Woman sues cop who asked for date after giving ticket

[Bells]

So, to wrap this up, on the rest and for other questions, I will just say that anyone who is strongly interested should look up Davis v. Freedom of Information Commission in the Connecticut Supreme and Superior Courts (the CT Supreme Court largely just adopted the lower court decision as being correct).

Or the officer in question could simply have looked at the rules and code of conduct that he should be following:

POLICE BOARD
CITY OF CHICAGO

From the Rules and Regulations of the Chicago Police Department Adopted and Published by the Police Board

Article V. Rules of Conduct

In addition to the positive requirements of all the foregoing sections, the following rules of conduct set forth expressly prohibited acts.

Prohibited acts include:

Rule 2: Any action or conduct which impedes the Department’s efforts to
achieve its policy and goals or brings discredit upon the
Department.

COMMENT: This Rule applies to both the professional and private
conduct of all members. It prohibits any and all conduct which is
contrary to the letter and spirit of Departmental policy or goals or
which would reflect adversely upon the Department or its
members. It includes not only all unlawful acts by members but
also all acts, which although not unlawful in themselves, would
degrade or bring disrespect upon the member or the Department,
including public and open association with persons of known bad or
criminal reputation in the community unless such association is in
the performance of police duties. It also includes any action
contrary to the stated policy, goals, rules, regulations, orders or
directives of the Department.

__________________

Rule 4: Any conduct or action taken to use the official position for personal
gain or influence.

http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/cpb/PoliceDiscipline/RulesofConduct.pdf
​

Seems fairly clear cut to me.

 

[KilljoyKlown]

Or the officer in question could simply have looked at the rules and code of conduct that he should be following:

POLICE BOARD
CITY OF CHICAGO

From the Rules and Regulations of the Chicago Police Department Adopted and Published by the Police Board

Article V. Rules of Conduct

In addition to the positive requirements of all the foregoing sections, the following rules of conduct set forth expressly prohibited acts.

Prohibited acts include:

Rule 2: Any action or conduct which impedes the Department’s efforts to
achieve its policy and goals or brings discredit upon the
Department.

COMMENT: This Rule applies to both the professional and private
conduct of all members. It prohibits any and all conduct which is
contrary to the letter and spirit of Departmental policy or goals or
which would reflect adversely upon the Department or its
members. It includes not only all unlawful acts by members but
also all acts, which although not unlawful in themselves, would
degrade or bring disrespect upon the member or the Department,
including public and open association with persons of known bad or
criminal reputation in the community unless such association is in
the performance of police duties. It also includes any action
contrary to the stated policy, goals, rules, regulations, orders or
directives of the Department.

__________________

Rule 4: Any conduct or action taken to use the official position for personal
gain or influence.

http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/cpb/PoliceDiscipline/RulesofConduct.pdf
​

Seems fairly clear cut to me.

Yes I agree, but I'd be willing to bet this police officer never thought he was doing anything wrong. I can say this because of the differing opinions on this thread. This is a science forum and that cop probably hasn't taken out his personal copy of the rules and code of conduct for a very long time. When these types of behavior are a problem the top brass needs to hold yearly meetings and show examples that leave little to the imagination about what's expected.

 

[Tiassa]

head vs. wall

Are you implying he stopped her with some other reason in mind? Because you are saying had he not stopped her, he couldn't id her. I've seen no indication that he did such a thing, so of course I would leave that out.

I'm saying there is a difference between obtaining location data on the object of one's affection through voluntary means and by force of law.

What is so hard to figure out about that?

Yes, it is true that without the traffic stop, he could not have identified her. And, yes, you are now inserting the possibility that he initiated the traffic stop for unofficial reasons. If, however, you would pay attention, you might notice that the rest of the discussion hasn't really wasted any time on that suggestion. It is, at this time, an extraneous consideration.

Look, if you're a receptionist for a doctor, lawyer, or psychologist, you don't use client files to find a person's address or phone number in order to ask them out on a date. If you're an insurance adjuster, you don't use client files to find a person's address or phone number in order to ask them out on a date. And if you're a police officer, you do not use information collected under force of law to ask someone out on a date.

