Woman sues cop who asked for date after giving ticket

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by KilljoyKlown, Jan 4, 2012.

  1. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,349
    So she claims. How would she know? Geez, my name and address are on my driver's license. Every ticket I've received have had them written on it. Maybe he has a good memory... After all, he had to file the paperwork, he had to write it at least twice.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,062
    You are acting as if he has done absolutely nothing wrong.

    He used his position as a police officer to obtain her address and then drive to where she lived and put a note on her car.

    It is a breach of privacy and he has also breached his position of trust.

    He is given a badge and a gun because the community and the State trusts him to not abuse his power. He used that power to obtain someone's address to ask them out to dinner. The breach of privacy is insane and the inappropriateness of his actions even more so.

    I'll put it into some perspective for you as to what it is like here in Australia. If a Government employee even looks at someone's file in the course of their employ, they need to leave a note in it and state why they were in said file. If I, for example, in the course of my work look up someone's private details such as their address and then go there, I would be fired and prosecuted. It is illegal here to behave in such a fashion. And it is immoral.

    As a police officer, he has access to her address, her personal records, etc. He used that for his own benefit and gain.

    It astounds me that people don't recognise just how wrong his actions actually happen to be.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wlminex Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,587
    Bells #43: I agree . . . . . his behavior was inappropriate at best. (Humor here-->)Perhaps he was "letting his little head do the thinking for his big head"? . . . and . . .all of his breaches appear to have originated in his breeches!
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,349
    No, I'm not. It was in bad form and very unprofessional.

    But he didn't use his position as a police officer to obtain her address. In the normal course of doing his job, he obtained her address... very different.

    Now, if you can show that he stopped her because he thought she was hot - you may be on to something.
     
  8. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,062
    He is a police officer who used the ticket he issued her to obtain her address. Not that different because he did use his position as that officer to obtain said address. He was on duty when he gave her that ticket and he then obtained her address to drive to where she lived.

    It is a violation of her privacy.

    Whether he stopped her because he thought she was attractive remains to be seen.

    But either way, is actions as a police officer is ridiculous.
     
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,835
    Into the Sun

    This is such an important point, yet it seems people are more interested in the politics of asking for dates, and methods for gathering information.

    When it's a boss and an intern, we get it.

    When it's a teacher and student, we get it.

    When it's a police officer and someone he cited for allegedly breaking a law? How is this confusing?

    This is the sort of thing that even if we split all the technical hairs and decide she's not going to win much in terms of a lawsuit, we are still left with an allegation of a police officer who thinks this kind of idiocy is reasonable professional conduct.

    It's one of those things that seems obvious. Seriously, did this guy mention his plan to any of his friends? Was this some sort of dumb-assed roco scheme? He must not have told his friends, because if they didn't stop him, I'll be left wondering how many of them are cops.

    He's a cop, and stands accused of being how stupid?

    I'd make the joke about firing someone ... out of a cannon ... into the sun ... except then some folks might think I really do like capital punishment.
     
  10. steampunk Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    278
    It appears he didn't do anything wrong.

    If he would have asked her during the ticket, then it could have been construed as abusing his authority. Instead, he was professional and kept the date talk out of the ticket.

    He's just this guy, forget about his badge. Guys see the occasional girl and think, "this one, I'm going out on a limb." They cross room, cross the street, drive back around the block, follow them just to catch and and confront with a compliment and to ask them out. Anyone who has a moral agenda calls this stalking. Get real, it's the way we do things and there is nothing wrong with it.

    Sometimes we guys think, "What if I ask that girl out? That could be the one that would change everything?" He sees himself at a family reunion 20 years later and someone asks, "Howd you meet?" "I gave her ticket." Everybody laughs. They kiss. So, he goes out on limb. "I'm going to at least give this a shot. I got her address. She says yes, it's a shot. She says no, we'll I go on with my life."

    Yet people here seem to portray such normal feelings and ideas as sick, scary and threatening! You've lost touch with reality, this is.

    He did not violate her privacy. The privacy was over with when she decided to risk human lives for speeding that 2000 lb vehicle around which is a real threat if you've ever seen what a car does to a human being! Her address was just part of the job. He's not out spreading her address around to everyone. Unless you can prove he is going around and leaving notes for every girl he thinks is cute (like some have irrationally implied here), he is just taking that shot that some people take when they go out on a limb. People do things on the job all the time. As long as it does not seriously interfere with duties required for your job, you should be able to do what all humans do, ask each other out from time to time! Romance is a reality, it's not Rape, you out of touch people!

    What is happening here is that the worst possible interpretation is being pushed here about him, when the very thing of asking a person out on the job happens all the time and it's considered normal human behaviour. Seeking the psycho interpretation is a sure sign of an abject feminist agenda. Not a mature feminist attitude.

