Woman sues cop who asked for date after giving ticket

You keep repeating, insisting on, the adjective, "polite", without addressing the fact that others might disagree.
and if you do, then explain why you think my characterization is wrong.
As I noted, as dumb pick-up lines go, that note is full of them.

I would like to know what is so polite about cheap pick-up lines.
Who cares if his style sucks? The letter was written much like any other letter a man might write if they wanted to ask a girl out and that it was in no way coercive or threatening (Not of course like you Tiassa, I'm sure your letter would be overly bombastic, several pages long with tiny footnotes at the end).
 
I judge an entire organization by the policies it puts in place to prevent misbehavior, and its response to members who misbehave. By engaging in misbehavior, this officer has called his department in to question. If they fail to sanction him - if they, instead, defend him - then the standing of the entire organization gets degraded.

Is that clear enough for you, troll baby?
Troll baby? That's funny, asshole.

How do you know that he hasn't already been reprimanded? After all it's not something that would've ever made the papers if this lady hadn't decided to take it public - a few months later.
 
I found another interesting article concerning inappropriate police behavior which might tie into this threads conversation.

UK Police Fired Over 'Inappropriate' Facebook Behavior
Dec 30, 2011 | 2:02 PM ET | By Matt Liebowitz, SecurityNewsDaily Staff Writer

http://www.securitynewsdaily.com/uk-police-inappropriate-facebook-behavior-1456/

Also found.

Two Wash. officers fired over Facebook indiscretions

http://www.policeone.com/police-tec...h-officers-fired-over-Facebook-indiscretions/

I decided to post what was being said on this link, because it goes right to the heart of the issue.

By Paula Horton
The Tri-City Herald

KENNEWICK, Wash. — Failure to recognize that online social media blur the line between personal and professional lives has cost two police officers a job.

Washington State Patrol Cadet Math Blahut was forced to resign from the state patrol on Jan. 9 after officials received a complaint about content on his Facebook page.

And Kennewick police Officer Matthew Winckler was fired from the force while he was at the police academy because of comments he posted on his blog.

"Everybody's got their right to privacy, but when there's an intermixing of images of the state patrol and state patrol cars ... with less than professional-type comments, images of drinking or conversations surrounding things that might not be moral, it doesn't present a good image for the state patrol," said state patrol Capt. Jeff DeVere.

Blahut, a Prosser High School graduate, had been temporarily based in Ellensburg while he completed the last part of his academy requirements -- eight weeks of on-the-job training with a field training trooper.

He appeared excited to be a trooper, displaying photos of himself on his Facebook page dressed in uniform and posing next to his cruiser. But he also had pictures of himself drinking out of a pitcher of beer and waiting for a ride after a night of partying.

Those actions weren't illegal, but a Kennewick father who saw his daughter looking at Blahut's Facebook page thought they were inappropriate.

"My concerns are not just for me, but for the youth ... who are logging onto that page," the father told the Herald. "They're seeing a guy who's been hired by the state patrol that's supposed to have pretty high standards and pretty high ethics.

"He's saying he's drunk. It shows him in uniform ... Law enforcement's supposed to set an example for these kids," the father said.

Washington State Patrol officials took the complaint seriously, investigated Blahut and within days gave him the option to resign or be fired.

Though Blahut's Facebook page was only accessible by people who were on his "friends" list, state patrol officials took swift action after seeing the vulgar language and photos of some "questionable activity" combined with pictures of Blahut's professional life, DeVere said.

"He put the patrol in a bad light," DeVere said. "When you have a trooper that effectively can take authority over somebody and erect power, you need to have confidence that their behavior in their public and private lives is beyond approach."

Judgment and integrity is a big part of a trooper's job, DeVere said.

"If we see this kind of judgment early on in somebody's career, what's to come?" he said. "Putting these types of pictures (online) ... does not show good judgment. If you look at some of the activities being depicted, it's clear this guy shouldn't be a trooper at all."

The state patrol tells new hires to be careful about what they post online and repeatedly warns what constitutes unacceptable behavior.

"We go through a lengthy hiring process and training ... and really invest a lot of time in these folks," DeVere said. "It's really disappointing we still had this incident occur."

The state patrol is not alone in turning to the Internet to get a better look at a candidate, or in having to fire someone because of information posted on the Internet.

Officials at the Franklin County Sheriff's Office and the Pasco Police Department say checking websites such as MySpace and Facebook is just another part of the extensive background checks that are done, including checking financial history and criminal records.

Neither agency has had any issues with employees posting inappropriate things online.

Kennewick Police Chief Ken Hohenberg, however, fired Winckler in November because of comments he made while blogging about his experiences at the academy.

