While spending a great deal of time writing about dumb trademark disputes can be both monumentally frustrating and fill your mind with despair, I will be the first to admit that it also is a great avenue for entertainment and laughter. This story is about a situation firmly in the latter categories. The Chateau Marmont is a famous hotel in Los Angeles with a reputation for catering to celebrities both in its lodgings and at the restaurant. Roman Polanski took up residence there, while Hunter S. Thompson, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and Tim Burton all produced some of their works from within its walls. John Belushi overdosed while residing there in 1982. It's kind of a thing for human celebrities, in other words.

Whereas the Cateau Marmont is a hotel for cats. Just cats. Humans, celebrity or otherwise, need not apply. And, yet, the Chateau Marmont has fired off a cease and desist letter to the Cateau Marmont over trademark concerns centered on the fear of confusion among the public.

According to a July 18 letter obtained by The Hollywood Reporter, the celebrity hot spot is threatening a lawsuit against the adorably named pet spa if the Cateau doesn't change the name of its business. Lawyers for the Andre Balazs-owned hotel warned Cateau, located in Toluca Lake neighborhood of L.A., that it could pursue claims related to trademark infringement, trademark dilution and unfair competition.

Group 99, which controls Chateau's intellectual property, insists in the cease & desist letter that their hotel has spent almost a century building the iconic brand and doesn't want customers to mistakenly think the Hollywood hangout is venturing into kitty care and rescue.

C'mon, meow. Concerns about public confusion are a stretch at best. Members of the public aren't going to see this pet boarder's name and assume the human hotel has gotten into the boarding business. Rather, they will assume that the owners of the boarder have playfully pun-ified its name while operating in a distinct marketplace. If the people behind the Cateau Marmont are guilty of anything at all, it's of delving into puns, the laziest form of comedy (which I love dearly).

The fear of confusion on display by the human hotel is also belied by another punny player in the neighborhood.

Interestingly enough, as THR points out, the Chateau Marmont doesn’t seemed too concerned about a Beverly Grove dog spa similarly named Chateau Marmutt — a business established close to two decades ago.

If anything, this should be a fight between Chateau Marmutt and Cateau Marmont, with no involvement for the human counterpart. Meanwhile, the Chateau has spotlighted its own lack of humor, which I will happily point out is a distinct trait for the humans to whom it purports to cater.

Last week we wrote about a crazy warrant from the DOJ, effectively demanding information -- possibly identifying information -- on everyone who visited the site disruptj20.org, which had been used by people organizing protests of Trump's inauguration. When we wrote about it, the site's hosting company, DreamHost, had just announced that it was pushing back on the demand in court. On Monday of this week, some of the visitors to the site pushed back too. Public Citizen Litigation Group took on the case of five individuals who had visited the site, asking the court if they could intervene to oppose the warrant.

As Paul Levy, who wrote the briefs, noted in the accompanying blog post, there's a legitimate fear of our President creating an "Enemies List."

Although a warrant this broad would be disturbing in any administration, Internet users have every reason to be concerned in an administration led by a President who has shown intense intolerance for disagreement and a tendency to lash out with raw language and threats directed at political adversaries, and who has urged his supporters to attack protesters. The listing of all those who visited or interacted in any way with this web site could easily form the beginning of an “Enemies List” that would put Richard Nixon to shame.

Our clients in the intervention are five anonymous Internet users who viewed the web site, either to learn more about the protests, to coordinate their own protest activities; one of our clients was also a journalist whose reasons for visiting the site included reporting remotely on the protests. The Does object to allowing federal prosecutors to put their names on a list of potential enemies of the Trump Administration who are to be visited by FBI agents or hauled in for questioning by federal prosecutors. Our argument is based on the First Amendment right to read anonymously — analogous to the right to speak anonymously that we have litigated in many other cases; that right is now broadly accepted as a basis to refuse to enforce discovery to identify online speakers without evidence that the speakers have done something wrong.  The right to read anonymously has been addressed less often, but in drafting our papers on very short notice we were able to draw on an amicus brief we had filed ten years ago in the Maryland Court of Appeals.

However, just a day after those filings, the DOJ itself admitted that perhaps the warrant was a step or two too far and has responded to DreamHost, admitting that the original warrant was too broad and asking to modify the warrant to make it more narrow. The DOJ insists that it is just looking for actual criminal behavior, not building a list of Trump haters.

