Woman sues cop who asked for date after giving ticket

[KilljoyKlown]

I found some additional information at this site.

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2012/0...-issuing-speeding-ticket-then-asking-her-out/

If an admirer leaves a handwritten note on your car windshield, asking you out, it can be cute or creepy. When that admirer is a police officer who issued you a speeding ticket, and then searched through motor-vehicle records to find your address, it falls more into the creepy camp. At least that's according to a woman who is now suing the allegedly amorous cop for violating her privacy, her civil rights and the Driver's Privacy Protection Act.

Looks like to me she's going to get some money.

Drivers Privacy Protection Act

http://www.accessreports.com/statutes/DPPA1.htm

Section 2724. Civil action

(a) Cause of Action -- A person who knowingly obtains, discloses or uses personal information, from a motor vehicle record, for a purpose not permitted under this chapter shall be liable to the individual to whom the information pertains, who may bring a civil action in a United States district court.

(b) Remedies -- The court may award --

(1) actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages in the amount of$2,500;

(2) punitive damages upon proof of willful or reckless disregard of the law;

(3) reasonable attorneys' fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred; and

(4) such other preliminary and equitable relief as the court determines to be appropriate.

 

[steampunk]

This argument that there is impropriety in situations where there is a teacher/student, boss/employee, cop/speeder, etc is also wrong.

Just because there exists some differences in authority and power doesn't make a romantic pass improper. What would make it improper is when evidence clearly indicates a threat of harm will be done if they do what the extortionist asks. If a boss fires a person for not dating, this is proof. But simply asking for a date is not improper.

Otherwise, any difference between a person and another could be used in same manner. Perhaps a person with a doctorate asking a person out with a GED would be then improper. Or a rich person asking a poor person. A politician or celebrity asking out a relatively unknown person. The power and influence in the circumstance is irrelevant, and only becomes relevant when it's used in a clearly threatening way.

 

[adoucette]

(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.

So if someone learns your name, googles your address and writes you a letter, they need your express consent to do so first?

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.

And I don't recall seeing any link to where where writing a note asking a woman for a date is illegal or an abuse of position or authority, which is maybe why it's not a criminal case.

 

[adoucette]

I found some additional information at this site.

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2012/0...-issuing-speeding-ticket-then-asking-her-out/



Looks like to me she's going to get some money.

Drivers Privacy Protection Act

http://www.accessreports.com/statutes/DPPA1.htm

Section 2724. Civil action

(a) Cause of Action -- A person who knowingly obtains, discloses or uses personal information, from a motor vehicle record, for a purpose not permitted under this chapter shall be liable to the individual to whom the information pertains, who may bring a civil action in a United States district court.

(b) Remedies -- The court may award --

(1) actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages in the amount of$2,500;

(2) punitive damages upon proof of willful or reckless disregard of the law;

(3) reasonable attorneys' fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred; and

(4) such other preliminary and equitable relief as the court determines to be appropriate.

Actually this doesn't appear to apply:

(a) In General -- Except as provided in subsection (b), a State department of motorvehicles, and any officer, employee, or contractor, thereof, shall not knowingly disclose orotherwise make available to any person or entity personal information about any individualobtained by the department in connection with a motor vehicle record.

So as written it appears to specifically apply to people who work in or for the DMV.

The police do not work for the DMV.

But regardless, this is a CIVIL action, not criminal.

And the court MAY award "actual damages", though in this case there are none.

And the court MAY award "punitive damages", though in this case, given the facts as so far presented, I'd be surprised if they do so.

With any luck the court will pay her $1 and attorney fees.

ps If I was the policeman I'd just assert that she told me her name and I didn't get it from any DMV record and that I found her address later using Google.

 

[parmalee]

So if someone learns your name, googles your address and writes you a letter, they need your express consent to do so first?

No, but this scenario is a tad different. If you made a purchase at a shop and paid with a credit or debit card, would you be a bit peeved if the clerk took down your address, unbeknownst to you, and then left a note on your door asking you for a date?

I doubt that is a crime, but I do know that such behavior is certainly frowned upon by most employers and would likely be grounds for termination.

And I don't recall seeing any link to where where writing a note asking a woman for a date is illegal or an abuse of position or authority, which is maybe why it's not a criminal case.

Well, you know, context is everything.

I don't know whether the officer's actions were criminal, but they were certainly inappropriate and quite likely grounds for termination or some sort of disciplinary action.

 

[adoucette]

No, but this scenario is a tad different. If you made a purchase at a shop and paid with a credit or debit card, would you be a bit peeved if the clerk took down your address, unbeknownst to you, and then left a note on your door asking you for a date?

