Woman sues cop who asked for date after giving ticket

[adoucette]

And when that note is left by a dude with a gun who might have an immensely disproportionate influence on how civil laws affect the homeowner in the future?

Why do all your arguments rely on making up all these things that he didn't do?


Besides we all tote guns down here.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...buy-record-numbers-of-guns-for-Christmas.html

 

[adoucette]

Certainly if he had her full name. But if a dude (not a police officer) sees a woman driving by and makes her pull over to get her name to look her up in the phone book, so that he could go to her house and leave a note on the windscreen of her car...

Really? That's what you want to go with?

Of course he had her full name and address, both are on her driver's licence.

And again, you are starting out with the CLAIM that the initial stop was not legal.

No evidence that was the case.

Indeed, he gave her the ticket.

 

[Yazata]

I used to work in law enforcement, and can speak to this from my experience.

First of all, there are departmental regulations. In the course of our jobs (I worked for a District Attorney's office) we had access to all kinds of information on all kinds of people. Their vehicle and driving records, their criminal histories, court records, the information that employers, banks and securities firms report to social security and to income tax, copies of their actual tax returns, real property records, we could even use local post men to tell us what names were receiving mail at what addresses. (Yes, the post office tells the police that and we often asked for that information.) That's just stuff available on request, without a subpoena. We had access to that kind of information for many celebrities.

We were told that if we EVER used any of that information for ANY purpose not directly related to a case, it would mean termination and if appropriate, criminal prosecution. They weren't fooling around either and it wasn't a hollow threat. Everybody who worked there knew that. That's where I think that this police officer might be most vulnerable. Even if he just remembered her address from seeing her driver's license at the traffic stop, if he saw that license in the course of his official duties, then these kind of regulations would apply.

Criminal prosecution of the officer would probably be a stretch. Violating somebody's privacy isn't a crime. If it was, then all telemarketers and bulk-mail advertisers would be criminals. (Perhaps they should be.) Stalking is defined as a crime in some jurisdictions I guess, but a man asking a woman for a date isn't likely to rise to the level of stalking. Misuse of official information may be a crime in some states. But even if that applies in this case, asking somebody for a date is such a minor misuse that I'd expect it to be handled administratively.

And suing him in civil court sounds like a stretch too. Typically, a tort requires that the plaintiff suffer demonstrable damages. It's difficult to see what kind of actual provable damages this woman has suffered.

My guess is that the woman's suit is going to fail in court. It might even be dismissed by a judge before trial on the grounds that a tort wasn't properly alleged. But the officer will very likely be subject to internal discipline by his department and could conceivably even be terminated. His superiors can't be very happy.

That's probably a satisfactory resolution of something like this. My impression is that this woman is hoping to make a lot of money from this, and I expect that she will fail at that. The fact that this even reached the newpapers makes me kind of speculate that the respondents might have turned down the plaintiff's offers to dismiss the lawsuit quietly upon payment of a negotiated settlement.

 

[adoucette]

He did do something to find her address. He took her license to his car and looked it up. The law is clear. The address can only be obtained and used to purposes that do not include driving to her house to then leave a note on her car in a crowded parking lot, to ask her out.

Nothing needed to be "looked up" the address is on our licence.

Really, it's not that hard to understand, is it?

You do not think a police officer jotting down someone's address to use for his own benefit and gain (ie, asking her out), an address he obtained in the course of his work, is a breach of privacy?

Nope.
No evidence he jotted down anything by the way.

You don't think leaving a note on a woman's car, reminding her he was the officer who pulled her over and gave her a ticket might be construed as a threatening action?

Nope.
Seen the note, not in any way threatening.

And you don't think driving to her residence, walking around the carpark to find her car to leave the note, with the address he was illegally using, is tantamount to stalking?

Nope
Definition of stalking requires at a minimum of two occurrences and some implied threat/danger, none of which were present in this case.

Who gives a shit if it was polite?

I do.
The content of the note is important, and it was polite and not in any way threatening.

It shouldn't have been there in the first place.

He pulled her over and thus gained access to all of her personal information under the threat of the law. Had she refused to provide him with her information, she would have been arrested. He then used that information to find out where she lived.

The politeness of her note is beside the point.

She had no option but to provide him with her drivers licence and her car registration information. Failure to do so would have been illegal and she would have been arrested. He then uesd that information for his own personal gain. And you think that is acceptable?

I see no personal gain.
So yes, I have no big problem with it.
If I was his supervisor I'd tell him not to do it again though. As this board shows there are always a few who will get their panties in a big twist that is way out of proportion to any action if it's made by a policeman.