It doesn't matter that you call it 'official state business', he could be the shop boy in Stardust who got fired for going gaga over a local village girl for all I care. He's a human being. I'm a fan of letting people conduct a little personal business on the job, but not to the point where it gets out of hand. Call your sick child at home. Tell your girlfriend or wife you love them in a quick text message. Take a brief moment to ask a person out on a date. All on company time is fine, when brief. Clinton's closet behaviour was brief, so what? It's his business. He has a right to take a little time for himself. Weiner's text message just took moment. I don't care. As long as the work gets done.

Let us stop for a moment and consider your comparison:

• Calling one's own child.
• Communicating with one's own lover.
• Contacting a stranger to sexually harass her ... after writing her a traffic ticket.​

You really don't see the difference between managing one's own spheres and inserting oneself into someone else's?

Seriously?

I used the term 'nazi' based upon the fact that we know that many of them 'only followed orders'. He may have theoretically crossed a line, but there is an area of grace in all things, and for good reason. We should pay attention to context and the magnitude of things instead of being so rash every time a line is crossed a smidgen.

Being a romantic dumb-ass is crossing a line within a reasonable area of grace.

Abusing state authority in order to be a romantic dumb-ass is another order of magnitude entirely.

What I really don't understand about this swooning, romantic argument on his behalf is what the hell ever happened to people's obligations?

No, seriously. If you want to be a cop, then you accept certain responsibilities. Just like if you want to be a doctor, then you accept certain responsibilities. Or if you want to be a pro athlete, then you accept certain responsibilities.

One is certainly welcome to complain that these responsibilities are somehow unfair, but they are chosen. They are part of the deal.

Ironically, I think it's funny this cop has to face this b.s., because I'm sure he's nailed a bunch of people with the same kind of harsh attitude, just because a small line was crossed. But, I believe in the higher ground, he doesn't deserve a reprimand or punishment for such a slight.

When a cop undermines his entire department ...?

Never mind.

The point I'm making is that phone calls to loved ones and asking for a date is in the category of personal. The property they share is Personal Activity, and a bit of allowance of personal activity leaves room for humans to be humans.

Again, you really don't see the difference between managing one's own spheres and inserting oneself into someone else's?

 

[adoucette]

I guess I'm supposed to imagine you beating your chest as you shout that, Mr. Eballs?

No you should consider asking someone else what the meaning of OVERT is, since you appear to be clueless.

 

[adoucette]

Or the officer in question could simply have looked at the rules and code of conduct that he should be following:

POLICE BOARD
CITY OF CHICAGO
...

Seems fairly clear cut to me.​

He didn't work for the Chicago Police Dept.​

 

[adoucette]

Lets look at it this way, lets say the guy has a brother whos single, and he says to the brother "god, I booked this hotty today." "Yea, wish I was there" "hey here is her address , why don't you go see her"

Would you think THAT was an abuse of the information he has AS PART OF HIS JOB?

Yes

But then that didn't happen here.

 

[Asguard]

Yes

But then that didn't happen here.

So you agree thats unethical, WHY?

 

[adoucette]

Furthermore, we might also note that while 2721(a) is directed specifically at state DMV personnel, 2722(a)—"Additional unlawful acts"—is applied to any person.

Furthermore, if we look to 2724(a)—

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.
​

But, as demonstrated earlier in this thread (her address was found and posted based just on her name), finding her address does NOT require any data from a DMV record, and I believe that would be a legitimate defense to this statute.​

 

[adoucette]

So you agree thats unethical, WHY?

Because he gave the information to someone else.

Which didn't happen in this case.

 

[Asguard]

Because he gave the information to someone else.

Which didn't happen in this case.

What difference does that make? You yourself said there are other ways to get it so its no big deal how he got the info right?

 

[adoucette]

What difference does that make? You yourself said there are other ways to get it so its no big deal how he got the info right?

Because it involves disclosing the information to a 3rd party over which he has no control of what that person does with the information.

But that didn't happen in this case.

 

[Asguard]

Because it involves disclosing the information to a 3rd party over which he has no control of what that person does with the information.

But that didn't happen in this case.

So what? Google disclosers infomation to people without knowing what they will do with it everyday and as you said the brother could have gotten the info from google so why does it matter

 

[adoucette]

So what? Google disclosers infomation to people without knowing what they will do with it everyday and as you said the brother could have gotten the info from google so why does it matter

The Brother couldn't have got her name with out it being disclosed by the cop.

But that didn't happen in this case.

I hold the cop responsible for what he personally did with her information.

He didn't give it to anyone else.
He used it to deliver a single polite note to her.