The Warrant--like the criminal investigation--is singularly focused on criminal activity. It will not be used for any other purpose. Contrary to DreamHost's claims, the Warrant was not intended to be used, and will not be used, to "identify the political dissidents of the current administration[.]"... Nor will it be used to "chill[ ] free association and the right of free speech afforded by the Constitution." In fact, as discussed further below, after conducting a careful search and seizing the evidence within the scope of the Warrant, law enforcement will set aside any information that was produced by DreamHost but is outside the scope of the Warrant; it will seal that information; and it will not revisit that information without a further court order.

The DOJ then suggests that part of the problem was that it didn't quite realize just how much info DreamHost might have had on visitors to this site, and thus it didn't realize that it was actually requesting so much:

The government is acutely aware that criminal investigations involving electronic evidence present unique challenges. One of those challenges is that some of the evidence -- particularly the full scope of the evidence -- will be hidden from the government's view unless and until the government obtains a court order or search warrant. That is an important part of the history in this case because much of DreamHost's challenge to the Warrant is based on information that was not known (and would not reasonably have been known) to the government when the Warrant was applied for and obtained. What the government did not know when it obtained the Warrant -- what it could not have reasonably known -- was the extent of visitor data maintained by DreamHost that extends beyond the government's singular focus in this case of investigating the planning, organization, and participation in the January 20, 2017 riot. The government has no interest in records relating to the 1.3 million lP addresses that are mentioned in DreamHost's numerous press releases and Opposition brief. The government's investigation is focused on the violence discussed in the Affidavit.

And, to make that even more clear, it agrees to amend the warrant:

Consistent with that focus, the government is asking this Court to enter a new Attachment B to the Warrant, and remains committed to minimizing the information that is ultimately seized for the government's criminal investigation.

While I imagine many people won't be willing to give the DOJ the benefit of the doubt here, I think it's entirely possible (and even likely) that the request for so much info was due to confusion and bumbling agents, rather than a nefarious plan to build an enemies list. I still think that there are serious concerns to be had about the warrant -- and it sounds like DreamHost still isn't comfortable with things either:

Notably, the government has attempted to have a dialogue with DreamHost about these matters. Regrettably, those attempts have proven unproductive because DreamHost maintains that the Warrant is improper and that the Court lacks jurisdiction to issue the Warrant... As recently as this past week, DreamHost told the government that it would provide no information about the Website without further legal process and--somewhat incompatibly--told the government that DreamHost would only discuss limiting the production of information called for by the Wanant if the government first withdrew the Warrant in its entirety

You can see the amended warrant at the end of the DOJ's filing. It still feels like a fishing expedition, but it's clearly not nearly as broad as before, where it may have included basically all IP addresses of anyone visiting the site.

The current Techdirt logo has remained the same for quite some time, but extra-long-time readers might remember that there have actually been two other logos before this one. The very first one was created by Techdirt friend Audris and used until early 1999, and all that remains of it today is one small old JPEG with a lot of compression artifacts:

Today, in celebration of Techdirt's 20th anniversary, we've done our best to reproduce the original logo (with a few minor tweaks) and now we're offering it up on limited edition t-shirts, hoodies and stickers from Teespring:

It looks like the UK found an easy way to avoid another lengthy extradition battle. Its intelligence agency, GCHQ, knew something security research Marcus Hutchins didn't -- and certainly didn't feel obliged to tell him. Not only that, but it let a criminal suspect fly out of the country with zero pre-flight vetting. (Caution: registration wall ahead.)

Officials at the intelligence agency knew that Marcus Hutchins, from Devon, who was hailed as a hero for helping the NHS, would be walking into a trap when he flew to the US in July for a cyber-conference.

Hutchins’s arrest by the FBI on August 2 while he was returning from Las Vegas freed the British government from the “headache of an extradition battle” with their closest ally, say sources familiar with the case.

Certainly no one expected GCHQ to give Hutchins a heads-up on the legal troubles awaiting him on the other side of the pond, but there's something a bit mean-spirited about allowing a UK citizen to walk into custody in another country. And as for the "headache," too bad. That's just part of the deal when you make promises to other countries you'll ship them your citizens to face an uphill battle in an unfamiliar judicial system while facing charges for laws that may not apply the same way -- or as harshly -- at home.