It is "simple normal human interaction" for a police officer to, with the full weight of the law behind him and with the power to detain and arrest a person, to obtain her personal and private information, which the law clearly states he cannot then pass on, nor can said information be used for anything aside from what would be termed 'police business', which he then used to drive to her residence, walk through the crowded car park to find her car and leave a note on her windscreen to tell remind her that he was that big police officer who gave her that ticket and to tell her he can't stop thinking about her and to have dinner with him? Really?

This is what you're going with?

Yup, he didn't pass her information on to anyone.
He wrote her a note.

 

[adoucette]

Criminal prosecution of the officer would probably be a stretch. Violating somebody's privacy isn't a crime. If it was, then all telemarketers and bulk-mail advertisers would be criminals. (Perhaps they should be.) Stalking is defined as a crime in some jurisdictions I guess, but a man asking a woman for a date isn't likely to rise to the level of stalking. Misuse of official information may be a crime in some states. But even if that applies in this case, asking somebody for a date is such a minor misuse that I'd expect it to be handled administratively.

And that's what I hope will happen in this case.

He'll be told that even though he wasn't stalking or threatening her, don't do it again and her suit will be dismissed as there are no provable damages.

Life will go on for both parties exactly the same as before.

 

[gmilam]

Certainly if he had her full name. But if a dude (not a police officer) sees a woman driving by and makes her pull over to get her name to look her up in the phone book, so that he could go to her house and leave a note on the windscreen of her car...

Really? That's what you want to go with?

I suspect he'll be reprimanded. (Which he should be.) I don't know that he should be dismissed. I mean, all he did was ask her out.

But seriously, you'd be amazed at what is a matter of public record available to everyone. It's not that difficult to obtain an address.

 

[Tiassa]

Professionalism

Yeah, I see a significant difference between these two cases.

I would agree except your argument seems to leave out a specific factor: Professionalism.

And not just in terms of image. It is much harder to do one's job when such personal issues are all tangled up in it.

And what it signifies about the professional, when it is the boss, the teacher, or anyone else—doctor, priest, &c.—is that the individual is not thinking clearly about the implications.

I think of Homer Simpson, explaining to his son, "You know, Bart, when I was your age, I pulled a few boners."

This is a whale of a boner.

Seriously.

It's kind of like Anthony Weiner. You know, the disgraced former congressman who posted pictures of his underwear-clad erection? In all that, one wonders about the moment of sending a photo like that. Or Chris Lee, who lied to a woman about his identity via Craigslist while sending from his business phone that identified him as a congressman?

At some point, the question arises: What could possibly go wrong?

With any number of professionals, including this officer, the answer to that question is revealing.

 

[adoucette]

I would agree except your argument seems to leave out a specific factor: Professionalism.

And not just in terms of image. It is much harder to do one's job when such personal issues are all tangled up in it.

And yet he didn't let his attraction to her keep him from writing the ticket.

And what it signifies about the professional, when it is the boss, the teacher, or anyone else—doctor, priest, &c.—is that the individual is not thinking clearly about the implications.

No, it's more than that when you are a person's Boss or Teacher and have an ongoing relationship of authority/control over that person's life.
The polite note was just between two people, with no relationship at all, save having met that once.

It's kind of like Anthony Weiner. You know, the disgraced former congressman who posted pictures of his underwear-clad erection? In all that, one wonders about the moment of sending a photo like that. Or Chris Lee, who lied to a woman about his identity via Craigslist while sending from his business phone that identified him as a congressman?

At some point, the question arises: What could possibly go wrong?

With any number of professionals, including this officer, the answer to that question is revealing.

No Tiassa, this is NOT like posting pictures of your underware-clad erection.

Every attempt that has been made to equate this to something else has been to VASTLY expand the magnitude of the impropriety.

I think everyone has said that he shouldn't have done it.

The difference is the rational people have realized that intent and method does matter and he should be told to not do that again, and that should be all that is necessary, while the reactionary ones apparently want him fired and/or imprisoned.

 

[steampunk]

One thing is very clear in this thread.

So many of you are so intent on the 'guy asks girl out, guy gets shot down' aspect that you fail to see that he breached his duty and role as a police officer.

He gave her a ticket. He fullfilled his professional role. He left the date talk till after.

If he had stopped and given her a ticket and then done the exact same thing to find her address and raped her? You would not find it acceptable.

Now you are attempting to score points and make your argument seem stronger by associating the circumstance to things that never happened and are outrageous. How is rape and asking for a date even close categorically?

But because he asked her out, you all seem to believe that kind of absolves him of all responsibility and wrong-doing.

There is nothing to absolve, becuase it's okay to ask someone out. Escalating this into the category of privacy breach or stalking is outrageous.

It is not appropriate for a police officer to use his job to try to score dates with women during the course of his duty.