My address isn't on my debit or credit cards.

I doubt that is a crime, but I do know that such behavior is certainly frowned upon by most employers and would likely be grounds for termination.

If it was like this case and the note said call me if you want to go out and I didn't and I never heard from the person again, then I would never complain to the employer anyway.

Who would?

If there wasn't the lure of making some money by complaining?

As in this suit.

I don't know whether the officer's actions were criminal, but they were certainly inappropriate and quite likely grounds for termination or some sort of disciplinary action.

They clearly aren't criminal.

I do suspect he will be reprimanded and quite possibly lose his job just because so many of you are getting your panties in a twist about what was a completely innocent jesture.

If so then I do hope that if your ground swell of indignation gets this guy canned it makes you sleep better at night knowing someone as horrible as this cop is no longer on the beat, possibly writing polite notes asking for a date to other totally helpless vulnerable females who must be protected at ALL costs from any kind of unwanted non-consensual hand written communication.

 

[parmalee]

My address isn't on my debit or credit cards.

Oh, right. And in your little village of twelve which you never leave, everyone knows you so no one ever asks you to present your license to confirm identification?

Only if the person didn't take no for an answer.

Huh?

They clearly aren't criminal.

I do suspect he will be reprimanded and quite possibly lose his job just because so many of you are getting your panties in a twist about what was a completely innocent jesture.

If so then I do hope that if your ground swell of indignation gets this guy canned it makes you sleep better at night knowing someone as horrible as this cop is no longer on the beat, possibly writing polite notes asking for a date to other totally helpless vulnerable females who must be protected at ALL costs from any kind of unwanted non-consensual hand written communication.

Most people who hand their identification over to strangers for whatever reason tend to assume that said stranger isn't going to use their personal information for his own personal gain.

 

[adoucette]

Oh, right. And in your little village of twelve which you never leave, everyone knows you so no one ever asks you to present your license to confirm identification?

No, my debit card asks me to enter my pin, not my id.

My Credit Card (based on MC rules on non-cash disbursements) only verifies my signature by reference to the card.

And it has my photo on it.

http://www.bankofamerica.com/creditcards/index.cfm?template=cc_features_photo_security

Huh?

As in this case, he wrote that if she wanted to go out to contact him.
She didn't and so he didn't contact her again or send a second note.

Most people who hand their identification over to strangers for whatever reason tend to assume that said stranger isn't going to use their personal information for their own personal gain.

And what did he gain exactly?

 

[steampunk]

Normal circumstances?

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

He didn't see her in a car, look up her licences plate and then leave a note. That would be improper. He had a real confrontation with her, gave her a ticket, then left a note later asking her out. Business, then personal. Notice chronology. This is normal if it's done rarely, not every time he stops a nice looking woman.

It's also normal to make desperate romantic passes. Humans do it all the time. Humans would be extinct, if it weren't for those who went out on a limb and tried to get that date, oh so desperately.

 

[steampunk]

No, but this scenario is a tad different. If you made a purchase at a shop and paid with a credit or debit card, would you be a bit peeved if the clerk took down your address, unbeknownst to you, and then left a note on your door asking you for a date?

I doubt that is a crime, but I do know that such behavior is certainly frowned upon by most employers and would likely be grounds for termination.

You are right, context matters. In the situation you describe is seems creepy if you don't share the same feeling about the other person or not open to trying out a new relationship.

I've even seen these personal ads in papers called: Missed You. They try to find that stranger they brushed by but never got a chance for a real interaction. They go out on a limb try to connect with them with these ads. If its so abnormal, why do some many people think its sweet or romantic to do such things? Blockbuster movies have established such acts in their plots. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDXflpqjZKQ

There should be exception when someone feels strongly about another, and they may never get another chance. There are no damages in the situation and the person asking is not making a habit of it.

The people with a problem with this are very rude, inconsiderate and are full moral outrage because they want this type of thing to be criminal. They should not be able to impose their moral code on us, when this behaviour harms no one! I say, keep your morals to yourself.

 

[quadraphonics]

I'm not the one who keeps changing this by trying to equate leaving a note to making overt sexual references,

Asking someone out on a date, and indicating that you find them to be attractive, are both overt sexual references, whether expressed in a note or otherwise. They are straightforward, unequivocable expressions of sexual interest. This could not be more clear-cut, nor your insistence to the contrary more embarassing.

 

[Bells]

The police do not work for the DMV.

But regardless, this is a CIVIL action, not criminal.

And the court MAY award "actual damages", though in this case there are none.

