# GCTI Ambulance Raided



## gonefishing

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/07/10/fbi-agents-raid-atwater-village-ambulance-company/

Raided today most likely Medicare/Medical Fraud.


----------



## Handsome Robb

gonefishing said:


> http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/07/10/fbi-agents-raid-atwater-village-ambulance-company/
> 
> Raided today most likely Medicare/Medical Fraud.



Why were they searching bags and using metal detectors on staff then? And they took boxes from the garage? You're probably right, that part just doesn't make sense.


----------



## gonefishing

Handsome Robb said:


> Why were they searching bags and using metal detectors on staff then? And they took boxes from the garage? You're probably right, that part just doesn't make sense.


Same thing happened to Alpha not long ago.  I beleive it is for the protection of the agents.


----------



## JPINFV

Handsome Robb said:


> Why were they searching bags and using metal detectors on staff then? And they took boxes from the garage? You're probably right, that part just doesn't make sense.


 

...because most people are too stupid to say no to unwarranted searches.


----------



## vcuemt

JPINFV said:


> ...because most people are too stupid to say no to unwarranted searches.



What exactly would refusing to be searched have accomplished?

I think what you meant to say was "most people don't care enough".


----------



## SkiMaskWay

That's a joke right?


----------



## rmabrey

Handsome Robb said:


> Why were they searching bags and using metal detectors on staff then? And they took boxes from the garage? You're probably right, that part just doesn't make sense.


The boxes were probably old runs or billing information. As far as searching staff, I'm sure I cant comment without violating a forum rule.


----------



## JPINFV

vcuemt said:


> What exactly would refusing to be searched have accomplished?



Having the enumerated right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and secure in my property means something to me. 



> I think what you meant to say was "most people don't care enough".


Nope. It's in the same league as answering questions posed by the police. 

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc[/YOUTUBE]

The interesting part is the counter point provided by the detective starting at the 27 minute part.


----------



## vcuemt




----------



## SkiMaskWay

JPINFV said:


> ...because most people are too stupid to say no to unwarranted searches.



Unwarranted??? There was a Federal search warrant bro...what do you mean?? These crooks were under a microscope and they dropped the ball.


----------



## Akulahawk

SkiMaskWay said:


> Unwarranted??? There was a Federal search warrant bro...what do you mean?? These crooks were under a microscope and they dropped the ball.


Search warrants have to specify the persons or things to be searched/seized. If the search warrant doesn't apply to me, then I'm generally not going to allow a search absent a warrant. Simply having a warrant doesn't give the agents the right to search everything and everywhere. If you want to wand me while I'm going in to work, fine. However if you want to search my belongings, I will need to see the warrant that specifies that I, or my belongings, must be searched.


----------



## jrm818

vcuemt said:


>



use it or loose it....

:usa:


----------



## MonkeyArrow

I would venture to say that once the agents have a search warrant to search and seize the property and the certain effects that they are looking for, they also have jurisdiction over the scene. They [being the federal agents] can have everyone wanded as a condition of entrance onto their scene. Of course, you also have the option of not attempting to access their scene. Why people were still reporting to work and work was still going on while a federal raid was happening, I don't know.


----------



## JPINFV

SkiMaskWay said:


> Unwarranted??? There was a Federal search warrant bro...what do you mean?? These crooks were under a microscope and they dropped the ball.




So, as mentioned, the warrant specified the employees as well? Could they also search the vehicles of the employees as they arrived at work?


----------



## gonefishing

JPINFV said:


> So, as mentioned, the warrant specified the employees as well? Could they also search the vehicles of the employees as they arrived at work?


It all comes down to officer safety.  But I think an emt's car really wouldn't be of interest or included in such a warrant.


----------



## JPINFV

MonkeyArrow said:


> I would venture to say that once the agents have a search warrant to search and seize the property and the certain effects that they are looking for, they also have jurisdiction over the scene. They [being the federal agents] can have everyone wanded as a condition of entrance onto their scene. Of course, you also have the option of not attempting to access their scene. Why people were still reporting to work and work was still going on while a federal raid was happening, I don't know.



Either the warrant authorizes the police to search me, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, it doesn't matter if I have what they're looking for provided it isn't in plain sight. This is why that one police agency, hospital, and physicians got in trouble when searching for supposed drugs in a rectum of an individual. A good portion of their search happened after the warrant expired. If the warrant is only good to search X between the hours of A and B, it doesn't apply if it's outside of those hours or you aren't X. 
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...er-nm-police-force-colonoscopy-in-drug-search

Either the scene is closed or it isn't. They can't (legally, which I do understand is something the police rarely care about... see any time the police arrest a photographer in public. This includes a recent $200k civil rights settlement) set conditions of search on people entering the scene if the scene is essentially open to non-law enforcement individuals. Besides, the simple work around is I go, clock in, and stop by my car on the way out to pick up my belongings.