I don't agree. You did attempt to back this up with your other post on what a person can do with the information. The problem is, we are humans. Using the reasoning you are using would forbid any kind of simple personal comments ever. It would bring justification for firing someone that said, "you think it will rain?", "where did you get that dress", "you have nice car", "you have a nice voice", "you're so and so's father", "you ever seen that movie?", "what a nice ring". It would be illegal and a breach of policy because you are using the situation at hand to make conversation about things that are not strictly business. Oh my, what a breach of privacy, they used the situation to personalize a little. How exploitative. A little personalising is unharmfull and acceptable. Even if it's a request for a date. It should only be considered a problem if seriously interferes with the officers duties. This obviously didn't in any way seriously interfere with his duties. He went on about his day.

The attitude you are promoting takes all the personality from the jobs where people deal with the public. Its so corporate, so nazi. It takes the life out of situations. It's a miserable attitude. I have no respect for it. I'd rather be fired than be such a stiff.

 

[Tiassa]

This and That

And yet he didn't let his attraction to her keep him from writing the ticket

(guffaw!)

No, it's more than that when you are a person's Boss or Teacher and have an ongoing relationship of authority/control over that person's life.
The polite note was just between two people, with no relationship at all, save having met that once.

A bit desperate there, aren't ye, Arthur? The polite note was just between two people, with no relationship at all, except of course for the one that makes this story so outrageous.

Yeah, right. Nothing to see here?

No Tiassa, this is NOT like posting pictures of your underware-clad erection.

Every attempt that has been made to equate this to something else has been to VASTLY expand the magnitude of the impropriety.

So you think there is no reason that he should have paused to wonder what could possibly go wrong? Is that what you're saying?

Meanwhile, speaking of expanded magnitude:

You guys are trying to make simple normal human interaction illegal.

WHY?

What are you so damn scared about?

Do you never leave your house?

Is there no world for you beyond the internet?

Do you think you're living in some cheap romantic comedy?

I think everyone has said that he shouldn't have done it.

Not everyone.

The difference is the rational people have realized that intent and method does matter and he should be told to not do that again, and that should be all that is necessary, while the reactionary ones apparently want him fired and/or imprisoned.

Actually, I would assert that rational people recognize the immense stupidity alleged of the officer. And I do believe Bells has provided a statute which the alleged behavior would appear to violate. But I know these things aren't important to you. Rather, we need to stay focused on what's really important here, the evil scheme to make simple normal human interaction illegal.

Especially for that comment, I'm starting to think that people's defense of the alleged behavior is more about making sure they have as many opportunities available to themselves.

• • •​

Using the reasoning you are using would forbid any kind of simple personal comments ever. It would bring justification for firing someone that said, "you think it will rain?", "where did you get that dress", "you have nice car", "you have a nice voice", "you're so and so's father", "you ever seen that movie?", "what a nice ring". It would be illegal and a breach of policy because you are using the situation at hand to make conversation about things that are not strictly business.

I find that a very, very interesting take on dating and potential mating.

The attitude you are promoting takes all the personality from the jobs where people deal with the public. Its so corporate, so nazi. It takes the life out of situations. It's a miserable attitude. I have no respect for it. I'd rather be fired than be such a stiff.

If you can't tell the difference between, "Oh, hey, you're Jack's kid; I worked with your dad at another firm, years ago," and, "I can't stop thinking about you; I don't expect a someone as attractive as you to be single," yeah, I can't imagine who would want to hire you in the first place.

 

[adoucette]

The polite note was just between two people, with no relationship at all, except of course for the one that makes this story so outrageous.[/i]

Yeah, right. Nothing to see here?

Not at all.
I'm not the one who keeps changing this by trying to equate leaving a note to making overt sexual references, use of a gun, rape, stalking, or sending explicit sexual pictures etc etc.

It was a polite note asking someone if they wanted to go on a date to contact them.

Nothing more.

And apparently she didn't.

And he did nothing more.

Should have been end of story.

I believe for most reasonable people it would have been.

I do believe Bells has provided a statute which the alleged behavior would appear to violate.

Nope, as I explained earlier that's why it's only a CIVIL case.
If he had violated that law (giving her information to somone else) it would be a criminal case.

 

[Tiassa]

And Chris Lee was just being romantic ....

It was a polite note asking someone if they wanted to go on a date to contact them.

Using information inappropriately gathered for that purpose.

Nope, as I explained earlier that's why it's only a CIVIL case.
If he had violated that law (giving her information to somone else) it would be a criminal case.

And as Bells has noted, your argument misrepresents the law.

 

[steampunk]

If you can't tell the difference between, "Oh, hey, you're Jack's kid; I worked with your dad at another firm, years ago," and, "I can't stop thinking about you; I don't expect a someone as attractive as you to be single," yeah, I can't imagine who would want to hire you in the first place.