"This particular recruit had made some poor decisions and as a result of that did bring discredit to the department," Hohenberg said. "... It's always disappointing if you lose somebody early in the process ... but we really need people out there with good people skills and common sense."

Winckler, 26, was on the Kennewick payroll for just three months after deciding to leave his job as a software developer and fulfill a dream of becoming a police officer.

On his blog, he talked about the rigorous testing he had to go through to get hired, posted pictures of himself after getting sprayed with pepper spray in the face, and even showed training videos that he watched in class.

But he lost his job because of some "disparaging comments" made "about the maturity of some of my anonymous classmates," Winckler wrote in a post on Nov. 3, two days after he was fired.

Winckler said he realized his comments were "simply unprofessional and shouldn't have been written in the first place, no matter how true they might have been."

"... In all, I don't see any particular injustice in what has happened," Winckler wrote. "To the contrary, I see strict justice. I made a mistake ... and I received my just due for that mistake."

Both Blahut and Winckler have unlisted phone numbers and could not be reached for comment.

Law enforcement officers are trained on rules of conduct and that it's important to not bring discredit to their agency because it can affect public trust.

They can do anything a private citizen can do, but they are expected to be role models and there is a higher expectation of them because of the authority they have, Hohenberg said.

"One of the key things law enforcement agencies look for in a candidate is their judgment. If somebody's doing something that brings disrespect to the profession, it also tells you you're dealing with a candidate where there's maturity issues or poor judgment issues," Hohenberg said.

"When they're making a decision on power of arrest and use of force, up to and including deadly force, you want people demonstrating the best judgment," he said.

That doesn't mean officers aren't entitled to private lives or should be barred from having MySpace or Facebook pages, but they do have to remember they're being scrutinized by their supervisors, criminals they arrest and the community they're supposed to keep safe.

"Anybody who has taken the oath of office and understands the privilege it is to serve the citizens of the community also understands the responsibility that goes with the oath of office," Hohenberg said.
 
Last edited:
In my opinion, unless the ticket is resolved first it's sexual harassment and abuse of authority.

(edit - That's not to say that I think women are likely to accept an offered date in the hope of avoiding a ticket, but there is a risk that the situation may be perceived as attempting to exert influence in that direction, therefore it is to be guarded against.)
 
That's all?

Adoucette said:

It just shows that those in charge don't need much reason to fire you, which is an entirely different issue all together.

You don't think there's anything in there about professional responsibility?
 
You don't think there's anything in there about professional responsibility?

There's not enough actual information presented to come to any reasonable conclusion.

But then again, based on what was alleged, if they start firing cops who drink beer off duty and use vulgar language then there aren't going to be many cops left since every cop I know does so.
 
It just shows that those in charge don't need much reason to fire you, which is an entirely different issue all together.

The point being is the police are expected to be role models and there is a higher expectation of them because of the authority they have. When they go through training they are taught what is expected of them and they do or should understand what they can get fired over. The police need to know the officers they employ and carry a gun have good judgement.

How do you feel about seeing a police offer using bad judgement? Next, how do you feel about a police department that is willing to keep employees on the payroll that have demonstrated bad judgement?
 
The point being is the police are expected to be role models and there is a higher expectation of them because of the authority they have.

And had leaving a single polite note been a reasonable example of an inappropriate use of authority you might have something.

When they go through training they are taught what is expected of them and they do or should understand what they can get fired over. The police need to know the officers they employ and carry a gun have good judgement.

And yet I see no relationship to this decision by the policeman and the decison making process behind the use of deadly force.

Explain the connection please?

How do you feel about seeing a police offer using bad judgement? Next, how do you feel about a police department that is willing to keep employees on the payroll that have demonstrated bad judgement?

So anytime a police officer ever uses bad judgement, even in as minor an example of this, where no harm was intended, they should be immediately fired?

Hmmm?

Pretty high bar don't you think?
 
And had leaving a single polite note been a reasonable example of an inappropriate use of authority you might have something.

And yet, he's being sued publicly for something that shouldn't have happened.

And yet I see no relationship to this decision by the policeman and the decision making process behind the use of deadly force.

Explain the connection please?

Any demonstrated bad judgement can be connected to any other thing that officer might be called on to do, at least in the minds of the public.

So anytime a police officer ever uses bad judgement, even in as minor an example of this, where no harm was intended, they should be immediately fired?

Hmmm?

Pretty high bar don't you think?