    By the way, I'm not a fan of cops, But at least I am objective!
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2012
  11. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Perhaps he just happened to drive through her street and recognized her car.


    What if a teacher asks out the (single) mom of one of his students by sending her a letter, calling her or appearing on her doorstep?
    He then used his position as a teacher to obtain her address or phone number. Does that also constitute a breach of privacy and trust?

    Don't get me wrong, I think the cop acted in an inappropriate way. I'm just not too sure that he actually did something wrong as far as the law is concerned.
     
  12. Telemachus Rex Protesting Mod Stupidity Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    249

    Please. Leaving a note is not "stalking". You do a real disservice to actual stalking victims by misusing the word. Actual stalking victims do not receive ONE note, on their cars, which clearly state that the stalker will understand if they are not interested. If he had mailed her a letter would that also be "stalking"? Actual stalking victims are not annoyed, they are frightened, and she and you should be ashamed that you are diminishing the actual crime of stalking by likening this case to it. You might as well say that every man who ever asked a woman out "stalked her" under your view of stalking (or, perhaps, it's only "stalking" when she shoots the man down).

    She should be condemned for making an public spectacle of this. Even if she's annoyed, so what? Step 1, tell him you are not interested or, in this case, take him up on his offer and never contact him. Step 1 is not "file a lawsuit" and contact the press. Step 2, to be taken after he persists despite being told she's not interested, isn't even lawsuits and press. Step 2 might be to contact his chief of police and complain.

    "Stalking" requires a repeated pattern (as in "repeated contacts", leaving one note on one occasion is not a "pattern") of unwanted and even obsessive contacts and to be a crime requires that the women have some apprehension of bodily harm or some other reasonably severe emotional distress.

    Edit: I'd also add, again, that a quick search of her name turns up her address. So his "abuse of authority" gave him no more information than his eyes and Google could have given him. I think the sad thing is, that his note would never have gotten him a date because it happens to be *too* passive. It's hard to imagine any woman picking up that ball and running with it, so only a more aggressive approach would have given him a reasonable shot.

    The cop deserves to be told "don't do that again," but national press attention and referring to this as "stalking" is ridiculous.
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2012
  13. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    No, I'm acting like he left a polite note on her car asking her if she wanted to go out.

    Oh HOW SCARY, he left a polite note on her car 2 months ago asking her out and saying he would understand if she didn't want to and she didn't respond and he didn't do anything else.


    Except you have no evidence he went into any files nor acquired any personal information about her except what she handed him at the traffic stop. Her address.

    Just as much as it astounds me what complete wimps some of you are.
    You would give this lady a wad of cash for her pain and suffering and also fire a policeman for the simple act of leaving a polite note asking her for a date?

    Where is your sense of proportion?
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2012
  14. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Yes, and all he did was a very non-threatening act of leaving a single polite note.

    Since when is leaving a single polite note a violation of privacy?
    Here's a clue.
    It's not.

    Except that is not alleged in the complaint.
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2012
  15. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Because in the two examples you gave they aren't at all similar to this case:

    In the first the person's job is dependent on the boss and there is also an ongoing relationship which they will see each other each day.

    In the second, there is the ongoing relationship and the teacher makes subjective judgments that affect the student's life and of course the significant age difference since most students are minors.

    In this case there is no ongoing relationship, no ongoing impact on the person's life, no implied threat of any kind and both are adults and the net of it was all he did was leave a single polite note saying if she was interested in a date to give him a call.

    Yeah, I see a significant difference between these two cases.
     
  16. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,062
    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. 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.

    But because he asked her out, you all seem to believe that kind of absolves him of all responsibility and wrong-doing. Oh the poor fellow.. 'went out of his way to ask someone out and the stupid bitch does this to him, etc'..

    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.. In other words, if a police officer stops someone to give them a ticket, it is inappropriate for him to then use the information he gathered while issuing that ticket, to then drive to her house and leave a note on her car, discussing the ticket, reminding her that he was the officer who had pulled her over, etc. It is a breach of privacy and a breach of trust.

    I'll put it this way..

    Imagine one day your daughter comes home and tells you she got a speeding ticket and then 2 days later, the police officer who gave her the ticket drives to your house, and walks up to her car and leaves a note on it, telling her he can't stop thinking about her and that she's hot and would she go out with him, after reminding her he was the cop who gave her the ticket that helped him track her down'.. You would find that acceptable? How if he was her teacher? Would that be acceptable?

    How about a doctor who had treated her in an emergency room?

    We have already had one individual in this thread post a real address of someone who may or may not be this woman, who is a single mother, after commenting that she should be punched in the face. And this particular individual went further and commented that if she cared about her privacy, she wouldn't be listed in the white pages. Because apparently, legally having her name listed in a phone book is the same as a police officer using information he gathered while issuing her with a ticket to then track down where she lived to tell her he cant stop thinking about her and to go out with him. And then, to make matters worse, he then says that this officer didn't do enough to get her to go out with him and he should have been more aggressive.. Because using one's police powers to find out where a person lived after giving her a ticket and then going there to leave a note on her car is not aggressive enough.