This is even more disconcerting when it was Hutchins who was instrumental in killing off the WannaCry ransomware that wreaked havoc pretty much everywhere earlier this year. In gratitude for his efforts, a few publications outed the person behind the "MalwareTech" pseudonym, which probably made it a bit easier to tie Hutchins to various online personas.

As Marcy Wheeler pointed out on Twitter, it works out pretty well for the UK. It gets to outsource its prosecutions to a nation where punishments for malicious hacking are much, much higher. It also gets to dodge the publicity black eye of handing over its (inadvertent) WannaCry hero to the feds and their threat of a few decades in jail. It also suggests the Five Eyes partnership is paying off in questionable ways and, sooner or later, it's going to be an American citizen walking into the same sort of trap overseas.

For years now, we've highlighted how these days -- you don't technically own the things you buy. And thanks to a rotating crop of firmware and privacy policy updates delivered over the internet, what you thought you owned can very easily change -- or be taken away from you entirely. Time and tine again we've discussed how companies love to impose new restrictions on hardware via software update, then act shocked when consumers are annoyed because they've had either their rights -- or device functionality -- stripped away from them.

The latest example of this comes courtesy of Sonos, which informed users this week that "over time," they won't be able to use their pricey speaker systems if they refuse a new privacy policy update:

"A spokesperson for the home sound system maker told ZDNet that, "if a customer chooses not to acknowledge the privacy statement, the customer will not be able to update the software on their Sonos system, and over time the functionality of the product will decrease."

"The customer can choose to acknowledge the policy, or can accept that over time their product may cease to function," the spokesperson said.

In an e-mail to users, Sonos informed customers that they can "opt out of submitting certain types of personal information to the company; for instance, additional usage data such as performance and activity information." But users won't be able to opt out of data collection Sonos deems necessary to the system's core functionality. The problem with that, as we've seen with companies like Microsoft, is that companies aren't traditionally transparent about just what this "necessary" data entails, and tend to be overly generous when it comes to determining what personal data is "essential" in the first place.

In this case, the "functional data" Sonos won't let you avoid collection of includes email addresses, IP addresses, Sonos account login information, device data, information about Wi-Fi antennas and other hardware information, room names, system error data, and more. Needless to say, privacy advocacy groups like the EFF and the Center for Democracy and Technology aren't thrilled about users having to choose between their privacy rights or working hardware. Nor are they impressed by companies' apparent inability to cordon off essential functionality from data collection and sales:

"Sonos is a perfect illustration of how effective privacy, when it comes to not just services but also physical objects, requires more than just 'more transparency' -- it also requires choices and effective controls for users," said Joe Jerome, a policy analyst at the Center for Democracy & Technology.

"We're going to see this more and more where core services for things that people paid for are going to be conditioned on accepting ever-evolving privacy policies and terms of use," he said. "That's not going to be fair unless companies start providing users with meaningful choices and ensure that basic functionality continues if users say no to new terms."

Occasionally, consumer revolt is enough to change the tide. Media software developer Plex was forced to backtrack this week from an announcement that it would be issuing a new privacy policy that prevented users of its software from opting out of data collection and sales, including users that had paid for lifetime access to the service. Plex's retreat was forced after the company's forums lit up with complaints about what one customer called "super-duper bullshit." A subsequent Plex blog post stated that the company heard its users loud and clear, and would be reversing course on the decision.

If you're looking to learn new skills or languages, the Cudoo Online Language And Professional Development Library can help. For only $29, you get full access for two years to a massive library of self-study courses and videos representing a range of languages, professions, and computer skills. Professional development course cover sales, business writing, body language, and more. They offer over 160 languages, uniquely mapped to international CEFR Can-Do statements. With your subscription, you get access to new content as it becomes available.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

We more or less broke the news of this with yesterday's podcast, but Techdirt turns 20 years old today if you trace it back to its true origins. It was, initially, an email newsletter I wrote up to send to other students at Cornell's MBA program and (more realistically) a way to bolster my resume to help me get a job in the tech industry. And, damn, did it ever get me a job -- just not the one that I expected. After a few years as a hobby, in which it grew and grew and grew, Techdirt became my full-time job, and it's been that way ever since. I can't believe that it's gone on for 20 years.

