today’s just-us society.

        Your effort to make public this situation is admirable.

  • Frank

    His law enforcement career is over, as it should be. He’ll do some time, but not much, and he won’t be put into General Population with other inmates – that would most-likely be a death sentence, and the jail would be liable.

  • Tatiana Covington

    Doesn’t anyone have any common sense? 3 days ago I read claims that breastfeeding is unnatural for human beings.

    Like what have we been doing for 4 million years since Olduvai Gorge?

  • political toilet

    A former ‘Pillar of Society’ (aka Jachin & Boaz)