    And inciting violence and providing a person's real address (the address provided on this forum, which is available to the public and members alike, may or may not be of this woman, but is an actual address listing of someone, at least, who shares the name with the woman in question)... All I can say is 'wow'.. The stupidity knows no bounds. I shouldn't have to explain just how dangerous it is, should I? Nor should I have to explain that the actions of this member are legally questionable, should I?


    This is a single mother, who came out of her apartment, walked into the full carpark for the apartment and found the letter stuck to her windscreen. The envelope had her address on it and the officer's home address as the sender. It was not mailed, but he had placed it there himself (after driving there, entering the carpark and finding her car).. This freak of a police officer didn't just happen to come upon her car. He went looking for it.


    From the court document filed:


    Inside the envelope was a handwritten letter to the Plaintiff asking her on a date:

    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!!!
    (A copy of the letter is attached as Exhibit B.)


    But apparently this is acceptable behaviour? Hell, what am I asking? No one here batted an eyelid when one member posted this woman's name and an address that matched her name and suggested she be punched in the face.

    Just to make sure everyone understands something:

    The lawsuit is premised on the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994, which limits access to and use of driving records. Personal information maintained by state Departments of Motor Vehicles can only be used for government business; in connection with recalls, research, litigation and insurance; and to verify personal information provided by employees.

    Persons who use the information for other purposes -- such as asking a woman out on a date -- are subject to civil and criminal action under the law.


    The officer also appears to have broken the law.
     
  17. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Actually, the US Code states:

    Indeed, it's all about disclosure to others.

    And he didn't disclose her information nor did he make it available to any person or entity.
     
  18. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    He doesn't have to do anything to find her address.
    It's on her licence and of course rape is not acceptable but then rape is not at all like leaving a single polite note.

    Nor is it an invasion of privacy.
    Nor is it threatening or stalking.

    It's a single polite note.

    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?
     
  19. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,384
    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?

    Would he have been able to obtain her address if he wasn't a cop?

    There's enough potential for such behaviour to make this a clear case of violating the public's trust.

    Already addressed, cf. reference to gun-toting dude vested with disproportionate legal authority.
     
  20. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,180
    Chris, the ugly bald stinky cop, has certainly got a way with words: "the truth is"--the second time he used that phrase--"I'll probably never see you again unless I do." I suppose by "I do," he means "I ask you out," but the phrase appears in the following paragraph, so there is no clear antecedent. What the fuck? So he's simply saying that he won't see her again, unless he does--could anything be more obvious?

    I like the personal info--the "little about me"--too. He's 27. OK. He was in the army, and now he's a cop. Well, I think she already knows that latter bit. And of course, he's bald and ugly (and stinky). Yeah. Sounds great.
     
  21. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,349
    Don't mistake me for defending the cop. As I've stated, his conduct is unprofessional. But...

    Phone Book, it's a goldmine of information - look into it.
     
  22. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,062
    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.

    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? 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? 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?

    Righteo..

    Who gives a shit if it was polite?

    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?

    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?

    He had no legal right to use the information he gathered in the course of his employment to then use for his own benefit. His keeping her address, which he obtained while on duty, is a breach of privacy. What? Are there no privacy laws in the US? This woman does not have a Constitutional right to privacy, which would cover police officers keeping her address so he could go to her house and ask her out?

    Yes, I do leave my house, daily. I also have a very full and interesting life beyond the internet and I also know a lot of police officers, many of whom I have known for years due to what I used to do for a living. And I can assure you, what this police officer did is not acceptable, nor is it even legal. There are strict codes and regulations which cover people's privacy, for example, and let me put it this way, if a police officer did that where I live, he'd be fired and most probably charged.

    The statute actually states that the information cannot be disclosed to others and the code also states clearly the specific uses permitted by Government agencies, such as the police. In fact, the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act is quite clear. Section 2722 (a) states:

    "It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to obtain or disclose personal information, from a motor vehicle record, for any use not permitted under Section 2721(b) of this Title.”

    Now, shall we look at what is permitted (and not permitted) under Section 2721(b) of the Act?