What I do remember was staying up late on that Saturday, August 23rd, twenty years ago, crafting the very first newsletter. Initially, it was supposed to be an email newsletter on the intersection of technology and business, based on Danny O'Brien's brilliant NTK newsletter (which was much more pure tech, and much funnier) -- though I'm only just now realizing that NTK had only begun a few months earlier. In my head, at the time, NTK was an established giant in the space and I was just some kid. Danny eventually discovered my newsletter and was quite kind about it (though, when I finally met him in person many years later, he jokingly pretended to wind up to punch me for copying him). I, unfortunately, can't find it now, but I believe Danny's initial response to me was something along the lines of "don't worry: the only IP we believe in stands for 'Internet Protocol'." But, knowing Danny, I'm sure what he actually said was much wittier.

Techdirt has obviously grown and changed and grown and changed some more over the years (we certainly didn't focus nearly so much on legal and policy issues at first). And a huge part of what's driven the success of Techdirt has been the community here. We didn't always have a huge community, but it's always been supportive and educational. The community around Techdirt has challenged me, educated me, and inspired me over and over and over again. I've met (both virtually and in real life) so many amazing and wonderful people that I likely never would have met without Techdirt. And, it still excites me every single day. I have no idea what I would have done if I hadn't started Techdirt on a whim 20 years ago, but I can't imagine how it could possibly have resulted in a life as fulfilling as the one I've had, even through various challenges along the way.

If you want to know more about the history, please go listen to yesterday's podcast, which was a fun discussion about those early days and how the site changed over time. However, I did want to thank all of you reading this, who are a part of the larger Techdirt community for being around, for sharing stories, for giving us feedback, for participating, for commenting, and for just reading what we put out. And because it's so often the community here that is more interesting and knowledgeable than the writers here, I'm curious -- to anyone reading this, let us know in the comments: when did you discover Techdirt, and how?

This administration has made it clear "securing" the borders is one of our nation's top priorities. In all honesty, the administration probably couldn't care less about the Canadian border. Almost all of its attention is focused on the southern border, but it also wants to make sure visitors/immigrants from certain countries are hassled extensively no matter where they first set foot in this country.

The nation's borders have long been a place where certain rights become privileges. Legislators and courts have done little to roll this back, usually favoring national security over individual rights. Border searches of electronic devices were already on the rise before Trump took office, jumping from 5,000 in 2015 to nearly 20,000 in 2016.

2016's gaudy record numbers will soon be overwritten, though. And we're barely three-quarters of the way through 2017.

On April 11, 2017 the CBP announced in a press release that they'd searched 14,993 electronic devices being carried by international travelers (they don't say how many were American citizens). In all of 2016 CBP says they searched 19,033 devices. In 2015, reports say they searched about 5,000.

At the rate reported, visitors and US citizens will have been on the receiving end of nearly 60,000 devices searches by the end of the year. And that's only if the last reported numbers remain steady. But there's every reason to believe these numbers will increase exponentially. The administration has actively encouraged more intrusiveness at the borders, something that has bled into potential rights violations even at our northern border, where things were generally more relaxed.

The DHS is fine with this wholesale write-off of Fourth Amendment protections. It frequently points to a 2009 Privacy Impact Assessment which bluntly states plenty of privacy will be impacted and the CBP is more than welcome to generate probable cause after the fact.

CBP will contact you by telephone when the examination of the electronic device(s) is complete, to notify you that you may pick-up the item(s) during regular business hours from the location where the item(s) was detained. If it is impractical for you to pick up the device, CBP can make arrangements to ship the device to you at our expense. CBP may retain documents or information relating to immigration, customs, and other enforcement matters only if such retention is consistent with the privacy and data protection standards of the system in which such information is retained. Otherwise, if there is no probable cause to seize information after review, CBP will not retain any copies.

But this increased focus on searching as many electronic devices as possible has the potential to do damage to rights beyond those enshrined in the Fourth Amendment. Frank Miniter of The American Conservative points out so-called "routine" searches cause problems for the First Amendment.