----------



## JPINFV

gonefishing said:


> It all comes down to officer safety.  But I think an emt's car really wouldn't be of interest or included in such a warrant.




Constitution > officer safety. Period. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. The overused "officer safety" line does not trump statutory law, case law, and our enumerated rights. Otherwise, police officers would be without restraint to do anything in the name of "officer safety."


----------



## gonefishing

JPINFV said:


> Constitution > officer safety. Period. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. The overused "officer safety" line does not trump statutory law, case law, and our enumerated rights. Otherwise, police officers would be without restraint to do anything in the name of "officer safety."


True.  Than that emt easily could of refused but your entering an active search zone. He could of refused and went home lol thats what I would of done


----------



## rmabrey

There is no "but". If the warrant doesnt specifically state that they can search my belongings than they arent searching them. They can wand all the want as im walking past them. I will not stop, nor will I empty metal objects from my pockets.


----------



## MonkeyArrow

JPINFV said:


> Either the scene is closed or it isn't. They can't (legally, which I do understand is something the police rarely care about... see any time the police arrest a photographer in public. This includes a recent $200k civil rights settlement) set conditions of search on people entering the scene if the scene is essentially open to non-law enforcement individuals. Besides, the simple work around is I go, clock in, and stop by my car on the way out to pick up my belongings.



Well that's where I believe that you are mistaken. Putting aside the legality of many police actions and attempting to stereotypically apply them, the police have the right to control their property/assets. By having a warrant to raid the business, they now have control over it. Therefore, it becomes their decision to choose who can enter and who can't. Take public schools, funded by taxpayer money. Many schools in bad parts of cities (NY, Chicago) have the kids screened as a condition of entrance to the school. SCOTUS has ruled many times that securing the best interests of the whole outweighs one's right to privacy, taking into consideration level of threat, intrusiveness of security, etc. Likewise, a metal detector screening is not considered intrusive and would therefore MOST LIKELY be allowed should this case reach the courts. 

Hell, as the police, I could argue that I'm doing you a service by allowing you to work instead of completely shutting down the facility and preventing you from accessing belongings and impeding your ability to work. I could also argue that this wanding is a means of securing the scene and maintaing chain of custody ensuring no one tampers with evidence. Ensure no unauthorized personnel enter the premises (i.e. non workers) with malicious intents.


----------



## JPINFV

MonkeyArrow said:


> Well that's where I believe that you are mistaken. Putting aside the legality of many police actions and attempting to stereotypically apply them, the police have the right to control their property/assets. By having a warrant to raid the business, they now have control over it. Therefore, it becomes their decision to choose who can enter and who can't. Take public schools, funded by taxpayer money. Many schools in bad parts of cities (NY, Chicago) have the kids screened as a condition of entrance to the school. SCOTUS has ruled many times that securing the best interests of the whole outweighs one's right to privacy, taking into consideration level of threat, intrusiveness of security, etc. Likewise, a metal detector screening is not considered intrusive and would therefore MOST LIKELY be allowed should this case reach the courts.
> 
> Hell, as the police, I could argue that I'm doing you a service by allowing you to work instead of completely shutting down the facility and preventing you from accessing belongings and impeding your ability to work. I could also argue that this wanding is a means of securing the scene and maintaing chain of custody ensuring no one tampers with evidence. Ensure no unauthorized personnel enter the premises (i.e. non workers) with malicious intents.



Except we're also talking about bag searches as well. If they're that concerned with maintaining custody, then they should be shutting down the building. Apparently they're not that concerned.


----------



## MonkeyArrow

If you have no problem with the wand search, then a search of the bag is less of a problem since the courts have long held that a search of the body is considered the most invasive and a search of property is in a lower threshold of privacy.


----------



## ffemt8978

MonkeyArrow said:


> If you have no problem with the wand search, then a search of the bag is less of a problem since the courts have long held that a search of the body is considered the most invasive and a search of property is in a lower threshold of privacy.



Who said nobody was concerned about the wand search?


----------



## MonkeyArrow

rmabrey said:


> There is no "but". If the warrant doesnt specifically state that they can search my belongings than they arent searching them. They can wand all the want *as im walking past them*. I will not stop, nor will I empty metal objects from my pockets.





ffemt8978 said:


> Who said nobody was concerned about the wand search?