Yes it is, and I'm not sure he should have to shoulder all the blame, but he put himself in a position of being made a public spectacle and putting the police in a bad light. Had she complained without suing he would not be in the same position he's in now. That being the case and almost everyone has a camera phone these days, a police officer must make an extra effort not to find himself on the wrong side of the news. One of the hazards of the job.
 
Mod Hat — Really?

Mod Hat — On troll babies and other argumentative devices

I'm not handing out any flags in this whole bit about troll babies and assholes, but you know how it goes: Really?

Is that really what passes for an argument these days?

I mean, sure, I would probably find some satisfaction calling a few arguments and the people who make them by even worse names than that, so I get it. But come on. Really?
 
And yet, he's being sued publicly for something that shouldn't have happened.

Well you can file a civil suit over anything in this country, and she hasn't won the case.

Any demonstrated bad judgement can be connected to any other thing that officer might be called on to do, at least in the minds of the public.

Only to the most petty and vindictive members of the public.

Ms Gulch comes to mind.

Yes it is, and I'm not sure he should have to shoulder all the blame, but he put himself in a position of being made a public spectacle and putting the police in a bad light. Had she complained without suing he would not be in the same position he's in now. That being the case and almost everyone has a camera phone these days, a police officer must make an extra effort not to find himself on the wrong side of the news. One of the hazards of the job.

Only a hazard of the job if petty vindictive and unforgiving members of the public make it so.
 
Anything to hit on a woman?

Adoucette said:

and if you do, then explain why you think my characterization is wrong.

To reiterate:

By the way, try telling a co-worker that someone so attractive shouldn't be single, and when you're hauled in on a sexual harassment complaint, let, "I was just being polite," be your defense.​

Thus, to review the note:

Hello,

It's Chris I'm that ugly bald Stickney cop who gave you that ticket on Saturday. I know this may seem crazy and you're probably right, but truth is I have not stopped thinking about you since. I don't expect a girl as attractive as you to be single, or even go for a guy like me but I'm taking a shot anyways.

Because the truth is I'll probably never see you again un-less I do, and I could never forgive my-self. Listen if I never hear from you I understand, but hey I did cost you $132 least I can do is buy you dinner. Little about me real quick I just turned 27, did 4 years in the Army, and been a cop for just over 3 years. Hope to hear from you one way or another. Thanks!!!

Now, then:

I know this may seem crazy and you're probably right, but truth is I have not stopped thinking about you since. — A petty cliché, at best.

I don't expect a girl as attractive as you to be single .... — That's not what I would call polite. Certes, it's not the worst thing in the world one might say, but try that line sometime, and see how it works. Maybe in a good ol' boys' bygone era, when women were supposed to be flattered at sexual harassment, that might count as polite, but not in the twenty-first century.

Because the truth is I'll probably never see you again un-less I do, and I could never forgive my-self — Petty, pathetic, roco cliché.


... but hey I did cost you $132 least I can do is buy you dinner — Condescending, to say the least, and has the additional effect of undermining the credibility of the traffic ticket in the first place.​

The letter was written much like any other letter a man might write ...

Man? Insofar as a thirteen year-old boy sticking a note in the pretty red-haired girl's locker might be a man.

... if they wanted to ask a girl out and that it was in no way coercive or threatening

The implication that a police officer conducting a traffic stop can take your driver's license information and use it for personal means it in itself threatening.

As far as I'm concerned, if being a police officer exempts one from the DPPA, the only fair outcome is that people should have the right to refuse law enforcement demands for identification.

(Not of course like you Tiassa, I'm sure your letter would be overly bombastic, several pages long with tiny footnotes at the end)

Except, of course, for the fact that I wouldn't bother. I'm not in middle school, I'm not afraid of women, and I'm not so desperate for a date as to violate federal law in order to find someone to ask out.

But then again, based on what was alleged, if they start firing cops who drink beer off duty and use vulgar language then there aren't going to be many cops left since every cop I know does so.

If one is going to drink beer off duty, perhaps it would be best to shed the uniform first?

Is that really too difficult a professional ethic?

No, really: What is so difficult about the balance between one's rights and responsibilities in these cases?

And in Collins' case, what is so difficult about the proposition that police officers are expected to obey the law? Is it really so unfair that the people who enforce the law should also obey the law?
 
To reiterate:

By the way, try telling a co-worker that someone so attractive shouldn't be single, and when you're hauled in on a sexual harassment complaint, let, "I was just being polite," be your defense.​

That's not what he wrote exactly.
It was in reference to her marital status, in essence saying he suspected that she would probably be married, but regardless, as written that line is NOT sexual harassment.


Man? Insofar as a thirteen year-old boy sticking a note in the pretty red-haired girl's locker might be a man.