While doing research for my novel Kill Big Brother I had off-the-record conversations with men and women from U.S. intelligence agencies. I also interviewed Dark Web types who insisted they stay on background. None of these individuals told me about secret government programs or anything at all that would make an interesting scene in a Jason Bourne movie. All I got was background and perspective—invaluable things to a journalist who wants to get things right. But recordings of some of those conversations are on my iPhone. Other sources are there, too. So I’ve password protected the encrypted data. It will automatically erase all the texts, audio and more if someone tries to guess their way into my phone.

That’s my reason for being concerned that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has the power to disregard my Fourth Amendment rights and to demand I give them access to my digital devices if I fly internationally or even decide to drive to Montreal.

I’m a journalist and I must protect my sources, but I also don’t think my private photos, my social media, my texts and more are the government’s business.

A couple pieces of legislation aimed at creating a border search warrant requirement have been introduced, but will be facing more opposition than usual. The DOJ and DHS have never welcomed new warrant requirements and, given the directives issued during the first few months of the Trump presidency, will certainly feel any such requirement would undermine their ability to carry out the president's orders.

A litigant hoping to retain ownership of more than 750 domain names containing the word "google" has asked the Supreme Court to take a look at his recent Appeals Court loss.

David Elliott first filed a lawsuit against Google back in 2012, claiming the term "google" was now a generic word meaning "to use a search engine." If the term had become generic -- like aspirin, kleenex, and others before it -- Google no longer could claim control of the trademark and should relinquish his hundreds of domain names.

While it's true many people refer to running searches as "googling," nearly 100% of the time these people actually use Google's search engine. (I assume the small percentage that don't either don't know how to change their default search engine or simply don't care where their search results come from.) Elliott's attempted judicial genericide doesn't have much going for it, but at least he's not making assertions about Google and the Philadelphia 76ers colluding to expose his Social Security number to the world. (True story.)

The 9th Circuit Appeals Court [PDF] clearly didn't think Elliott had much of a case. It upheld the lower court's denial of Elliott's claims, pointing out that Google, as a trademarked term, covered far more than just its titular search engine. Thanks to its diversification, it's unlikely Google will become solely synonymous with search engines.

Having suffered two losses in a row, Elliott (along with co-plaintiff Chris Gillespie) is asking the Supreme Court to "undo the chaos" created by the Appeals Court decision. Elliott's main argument appears to be that if the general public verbs a trademarked noun, the owner of the trademark should lose all protection. From the petition [PDF]:

The Ninth Circuit’s opinion contradicts the advice given by scholars, leaving trademark owners and the appropriating public standing on uncertain ground. The Ninth Circuit found that trademarks used as verbs can be used either discriminately (in a manner which indicates source) or indiscriminately. These terms were coined by the Ninth Circuit in its opinion in this case and are not derived from any existing trademark law or precedent. However, the Ninth Circuit found neither discriminate nor indiscriminate verb usage affects the mark’s status as generic or non-generic. The Ninth Circuit found that only usage of the mark as the name (noun) for the class of goods or services on or in connection with which the trademark was used is relevant to the genericness of a mark.

First, taking this decision to its logical end results in untenable and conflicting consequences. A mark may be used ubiquitously as an indiscriminate verb to the point where no one remembers the term’s origin as a trademark and yet, pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s opinion, the mark’s status would remain unchanged, existing in perpetuity. Second, the Ninth Circuit’s decision only begs more questions. If a verb can be discriminate, does that mean it can be registered as a trademark itself? On the other hand, if verb usage is not trademark usage, then can competitors fairly use verbs which originated with trademarks indiscriminately to describe the action of using their own products?

Some interesting arguments, but ones that kind of skirt around the issue underlying the case: the registration of URLs containing the word "google," most likely done in hopes of selling them off to the search engine giant or simply to harvest traffic from inept Googlers. Not only that, but some of the 763 domains registered would likely have caused problems down the road for the plaintiffs, as they also included names of other trademark holders. The Ninth Circuit opinion lists just a few of the registered domains and there's already an aggressive IP enforcer in the mix: "googledisney.com," "googlebarackobama. net," and "googlenewtvs.com."

It seems highly unlikely the Supreme Court will pick this case for review. While there may be a credible argument out there that Google's headed to genericide in terms of its search engine, the fact that it offers a number of non-search engine products under the Google brand makes it extremely difficult to simply declare "google" means nothing more than running a search. And I don't see the Supreme Court viewing someone's attempt to salvage cybersquatted domain names as being worthy of setting new precedent.