Sorry. I kinda skimmed rmabrey's response and thought he was fine with the wand and not the bag search. Didn't read the as I'm walking by part.

EDIT: But the posts by JPINFV and rmabrey in the directionless thread are potentially mis-leading.


----------



## JPINFV

MonkeyArrow said:


> If you have no problem with the wand search, then a search of the bag is less of a problem since the courts have long held that a search of the body is considered the most invasive and a search of property is in a lower threshold of privacy.


 

Yet the threshold for a pat down ("Terry Search," see Terry v Ohio) is simple reasonable articulable suspicion. That's much less than a warrant/plain view/extigent circumstances seen with other searches. At the same time, I have no clue what they're actually looking for with a wand search. Either they're expecting firearms and knives, which is all the more reason to close the perimeter, or they're engaging in security theater.


----------



## MonkeyArrow

Yeah, I'm not quite sure what they're doing here. If you argue that a Terry frisk was replaced by the wand using the same justifications of reasonable suspicion, then the only way one could search a bag is with consent. Of course, the Terry stop is theoretically looking for weapons and weapons only, the bag search serving no real purpose and/or scope. I can only assume that they are letting people getting personal effects from the station before they shut it down. :unsure::unsure::unsure:


----------



## vcuemt

MonkeyArrow said:


> Well that's where I believe that you are mistaken. Putting aside the legality of many police actions and attempting to stereotypically apply them, the police have the right to control their property/assets. By having a warrant to raid the business, they now have control over it. Therefore, it becomes their decision to choose who can enter and who can't. Take public schools, funded by taxpayer money. Many schools in bad parts of cities (NY, Chicago) have the kids screened as a condition of entrance to the school. SCOTUS has ruled many times that securing the best interests of the whole outweighs one's right to privacy, taking into consideration level of threat, intrusiveness of security, etc. Likewise, a metal detector screening is not considered intrusive and would therefore MOST LIKELY be allowed should this case reach the courts.
> 
> Hell, as the police, I could argue that I'm doing you a service by allowing you to work instead of completely shutting down the facility and preventing you from accessing belongings and impeding your ability to work. I could also argue that this wanding is a means of securing the scene and maintaing chain of custody ensuring no one tampers with evidence. Ensure no unauthorized personnel enter the premises (i.e. non workers) with malicious intents.



Your school example isn't really apropos because that's a function of in loco parentis.


----------



## SkiMaskWay

gonefishing said:


> True.  Than that emt easily could of refused but your entering an active search zone. He could of refused and went home lol thats what I would of done



Not if your paycheck was there....some employees had there paychecks at the LA Station...


----------



## gonefishing

SkiMaskWay said:


> Not if your paycheck was there....some employees had there paychecks at the LA Station...


That's horrible.


----------



## JPINFV

SkiMaskWay said:


> Not if your paycheck was there....some employees had there paychecks at the LA Station...




I don't need my backpack to pick up a paycheck.


----------



## gonefishing

JPINFV said:


> I don't need my backpack to pick up a paycheck.


Maybe it was a big pay check


----------



## ffemt8978

gonefishing said:


> Maybe it was a big pay check



At an IFT company in LA City?  :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

But if that was the case, maybe it could explain the search warrant.


----------



## gonefishing

ffemt8978 said:


> At an IFT company in LA City?  :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
> 
> But if that was the case, maybe it could explain the search warrant.


LOL! hence the tounge hanging out ahaha


----------



## Akulahawk

JPINFV said:


> Yet the threshold for a pat down ("Terry Search," see Terry v Ohio) is simple reasonable articulable suspicion. That's much less than a warrant/plain view/extigent circumstances seen with other searches. At the same time, I have no clue what they're actually looking for with a wand search. Either they're expecting firearms and knives, which is all the more reason to close the perimeter, or they're engaging in security theater.


Terry searches are only for officer safety and _only_ if the officer can reasonably articulate a reason to suspect the person is armed... therefore it's for weapons only. If I'm openly carrying a knife and/or a firearm, there's no reasonable articulable need to pat me down for weapons as I'm already known to be armed. 

They can detain for reasonable suspicion... but as soon as the detainee is determined to be uninvolved _or_ evidence is gathered that creates Probable Cause to arrest... but you actually can't be detained beyond some reasonable length of time or it becomes an unlawful arrest if there's no PC to arrest. 

In this case, they're probably exercising control of the scene to ensure that no evidence gets away or that nobody brings in any weapons to disrupt the evidence gathering process.