And the court MAY award "punitive damages", though in this case, given the facts as so far presented, I'd be surprised if they do so.

With any luck the court will pay her $1 and attorney fees.

ps If I was the policeman I'd just assert that she told me her name and I didn't get it from any DMV record and that I found her address later using Google.

I'd suggest you learn to read the legislation a bit better.

Those who are permitted to access that information may only do so for specific uses. Using the information gained during the course of his duties, where he legally obtained her personal information, to then in his private time, drive to her house when he had no legal reason to do so, to find her vehicle in a parking lot and leave a love letter on her windscreen.. that is where it stopped being legal.

Really, it's not that hard to understand.

Especially when you consider that the legislation is designed to protect people from law enforcement and from anyone who has access to that information, using that information for private reasons, such as driving to her house and leaving her a love letter. Considering why this statute even came into existence, it shouldn't be that hard for you to understand that she actually does have a case.

The very moment he used the information he had been legally permitted to gather in the course of his duty (under the DPPA) for his own private and personal reason, he is in violation of said Act.

You'd probably have a bigger issue if he didn't write her the ticket because he thought she was pretty, wouldn't you? You see absolutely nothing wrong with a police officer using personal information he has access to during the course of his duty, for his own private use.

You are so intent going 'awwwwwww' at his romantic gesture, you actually fail to realise what exactly happened here. Would you feel comfortable knowing that police officers were using personal and private information gathered in the course of their duties (such as giving speeding tickets) for their own personal and private reasons after they get off duty? I wouldn't.

Because, it is actually illegal to use information gathered in the course of his duty - ie law enforcement - for non law enforcement reasons (such as going to her house to leave a note on her car)... And that is what seems to be escaping you and several others in this thread. She had no choice but to give him her information, if she had refused, he could have arrested her. What no one should expect is that under the threat of arrest, to be made to provide their personal information and then have that police officer then use it for his own private use. I know it's hard for a romantic such as yourself to understand. But the law is the law.

ps If I was the policeman I'd just assert that she told me her name and I didn't get it from any DMV record and that I found her address later using Google.

So what you are essentially saying is that if you were a policeman you would lie and assert that she told you her name when you pulled her over to give her a speeding ticket, whereupon in the course of your law enforcement duty, you would demand her name and papers, with her knowing she could very well be arrested if she refused to provide any such information, and then found her address later using Google? Really? Good grief you're more dim than this policeman was!

You would also show a gross level of incompetence since as a police officer, in the course of your duty during a traffic stop, you have to go into her DMV record to check that everything was as it should be. But no, you seem to believe that it is better for police officers to lie after they gather information during the course of their law enforcement duties, for personal and private reasons... I mean hell, you'd probably think it is appropriate if a police officer pulls over a drug dealer and then later goes to the dealer's house for a hit after getting the person's name of their driver's licence during that traffic stop.

 

[quadraphonics]

I don't.

Sure you 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.

Indeed, no defensiveness visible there. Just substantive argumentation!

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.

Two months is a perfectly reasonable, expected time lag between an offense and the filing of a civil suit. One needs to review the situation, consult with legal representatives, take stock of options, etc. The premise that anything (let alone, something prejudicial) can be inferred from that time lag is silly.

Unless you can show us some data indicating that the time to filing of cases it typically significantly lower, and that longer delays are positively correlated with frivolous or otherwise meritless filings? I do not think that you can. I don't think that there's anything atypical about the filing timeline, here, nor any demonstrable correlation between longer filing delays and frivolity.

And whence the assertion that she "got over being scared?" You have no evidence of that, or any of the other prejudicial attributions you've made to her. You are simply projecting whatever convenient characterization onto her that would fit with your predetermined approval of the cops.

FOR MONEY

? What else would one sue for? It's not like she can be compensated in terms of "reverse intimidation" or something.

And where are your excoriations of every other civil lawsuit incurring monetary penalties? Your indictments of the profit motive generally? Seems awfully casuist and trumped up, your outrage here.

Total BS

That's for a judge and jury to decide, no?

Which is the same as my slang expression.

I have never heard the phrase "hang him" used for termination of employment. In the context of legal cases, it typically refers to execution. Nor do any of the usual dictionaries (regular or slang) indicate such a usage. Has anyone reading this ever encountered the phrase "hang him" to mean termination of employment? The closest I've seen would be the phrase "hang it up" used to mean "quit." But that doesn't apply here.

As has been pointed out by others in this thread already, termination is a standard penalty for police officers who misuse information gained in the course of their duties for personal ends. And with good reason - they expose police departments to huge liabilities and degrade public confidence in the institution. If you really care about police work, then you shouldn't be sticking up for this idiot who screwed up so egregiously.