Again, maybe not up to your standards, but not threatening, not harassing and not, as you imply, condescending.



The implication that a police officer conducting a traffic stop can take your driver's license information and use it for personal means it in itself threatening.

When "for personal means" is nothing more than leaving you a single polite note, then no, that is not in itself threatening.


As far as I'm concerned, if being a police officer exempts one from the DPPA, the only fair outcome is that people should have the right to refuse law enforcement demands for identification.

And no reason to claim he is exempt from the DPPA.
He didn't disclose any information about her.

Except, of course, for the fact that I wouldn't bother. I'm not in middle school, I'm not afraid of women, and I'm not so desperate for a date as to violate federal law in order to find someone to ask out.

He didn't violate any law to ask her out.


If one is going to drink beer off duty, perhaps it would be best to shed the uniform first?

Where does it say he was in uniform?

And in Collins' case, what is so difficult about the proposition that police officers are expected to obey the law? Is it really so unfair that the people who enforce the law should also obey the law?

At this point it's just a CIVIL case, so no CRIMINAL law has been broken.

Of course on that regard, if a cop runs a red light after duty, should he lose his job?

He has broken a law after all.

How about getting a parking ticket?

Same thing.
 
Try Honesty Sometime

Adoucette said:

That's not what he wrote exactly.
It was in reference to her marital status, in essence saying he suspected that she would probably be married, but regardless, as written that line is NOT sexual harassment.

Try it on a woman someday.

When "for personal means" is nothing more than leaving you a single polite note, then no, that is not in itself threatening.

The law is pretty clear about this.

And no reason to claim he is exempt from the DPPA.
He didn't disclose any information about her.

Given that the statute is on record, and the violative aspect discussed, not only is your argument incorrect, it also has the appearance of being dishonest.

He didn't violate any law to ask her out.

Give the hair-splitting you just did about a pretty girl being unmarried, I think your attempt to restate what I wrote is more than a little dishonest.

Where does it say he was in uniform?

Well, I'll grant you that; it was a different article, and reviewing it at present, I see it might be a matter of journalistic standards against the Oxford comma:

Facebook posts have landed other law enforcement officials in trouble, too. Washington State Patrol cadet Math Blahut was asked to resign in January 2009 after he posted pictures of himself in uniform, drinking out of a pitcher of beer and waiting for a ride after partying all night. He was accused of casting the state police in a bad light.

At this point it's just a CIVIL case, so no CRIMINAL law has been broken.

Oh, I see. Makes a big difference, doesn't it? If he's a cop, then he shouldn't be exposed to civil litigation for violating the law. Makes perfect sense.

Of course on that regard, if a cop runs a red light after duty, should he lose his job?

He has broken a law after all.

How about getting a parking ticket?

Same thing.

I apologize; I hadn't realized that traffic infractions were a matter of federal law.

To the other, in my corner of the Universe, traffic infractions are not crimes, which is probably why police departments don't care how many red lights cops run, or how many times they are seen speeding without emergency lights, whether on duty or not.

As I'm poking around through references, it would seem that neither are traffic infractions, such as speeding, crimes in Illinois.

So maybe you should try a more accurate comparison?
____________________

Notes:

Rigby, Mike. "Facebook Lands Prison Guards, Prisoners in Hot Water". Prison Legal News. (n.d.) PrisonLegalNews.org. January 8, 2012. https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/(S(jsvqxj551jadatrr3uism3e3))/23103_displayArticle.aspx
 
To that last bit specifically. I dont know how the police handle things but i can tell you how the ambos do. If you go through a speed or red light camera in an ambulance then the ambulance service gets the ticket, they then look at it, if you dont have lights and sieens on they will pass the ticket on with a "please pay", if you do have them on and your not on a legitimate case your fired and given the ticket and if your caught doing more than 40 above the speed limit with lights on and on a legitimate case you get a please pay. if any of this reaults in loss of licence your fired imidiatly. Thats on the job, same.rules as for everyone off the job
 
Try it on a woman someday.

The question is, was that letter in any way sexual harassment and the answer is NO.

The law is pretty clear about this.

Yes it is, and it's clear that the neither the letter nor the actions are at all like the legal requirements for a criminal act, which is why he has not been charged with a crime.

Given that the statute is on record, and the violative aspect discussed, not only is your argument incorrect, it also has the appearance of being dishonest.

Yes, and as discussed, it's not clear if he violated it.
What is more clear is the intent of the law was to prevent people from disclosing information found on DMV records to others and of course he didn't do that. Indeed it's not clear that he ever accessed any DMV record at all.