----------



## SkiMaskWay

JPINFV said:


> I don't need my backpack to pick up a paycheck.



Yeah that's one of the nurses or RTs obviously also reporting for work....


----------



## JPINFV

Akulahawk said:


> Terry searches are only for officer safety and _only_ if the officer can reasonably articulate a reason to suspect the person is armed... therefore it's for weapons only. If I'm openly carrying a knife and/or a firearm, there's no reasonable articulable need to pat me down for weapons as I'm already known to be armed.
> 
> They can detain for reasonable suspicion... but as soon as the detainee is determined to be uninvolved _or_ evidence is gathered that creates Probable Cause to arrest... but you actually can't be detained beyond some reasonable length of time or it becomes an unlawful arrest if there's no PC to arrest.




You, sir, are technically correct [the best kind of correct]. In practice, however, things are very different. Ever see the videos online of police hassling photographers, people legally open carrying, or people refusing to answer questions at DUI checkpoints? Things like "reasonable length of time" or "officer safety" mean nothing in the idea of what is actually done. Heck, even in this thread we've had a comment stating that the 4th amendment is essentially subservient to "officer safety."


----------



## Akulahawk

JPINFV said:


> You, sir, are technically correct [the best kind of correct]. In practice, however, things are very different. Ever see the videos online of police hassling photographers, people legally open carrying, or people refusing to answer questions at DUI checkpoints? Things like "reasonable length of time" or "officer safety" mean nothing in the idea of what is actually done. Heck, even in this thread we've had a comment stating that the 4th amendment is essentially subservient to "officer safety."


I've seen all of those things... Unfortunately there are those that choose not to follow the law, on both sides of the badge. Every once in a while the antics on either of that same badge rise to the point where the Courts have to reset the boundary... or provide some slapdown action. Even so... there will be people that push the boundaries.


----------



## SkiMaskWay

gonefishing said:


> Thats the same here for everywhere but anything usually based in Glendale.  Usually based on the high turn over rate, these companies need warm bodys also mind you most of the owners have no ems experience not even an emt license they own a gas station or 2 or a tow company, taxi company.



You got that right....


----------



## SkiMaskWay

skimaskway said:


> you got that right....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 1732


----------



## SkiMaskWay

SkiMaskWay said:


> View attachment 1733





	

		
			
		

		
	
guess were this raid took place


----------



## gonefishing

SkiMaskWay said:


> View attachment 1733


Oh man im so sorry you had to go through that! gcti is on the same level as medlife.  I hope you guys get jobs soon.  That particular owner owned a mobil gas station managed/co owned a car wash.  The other guy a tow company.  Wtf are they doing in ems is beyond me! 


SkiMaskWay said:


> View attachment 1734
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guess were this raid took place


----------



## gonefishing

Also is that guy smoking during a raid? LOL!


----------



## EMTIFT

This place should have been shut down a long time ago. Worked there  2 years ago for 2 weeks and quit because of all the shady things I saw. 

Supervisor telling me to always write Pt place on gurney every single run sheet even though 95% of the Pts we took could walk and some could probably still run a mile.

The PCS forms were left blank because they had a physician there who signed it, but the physician never saw the Pts.

Some of the people there were also the biggest douches I have ever met, but that is not illegal

 People were also getting fired for the smallest things that weren't there fault also Also never giving lunch breaks. In all, I really hope they get shut down and the owners get sent to jail.


----------



## toyskater86

I still see them operating...


----------



## SkiMaskWay

toyskater86 said:


> I still see them operating...



They are but who knows how much longer


----------



## dC0m

toyskater86 said:


> I still see them operating...



Being raided does not mean you have to shut down the business, unless the court tells you to cease operations. Until they find information incriminating you, you still have a license to operate (until the country catches wind of it). 

Another ambulance company in San Diego was raided a few months ago, and they're still operating today. Again, these raids are ways for the government to find out obtain information and any illegal documents that they can use to incriminate you. And until they do, you can still operate. There are times where they might not find anything at all and the company goes on like nothing happened.


----------



## looker

Search warrant often times is fishing expedition. Notice they didn't arrest people, they just took boxes of evidence. The way it basically works is someone gave them a tip that there might been criminal activity. They took that "evidence" to the judge and got a warrant. Many judges will give officer a warrant if he just swears they believe the evidence is real and they believe their "informant". The raid is real deal when they either find evidence or not. Basically they take away what they believe might be evidence and then look through it. The investigation might takes months or years and nothing might come out of it. If there is something really going on, the owners or who is responsible will be arrested in few weeks, otherwise it might never happen. Does anyone know if warrant been unsealed yet? 