There is clear difference in subject matter. But, they have two fundamental things in common: they are personal comments and they are harmless. Your attempt to smatter normal circumstances with ones that are rapist, creepy, criminal or predatory is clear.

 

[quadraphonics]

Oh BS, I could care less what you think of me Quad,

Then why do you keep getting your panties twisted when I tell you what I think of you?

just pointing out your typical leap to an Ad Hominum.

More like a baby step, in point of fact.

Pointing out that an interlocutor has a clearly visible, well-established bias relevant to the subject at hand is not an ad hominem fallacy, by the way. The fact that you reflexively leap to the defense of authority figures caught abusing their power is directly, immediately relevant to any serious appraisal of your apologetics for an authority figure caught abusing his power, here. This is presumably why you are in such a rush to misrepresent such as an irrelevant distraction.

The mark of someone with a weak argument.

And yet, you've been unable to effectively address my argument. Indeed, you're now making a point of demonstrating that you aren't even going to try any more.

The fact is he didn't do anything to harm or scare or intimidate that women.

Yes he did. That's why she felt scared and intimidated.

If you want to talk "weak arguments," that one there where you tell someone who was intimidated that she wasn't intimidated is about as inane as they come.

Of course you would hang him for it.

No, I said that he should be fired.

Big surprise there.

That sounds an awful lot like an ad hominem.

 

[adoucette]

Using information inappropriately gathered for that purpose.

Nope, he didn't gather the information inappropriately.

And as Bells has noted, your argument misrepresents the law.

Really?
Then why is he not being charged under that statute?

 

[adoucette]

Then why do you keep getting your panties twisted when I tell you what I think of you?

I don't.

Indeed, the more I see you go to ad hominum the more I know you have no real argument, and your opinion of me is just your own bias showing.

Yes he did. That's why she felt scared and intimidated.

Yeah, and over 2 months after the note was left and nothing else happened she finally got over being scared and intimidated and filed a law suit against not only the cop but the chief and the town.

FOR MONEY

Total BS

No, I said that he should be fired.

Which is the same as my slang expression.

 

[Tiassa]

Normal?

Your attempt to smatter normal circumstances with ones that are rapist, creepy, criminal or predatory is clear.

Normal circumstances?

Obtaining someone's location by force of law, and then using that information for a desperate romantic pass is a normal circumstance?

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.

(qtd. in Becerra)​

Even without what might, under the most forgiving circumstances, be described as romantic clichés, it is absolutely inappropriate to use information gathered by force of law in the conduct of state business for such purposes.

How is that even remotely confusing?
____________________

Notes:

Becerra, Carlos G. "Complaint". Paredes v. Collins et al. United States District Court for the Northern District Eastern Division. December 30, 2011. CourtHouseNews.com. January 5, 2012. http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/03/ChiCopStalk.pdf

 

[adoucette]

I'm curious.

If he had mailed the note to her, would you feel the same?

 

[parmalee]

I used to work in law enforcement, and can speak to this from my experience.

First of all, there are departmental regulations. In the course of our jobs (I worked for a District Attorney's office) we had access to all kinds of information on all kinds of people. Their vehicle and driving records, their criminal histories, court records, the information that employers, banks and securities firms report to social security and to income tax, copies of their actual tax returns, real property records, we could even use local post men to tell us what names were receiving mail at what addresses. (Yes, the post office tells the police that and we often asked for that information.) That's just stuff available on request, without a subpoena. We had access to that kind of information for many celebrities.

We were told that if we EVER used any of that information for ANY purpose not directly related to a case, it would mean termination and if appropriate, criminal prosecution. They weren't fooling around either and it wasn't a hollow threat. Everybody who worked there knew that. That's where I think that this police officer might be most vulnerable. Even if he just remembered her address from seeing her driver's license at the traffic stop, if he saw that license in the course of his official duties, then these kind of regulations would apply.

(Bolding mine.)

This is the part Arthur, et al, seem to be overlooking. Whether he obtained her address through a search of DMV records or he simply recalled the info from having taken it down while writing the woman a ticket is inconsequential: he used the information for his own purposes, without having obtained the woman's express consent.

I do not recall having read that the woman handed the cop her license, registration, etc. and then said something to this effect: "Feel free to take down my address in your own personal notepad, in case you wish to contact me later and ask me for a date." Consequently, the officer abused his position and authority.

 

[Tiassa]

This should not be difficult to understand

If he had mailed the note to her, would you feel the same?

That would only mitigate slightly. The bottom line is that you simply do not use information gathered by force of law in official state business for personal pursuits.

This should not be a difficult concept to understand.