    (b) Permissible Uses. - Personal information referred to in
    subsection (a) shall be disclosed for use in connection with
    matters of motor vehicle or driver safety and theft, motor vehicle
    emissions, motor vehicle product alterations, recalls, or
    advisories, performance monitoring of motor vehicles and dealers by
    motor vehicle manufacturers, and removal of non-owner records from
    the original owner records of motor vehicle manufacturers to carry
    out the purposes of titles I and IV of the Anti Car Theft Act of
    1992, the Automobile Information Disclosure Act (15 U.S.C. 1231 et
    seq.), the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), and chapters
    301, 305, and 321-331 of title 49, and, subject to subsection
    (a)(2), may be disclosed as follows:

    (1) For use by any government agency, including any court or
    law enforcement agency, in carrying out its functions, or any
    private person or entity acting on behalf of a Federal, State, or
    local agency in carrying out its functions.

    (2) For use in connection with matters of motor vehicle or
    driver safety and theft; motor vehicle emissions; motor vehicle
    product alterations, recalls, or advisories; performance
    monitoring of motor vehicles, motor vehicle parts and dealers;
    motor vehicle market research activities, including survey
    research; and removal of non-owner records from the original
    owner records of motor vehicle manufacturers.

    (3) For use in the normal course of business by a legitimate
    business or its agents, employees, or contractors, but only -

    (A) to verify the accuracy of personal information submitted
    by the individual to the business or its agents, employees, or
    contractors; and

    (B) if such information as so submitted is not correct or is
    no longer correct, to obtain the correct information, but only
    for the purposes of preventing fraud by, pursuing legal
    remedies against, or recovering on a debt or security interest
    against, the individual.

    (4) For use in connection with any civil, criminal,
    administrative, or arbitral proceeding in any Federal, State, or
    local court or agency or before any self-regulatory body,
    including the service of process, investigation in anticipation
    of litigation, and the execution or enforcement of judgments and
    orders, or pursuant to an order of a Federal, State, or local
    court.

    (5) For use in research activities, and for use in producing
    statistical reports, so long as the personal information is not
    published, redisclosed, or used to contact individuals.

    (6) For use by any insurer or insurance support organization,
    or by a self-insured entity, or its agents, employees, or
    contractors, in connection with claims investigation activities,
    antifraud activities, rating or underwriting.

    (7) For use in providing notice to the owners of towed or
    impounded vehicles.

    (8) For use by any licensed private investigative agency or
    licensed security service for any purpose permitted under this
    subsection.

    (9) For use by an employer or its agent or insurer to obtain or
    verify information relating to a holder of a commercial driver's
    license that is required under chapter 313 of title 49.

    (10) For use in connection with the operation of private toll
    transportation facilities.

    (11) For any other use in response to requests for individual
    motor vehicle records if the State has obtained the express
    consent of the person to whom such personal information pertains.

    (12) For bulk distribution for surveys, marketing or
    solicitations if the State has obtained the express consent of
    the person to whom such personal information pertains.

    (13) For use by any requester, if the requester demonstrates it
    has obtained the written consent of the individual to whom the
    information pertains.

    (14) For any other use specifically authorized under the law of
    the State that holds the record, if such use is related to the
    operation of a motor vehicle or public safety.

    (c) Resale or Redisclosure. - An authorized recipient of personal
    information (except a recipient under subsection (b)(11) or (12))
    may resell or redisclose the information only for a use permitted
    under subsection (b) (but not for uses under subsection (b)(11) or

    (12)). An authorized recipient under subsection (b)(11) may resell
    or redisclose personal information for any purpose. An authorized
    recipient under subsection (b)(12) may resell or redisclose
    personal information pursuant to subsection (b)(12). Any authorized
    recipient (except a recipient under subsection (b)(11)) that
    resells or rediscloses personal information covered by this chapter
    must keep for a period of 5 years records identifying each person
    or entity that receives information and the permitted purpose for
    which the information will be used and must make such records
    available to the motor vehicle department upon request.
    (d) Waiver Procedures. - A State motor vehicle department may
    establish and carry out procedures under which the department or
    its agents, upon receiving a request for personal information that
    does not fall within one of the exceptions in subsection (b), may
    mail a copy of the request to the individual about whom the
    information was requested, informing such individual of the
    request, together with a statement to the effect that the
    information will not be released unless the individual waives such
    individual's right to privacy under this section.
    (e) Prohibition on Conditions. - No State may condition or burden
    in any way the issuance of an individual's motor vehicle record as
    defined in 18 U.S.C. 2725(1) to obtain express consent. Nothing in
    this paragraph shall be construed to prohibit a State from charging
    an administrative fee for issuance of a motor vehicle record.


    Now, we know he obtained her personal details during the course of his duty (took her licence to his vehicle and looked up her details in her car - ie accessed her information in the database), which is legal. We also know he then used that information to go to her house and leave a note on her windscreen asking her if she wants to go out with him (which, well, I know this will come as a shock to you), is actually not what is permissible under the Act. In other words, what he went on to do with that information is not permissible under the law.

    And I have to say, I am shocked Arthur that you could so wilfully support this very obvious breach of the law by a police officer.
     
  23. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,062
    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?
     

Share This Page