 

[Tiassa]

This and That

He didn't see her in a car, look up her licences plate and then leave a note. That would be improper. He had a real confrontation with her, gave her a ticket, then left a note later asking her out. Business, then personal. Notice chronology. This is normal if it's done rarely, not every time he stops a nice looking woman.

Your summary overlooks a vital point: Collins obtained Paredes' contact information through official state business.

Had he not conducted the traffic stop, he would not have been able to match her name and address to her person. Your chronology argument, perhaps not surprisingly, leaves that out.

• • •​

Really, it's not that hard to understand.

Apparently it is.

Maybe it's an American phenomenon. More and more in this society, it is getting harder for people to recognize the necessary sacrifices that come with certain privileges.

When you have certain jobs, there are certain things you just don't do. It is part of the professional expectation. While you and I can certainly agree on that point, it is apparently one that is up for argument.

At this point, I figure it's a sympathetic reservation. They don't want to say it's bad in case they ever have the chance to do the same.

But there is something neurotic about it, for certain. I am particularly amused by our Godwin moment. Apparently, preventing law enforcement from misappropriating personal information in pursuit of personal gain now qualifies as "nazi".

Imagine that. "Nazi" now means preventing government agents from misbehaving.

And all for a date?

No, it shouldn't be so hard to understand. But, apparently, it is.

 

[KilljoyKlown]

I see this as a president setting case, which at the very least will establish new training for police officers across the country, and that can't be a bad thing.

 

[quadraphonics]

I see this as a president setting case, which at the very least will establish new training for police officers across the country, and that can't be a bad thing.

I doubt it - every police department I've ever heard of already has very clear guidelines stating that it is unacceptable to use information gained in the line of duty for personal ends. Including, explicitly, Chicago (the department in immediate question here).

 

[Pandaemoni]

Looking at the statute, it is not quite as clear as either Bells or adoucette make it out, but I think the cleaner reading is on adoucettes side. (If you took it the way Bells would prefer, then a cop who pulls you over, sees your birthday and wishes you a Happy Birthday is liable for at least $2500 in damages. Similarly, if the officer had given the womans address to his friend, and the friend gave it to his brother, all with no indication where the info originated, the friend of the brother would be just as liable as Collins if the reading Bells prefers prevails, because knowledge of the source of the info is not an element of the civil claim.)

In any event, if you look at Davis v. Freedom of Information Commission, a Connecticut court (including their Supreme Court) looking at the DPPA ruled that information received by another government agency from the DMV in the ordinary source of business is not subject to the DPPA.

In Davis, the state tax assessors office obtained routine information from the DMV, and maintained a log of it. A woman applied to obtain that information for personal use from the tax assessors office, including info they received from the DMV that was (in the hands of the DMV) covered by the DPPA. The tax assessor declined to provide it on the grounds that doing so would violate the DPPA and related state laws. After an analysis of the statute, the courts there determined that the restrictions did not apply to information received by the second government agency so long as the original reason for the disclosure to that agency was valid.

The district court in Illinois is not bound by the decision, but it is persuasive authority. There are ways I can imagine to distinguish it, but I mostly see those as ways to get to the preferred result rather than unbiased analyses of the statute.

On the Davis model, in this case the local police (through its agent, Collins) obtained the information lawfully. Once that happened, if the reasoning in Davis is followed, it does not matter is a subsequent use would have been contrary to the law had the desire for a date been the sole reason for the information request. In effect, that the other agency (here the police) had a right to it, moves it outside the statute.

You can make an argument the other way (and the Connecticut Tax Assessors Office did make that other argument), but there are reasons of statutory interpretation why I think that would be a minority reading.

I think this is a case more like a clerk in a store misusing the information (perhaps after seeing your license to see if you were old enough to buy alcohol, for example), than it is like a private citizen puling you over and demanding your license. While I, too, agree that a reprimand is in order, destroying his life and livelihood by firing him from his profession is not. I personally hope those cops are unionized, as if they are, he likely will get off with a warning, even if he loses the civil suit.

I certainly do not think a cop who uses your listed birthdate to wish you a Happy Birthday (or leaving you a note like this) is comparable to the same cop using your listed address to hunt you down and rape you. That is not even apples and oranges there, that comparison is apples and assault rifles.

Edit: I think that is likely why the DPPA claim is listed at the end of the complaints against Collins. In general, you lead with the strongest cause of action, and list the weaker ones as backup theories at the end. It\'s especially odd to list it last here, since the federal statute is another basis for being in federal court at all (along with the constitutional claim). To highlight the jurisdictional appropriateness you\'d want it to be first or second, I\'d think (though that is a subjective matter). You can\'t get into federal court with a purely state law claim.