Normally, I wouldn't grab an isolated story about police misconduct and present it here. The misconduct is indeed serious -- an officer involved in high-speed crash that left another man critically injured -- but one cop doing something dumb is barely even newsworthy these days.

But the more you read about this law enforcement officer, the worse it gets. And it starts with Deputy Brandon Hegele nailing a smart car driven by a sixty-year-old man while Hegele was travelling 100+ MPH towards a suspect he'd already been told repeatedly not to pursue.

The dashcam video (which can be viewed at the link above) shows Hegele weaving in and out of traffic. It then shows the accident victim safely executing a U-turn… well, would have safely executed a U-turn if Deputy Hegele hadn't been driving at over 100 MPH without his lights or siren on.

Hegele got lucky. The other driver, not so much.

That crash was into the rear of a Smart car driven by Harry Deshommes. While Hegele did not suffer any serious injuries, Deshommes had to have his spleen removed and suffered from a skull fracture, a traumatic brain injury, a broken left arm, a broken back, several broken ribs and a broken pelvis, according to CBS 12. Deshommes’ Smart car reportedly rolled several times after impact.

Deputy Hegele was placed on unpaid leave after the accident. HOLD YOUR APPLAUSE.

Well before that critical crash, the sheriff's office documented several traffic-related incidents in the deputy's career, starting early on, Internal Affairs records show.

Let the record[s] show that Deputy Hegele:

- backed into a parked cruiser

- fell asleep at the wheel, hitting a median and causing more than $1000 worth of damage

- rear-ended a car at an intersection, causing $4000 worth of damage

- rear-ended yet another car, causing $12,000 worth of damage

And, finally, the coup de grace of Hegele's super-shitty law enforcement driving career (not including the event above):

Failed to report a crash until hours after it happened and once he had replaced the car’s flat tires. Investigators believe Hegele attempted to respond to a robbery call and hit either a curb or a sidewalk that slashed two of his tires. The report said Hegele called to let dispatch know he was having issues with his vehicle and to put him out of service, but did not say what happened. Then, he called another deputy to bring him spare tires, went to a restaurant for dinner and then called a sergeant nearly two hours after the incident happened to report the damage.

In most of these cases, Hegele only received a written reprimand. In a couple of them, he was suspended without pay -- for a total of two days between both incidents. Hegele has lost his driving privileges twice, for a total of 120 days.

But there's even more:

Other than traffic crashes, Hegele has been cited numerous times for “indifference to policies and procedures.”

In 2012, Internal Affairs investigators said in the first three months of the year Hegele had 72 calls for service he responded to. Of those, 52 cases required log entries by the deputies to document the case to go along with a case number. Hegele only submitted nine, according to records.

There was a chance to send Hegele packing before he did any more damage. He failed a vehicle inspection for leaving his personal weapon in the patrol car, wedged between the seat and the console with a bullet missing. The weapon was "clearly visible" from outside the vehicle. Hegele couldn't explain why a bullet was missing but said he put the gun there to keep it away from his 4-year-old daughter while he was moving. Also inside the vehicle? A signed Miranda rights waiver card, wholly separated from the investigation file it apparently went with.

Instead of being fired, the department gave Hegele -- who at that point had already been involved in five car accidents and multiple Internal Affairs investigations -- a "last chance:" 15 days suspension and a transfer. The only upside of this "last chance" was the agreement revoked Hegele's option to challenge any future for-cause firings, which is what should follow his latest accident.

Hegele is now on trial for reckless driving, which is extremely lenient considering the number of charges he could face for his actions. Undoubtedly, he will be leaving behind a bunch of frustrated, angry co-workers who likely cannot understand why someone so toxic was allowed to pollute their ranks for so long.

But if anything's going to prevent future Hegeles, it's his agency realizing it's far too lax when it comes to handing out punishment for misconduct. Hegele managed to rack up several thousand dollars-worth of damages in his career, along with whatever collateral damage accrued from his sloppy habits and policework. In return, he received some stern paper-waving and two unpaid days off. Calling that "absurd" makes the word "absurd" as meaningless as "literally." It's horrendous and inexcusable. Hegele may be on his way out, but if Palm Beach County Sheriff's Department wants to be taken seriously, it will be sending a lot of supervisors and officials packing as well.