But let's change this around a bit.

Say YOU are dealing with someone injured in a motor vehicle accident.

In the course of dealing with the person you learn her name.

The person has suffered what you consider potentially dangerous, but not obvious injury (suspect internal bleeding, what ever) but the person refuses to go to the hospital.

Later that night, you can't stop thinking about it and use her name to look up her address on the internet.

You go by her house and .....

You knock on the door and she doesn't answer and looking through the window you see her lying on the floor, apparently unconscious.

You break in the door, apply first aid, call for backup and get her to the hospital in time to save her life from uncontrolled internal bleeding.

You are hailed as a hero and given a commendation for going beyond the call of duty.




Apparently you would prefer that the more correct outcome is that you should have been arrested after saving her life and then spend 5 years in jail for invasion of her privacy, abuse of authority, use of govt resources and trespassing?

Really?

Should we add a few more years for Breaking and Entering?

 

[Asguard]

Yes and HE couldnt have gotten that infomation except in the cpurse of his duties either and he used that infomation in a way which was unethcal and for that he should AT LEAST be fired and if possible procuted to the full extent of the law so that this unethical behavor doesnt spread and if its NOT possible to procute him for his actions then there shpuld be a bill before the legislature named after him to MAKE this an offense

 

[adoucette]

Yes and HE couldnt have gotten that infomation except in the cpurse of his duties either and he used that infomation in a way which was unethcal and for that he should AT LEAST be fired and if possible procuted to the full extent of the law so that this unethical behavor doesnt spread and if its NOT possible to procute him for his actions then there shpuld be a bill before the legislature named after him to MAKE this an offense

Do you believe punishment should be proportionate to the offense?

 

[Asguard]

Do you believe punishment should be proportionate to the offense?

Yes, and the crime is breach of privacy, miss apropriation of goverment resorces, abuse of authority, stalking, maybe throw in tresspassing for good measure 5 years good behavor bond should be about right

 

[adoucette]

Yes, and the crime is preach of privacy, miss apropriation of goverment resorces, abuse of authority, stalking, maybe throw in tresspassing for good measure 5 years good behavor bond should be about right

No his "crime" was to leave a note.

He didn't invade her privacy, he left her a note (if that's an invasion of privacy then every piece of unsolicited mail is as well).
No government resources were shown to have been used.
He didn't use his authority to coerce her to do anything.
He didn't stalk her as that requires multiple visits and intent to harass or harm, he only left one polite note.
No evidence he trespassed.

This is the exact same reason that there are different penalties for theft of a piece of bubble gum and theft of a car.

Both are theft, but the penalties are proportionate to the severity of the crime and impact on the victim.

So the net is he left her one polite note but you think he should spend 5 years in jail?

 

[Asguard]

No his "crime" was to leave a note.

He didn't invade her privacy, he left her a note (if that's an invasion of privacy then every piece of unsolicited mail is as well).
No government resources were shown to have been used.
He didn't use his authority to coerce her to do anything.
He didn't stalk her as that requires multiple visits and intent to harass or harm, he only left one polite note.
No evidence he trespassed.

This is the exact same reason that there are different penalties for theft of a piece of bubble gum and theft of a car.

Both are theft, but the penalties are proportionate to the severity of the crime and impact on the victim.

So the net is he left her one polite note but you think he should spend 5 years in jail?

because it was "just one note" its apropriate to suspend the sentance but if he fucks up again, yes

 

[adoucette]

Gee, real magnanimous of you. If he is convicted of a crime and given a 5 year sentence, even if it's suspended he still loses his job.

For leaving a single polite note.

Again, no sense of proportion.

A more proportionate response might be on the order of a formal reprimand and a refresher course at the police academy on the relevant privacy issues done within 6 months and on his own time.

You think it is that serious and really want to make it sting, then dock him a week's pay as well.

No criminal penalty is justified.

 

[Tiassa]

Pure invention

No his "crime" was to leave a note.

Actually, the crime, as such, would be more akin to misappropriation; he used official information for personal purposes.

So the net is he left her one polite note but you think he should spend 5 years in jail?

He won't spend five years in jail. What, aside from pure invention, makes you think he would?

But, as demonstrated earlier in this thread (her address was found and posted based just on her name), finding her address does NOT require any data from a DMV record, and I believe that would be a legitimate defense to this statute.

The phone book argument doesn't work, as I noted earlier in this thread.