Also there is nothing county can do about their license to operate unless they are violating county rules and generally speaking county don't deal with medicaid/medicare fraud.


----------



## iftmedic

You guys GCTI closed the doors today until Monday


----------



## toyskater86

iftmedic said:


> You guys GCTI closed the doors today until Monday



any proof? or reason as to why?


----------



## iftmedic

Nope according to them something pertaining to workmanship comp...


----------



## iftmedic

Workmans


----------



## toyskater86

iftmedic said:


> Nope according to them something pertaining to workmanship comp...


 oh i see. maybe their workers comp was up for renewal and they didnt pay.


----------



## iftmedic

You think so...?I'm


----------



## iftmedic

I heard something to that effect


----------



## looker

toyskater86 said:


> oh i see. maybe their workers comp was up for renewal and they didnt pay.



While technically that is what company should do, unless someone reported them(very unlikely) no one would actually closed them . So something else is going on here. I tried to look up with whom they are insured for worker comp and can't find it and i went back to February 1


----------



## Akulahawk

looker said:


> While technically that is what company should do, unless someone reported them(very unlikely) no one would actually closed them . So something else is going on here. I tried to look up with whom they are insured for worker comp and can't find it and i went back to February 1


Then it's possible that some agency found out that they didn't actually have WC coverage and now they have to close up until they can show/prove coverage... but my squirrel sense tells me that there's not a huge chance that they'll open for business on Monday. They might reopen and if it does happen Monday, I'd be quite surprised unless they've got all their ducks (and whatever else) in a row.


----------



## looker

Akulahawk said:


> Then it's possible that some agency found out that they didn't actually have WC coverage and now they have to close up until they can show/prove coverage... but my squirrel sense tells me that there's not a huge chance that they'll open for business on Monday. They might reopen and if it does happen Monday, I'd be quite surprised unless they've got all their ducks (and whatever else) in a row.



From not having worker comp insurance to having it takes about 3 weeks. So it's possible they been working on it and it might be finalized come Monday.  It's hard to know exactly what is going on.


----------



## iftmedic

Not having


----------



## Kiiso

It has to do with medical fraud forsure due to who ever does the billing and properly due to the accident earlier in the year when 2 of the Emts and 1 Rt for injured & 1 is still getting medical attention


----------



## Notsilent man

FBI raided Pro care ambulance today. They are still there.


----------



## gonefishing

Notsilent man said:


> FBI raided Pro care ambulance today. They are still there.


LOL!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Notsilent man

whats so funny?


----------



## gonefishing

Notsilent man said:


> whats so funny?


Really!?! If your asking that you haven't been around long enough.  The reason it's so funny is because finally all the shady business in LA is finally coming to an end.


----------



## Notsilent man

yup and this is just the beginning. Look like med life and premiere are next.


----------



## Notsilent man

yup and this is just the beginning. Look like med life and premiere are next.


----------



## Gordoemt

Procare needed to get raided lol


----------



## SafetyEMT18

http://www.kenporterauctions.com/vehicle_listing_temp.asp?auctionid=345


----------



## gonefishing

SafetyEMT18 said:


> http://www.kenporterauctions.com/vehicle_listing_temp.asp?auctionid=345


It's ok they will be back after the auction as "pro-med-gentle ambulance" lol


----------



## NorthCountyEmt

gonefishing said:


> It's ok they will be back after the auction as "pro-med-gentle ambulance" lol


Haha they have reopened. They are now called Phoenix Ambulance!


----------



## Mufasa556

SafetyEMT18 said:


> http://www.kenporterauctions.com/vehicle_listing_temp.asp?auctionid=345



Omg omg omg!

I'm heading down there and buying one for cheap. I can finally fulfill my dream of rallying a rig through the desert until it dies.


----------



## gonefishing

I like the photoshopped ambulances lol


----------



## JPINFV

gonefishing said:


> I like the photoshopped ambulances lol



I love how this picture is supposed to be San Diego County, but it clearly says, "Hoag Hospital Irvine." Last time I checked (and consider that I graduated from UC Irvine, so I'm pretty sure of it's political geography), that's Orange County.


----------



## DieselBolus

Total Recall Taxi?


----------



## gonefishing

JPINFV said:


> I love how this picture is supposed to be San Diego County, but it clearly says, "Hoag Hospital Irvine." Last time I checked (and consider that I graduated from UC Irvine, so I'm pretty sure of it's political geography), that's Orange County.


It's because no suitable pictures could be found for photoshop purposes.lol


----------