Give the hair-splitting you just did about a pretty girl being unmarried, I think your attempt to restate what I wrote is more than a little dishonest.

Nope, the actual note is important to the issue.

Indeed, the penalties besides legal fees are:

Remedies. - The court may award -
(1) actual damages
(2) punitive damages upon proof of willful or reckless disregard of the law;

There are no actual damages, so that is $0.
As to punitive damages, the actual letter and intent are important in that assessment and IMHO after making him pay her legal fees, punitive damages have been covered.

Oh, I see. Makes a big difference, doesn't it? If he's a cop, then he shouldn't be exposed to civil litigation for violating the law. Makes perfect sense.
Nope, I said you are presuming he will lose the case.

I apologize; I hadn't realized that traffic infractions were a matter of federal law.

Look who is splitting hairs, yes, even though not a Federal law, it is against the law to speed or run a stop sign.

But let's say our cop buys a boat, and takes it out on a weekend and about the time the Coast Guard is doing a safety inspection on his boat the bilge pump cuts on because he recently got a slight leak in the packing of his propeller shaft, and because the Merc 318's are 15 years old they have leaked some oil into his bilge and so an oil sheen becomes obvious around his boat.

The CG charges him with violation of the Clean Water Act (the penalty for what he did is over $5,000) and as this points out, The U.S. Coast Guard vigilantly enforces these regulations through monitoring and observation..

http://www.nmma.org/assets/cabinets/Cabinet213/Oil_Pollution_Laws_Fact_Sheet.pdf

Now on Monday when he tells his CO about this, you think the appropriate action is for his CO to fire him?
 
Last edited:
I think you're just making excuses for cops

Adoucette said:

The question is, was that letter in any way sexual harassment and the answer is NO.

Well, naturally, if how the woman feels is irrelevant to your assessment.

Yes it is, and it's clear that the neither the letter nor the actions are at all like the legal requirements for a criminal act, which is why he has not been charged with a crime.

You keep focusing on the criminal aspect; he is clearly in violation of §2724(a), a point to which you responded that since her address is available elsewhere, it shouldn't be a violation.

What is more clear is the intent of the law was to prevent people from disclosing information found on DMV records to others and of course he didn't do that. Indeed it's not clear that he ever accessed any DMV record at all.

A driver's license is a DMV record, according to the statutory definition—see §2725.

Nope, the actual note is important to the issue.

Only for those looking to argue that police officers should not be obliged to obey the law.

Look who is splitting hairs, yes, even though not a Federal law, it is against the law to speed or run a stop sign.

And the fact that traffic infractions are not crimes?

But let's say our cop buys a boat, and takes it out on a weekend and about the time the Coast Guard is doing a safety inspection on his boat the bilge pump cuts on because he recently got a slight leak in the packing of his propeller shaft, and because the Merc 318's are 15 years old they have leaked some oil into his bilge and so an oil sheen becomes obvious around his boat.

The CG charges him with violation of the Clean Water Act (the penalty for what he did is over $5,000) and as this points out, The U.S. Coast Guard vigilantly enforces these regulations through monitoring and observation..

Easy enough:

Boat owners or operators are required by law to report any accidental or intentional discharges of oil into the marine environment. Failure to do so may result in substantial monetary penalties. The U.S. Coast Guard vigilantly enforces these regulations through monitoring and observation.

(National Marine Manufacturers Association)

Should he be fired? Not for the fact of an oil leak, but, if the "oil sheen [became] obvious around his boat" and he failed to report it, his job might well be in danger should the Coast Guard cite him.

However, the thing about those oil sheens is more easily comprehended when one sees them at the marina; it is unlikely that a first-time accidental oil leak in which he is truly innocent would result in a fine. In fact, it is more likely that the marina management would tell him they think there's a problem with his boat, and if he didn't fix it, or at least pull the thing out of the water until he could effect repairs, they might revoke his moorage right.

If you live near coastal water, and ever walk a marina pier where yachts are moored, you would know why your analogy is silly.

I suppose, if I imagine that the Coast Guard and federal government are full of sadistic fascists looking for people to punish, then, yeah, you might have a point, but I don't think being realistic is too much to ask of you.
____________________

Notes:

18 U.S.C. § 2721 et. seq (Public Law 103-322). 1994. AccessReports.com. January 9, 2012. http://www.accessreports.com/statutes/DPPA1.htm

National Marine Manufacturers Association. "Oil Pollution Laws". (n.d.) NMMA.org. January 9, 2012. http://www.nmma.org/assets/cabinets/Cabinet213/Oil_Pollution_Laws_Fact_Sheet.pdf
 
Back
Top