 

[Tiassa]

An interesting assertion

Looking at the statute, it is not quite as clear as either Bells or adoucette make it out, but I think the cleaner reading is on adoucettes side.

What is the language within the statute that leads you to that assertion?

If you took it the way Bells would prefer, then a cop who pulls you over, sees your birthday and wishes you a Happy Birthday is liable for at least $2500 in damages.

If he says it during the traffic stop, it's all good. If he leaves a card on your windshield a couple days later, not so much.

(Just as a side note, you do realize, do you not, that the officer had the woman's address through force of law?)

 

[scheherazade]

In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a principle or rule established in a legal case that a court or other judicial body may apply when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. Black's Law Dictionary defines "precedent" as a "rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases."

In other words precedent can be defined as "an already decided decision which furnishes the basis for later cases involving similar facts and issues."

 

[Bells]

Looking at the statute, it is not quite as clear as either Bells or adoucette make it out, but I think the cleaner reading is on adoucettes side. (If you took it the way Bells would prefer, then a cop who pulls you over, sees your birthday and wishes you a Happy Birthday is liable for at least $2500 in damages. Similarly, if the officer had given the womans address to his friend, and the friend gave it to his brother, all with no indication where the info originated, the brothers friend would be just as liable as the officer if the reading Bells prefers prevails, because knowledge of the source of the info is not an element of the civil claim.)

In any event, if you look at Davis v. Freedom of Information Commission, a Connecticut court (including their Supreme Court) looking at the DPPA ruled that information received by another government agency from the DMV in the ordinary source of business is not subject to the DPPA.

In Davis, the state tax assessors office obtained routine information from the DMV, and maintained a log of it. A woman applied to obtain that information for personal use from the tax assessors office, including info they received from the DMV that was (in the hands of the DMV) covered by the DPPA. The tax assessor declined to provide it on the grounds that doing so would violate the DPPA and related state laws. After an analysis of the statute, the courts there determined that the restrictions did not apply to information received by the second government agency so long as the original reason for the disclosure to that agency was valid.

The district court in Illinois is not bound by the decision, but it is persuasive authority. There are ways I can imagine to distinguish it, but I mostly see those as ways to get to the preferred result rather than unbiased analyses of the statute.

On the Davis model, in this case the local police (through its agent, Collins) obtained the information lawfully. Once that happened, if the reasoning in Davis is followed, it does not matter is a subsequent use would have been contrary to the law had the desire for a date been the sole reason for the information request. In effect, that the other agency (here the police) had a right to it, moves it outside the statute.

You can make an argument the other way (and the Connecticut Tax Assessors Office did make that other argument), but there are reasons of statutory interpretation why the statute would not be read the other way.

I think this is a case more like a clerk in a store misusing the information (perhaps after seeing your license to see if you were old enough to buy alcohol, for example), than it is like a private citizen puling you over and demanding your license. While I, too, agree that a reprimand is in order, destroying his life and livelihood by firing him from his profession is not. I personally hope those cops are unionized, as if they are, he likely will get off with a warning, even if he loses the civil suit.

I certainly do not think a cop who uses your listed birthdate to wish you a Happy Birthday (or leaving you a note like this) is comparable to the same cop using your listed address to hunt you down and rape you. That is not even apples and oranges there, that comparison is apples and assault rifles.

Yes but you are looking at cases where those who have access to the DPPA were asked to then provide that information to a third party, ie not the DMV or the Government agency accessing that information. In this instance, the police officer, during the course of his police law enforcement duties, legally accessed this woman's personal and private records. Which is fine, it is what he is meant to do in the course of his duties. But if, after that traffic stop ends, he then uses that information for a use that is not permitted under the Statute and what is not permitted under the guidelines he has to follow as a police officer, then it can be construed as an illegal act.

The Act clearly states what is and is not permissible use of information gathered from DMV records, even by other Government agencies. His use of that information for his own personal and private use is clearly not permissible use of that information. Now, when you put that together with the reason for the Act ever coming into existence in the first place, to stop unauthorised use of people's personal and private information for personal and private reasons, it is clear that this officer was not using that information that he gathered, legally. As a police officer, he falls under one of the exemptions in regards to accessing the DMV records. However how he then uses that information is also specified under the statute. And no where does it say that police officers who in the course of a traffic stop, can then obtain information from the DMV records for personal use and gain.

I'll address the rest later. Going out for lunch!