Hatrack River Forum: Legal type advice needed: How to make a police officer stop harassing you.

This is topic Legal type advice needed: How to make a police officer stop harassing you. in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=040174

Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :

I need some advice. Or, rather, my husband does.

Here's the "hypothetical" situation:

Two members of a gun related message board have some minor disagreements. One is a police officer in a nearby major city (referred to as "cop") and the other is just some guy who used to work for a couple of different police departments (referred to as "guy").

The disagreements are really petty, but Cop is a moderator, so uses his power to get Guy kicked off the board.

Guy goes to another board that most of the same members post to (sort of like a disagreement at GC or something coming back here) and posts something to the effect of "Hey, I got kicked off, go see if you can find out what happened 'cause I can't."

Everybody gets mad at the original board, and at Cop and his buddies over there. One of his buddies (referred to as "Bud") is the one who actually kicked Guy off, but they won't let anyone talk about it at all over there. They lock and delete threads, ban people who mention it, and change the rules to cover their actions.

Okay, so Guy and some of his friends are banned from the site, and they're mad. They say some derogatory things about Cop and Bud at the other site.

So Bud begins an email dialogue with Guy, basically asking him to quit badmouthing him and Cop, and asking him what he'll do to get his account reinstated at the site.

A couple days later, Cop files a complaint through his police department's cyber crimes unit, claiming that he thinks Guy has been driving past his house late at night, sending threatening private messages, and other sordid lies. Guy knows nothing about this.

A full five days later, Cop starts an email dialogue with Guy, along the same lines as Bud did. It stayed pretty civil, until Guy posted something on the other site about how he had more training than Cop, and his claims on the original site were inflated at best. Then Cop "invites" Guy to come down to his "dojo" to "train" with him and his friends. Repeatedly.

Guy says something like, "No, I don't have anything to prove, I'd rather take you to lunch or something and work this out."

Cop "invites" him again, naming a specific time and place. Guy says no, thanks, and thinks the whole thing is over.

Two days later, a detective from the cyber crimes unit contacts Guy, but won't divulge details. He'll only say that Cop filed a complaint, and that it won't go away until Guy comes down to speak to him. This was Friday.

No contact over the weekend.

This morning, Guy goes to see cyber crimes detective, gets the details, debunks them with copies of the emails, posts, etc. Cyber crimes detective says it doesn't look good for Cop, and that his investigation is closed. But now Guy's name is listed as as suspect in an internet stalking investigation in the city's database. Detective says that won't affect anything in the future, but Guy (with the background he has) knows this is BS.

So, first, how can we get Guy's record expunged?

More importantly, how can we keep Cop from using his position at the police department to harass Guy in the future?

Also, as a semi-related note, is there a law that prevents police officers from promoting and advertising their personal "security training" businesses using pictures of themselves in uniform and their patrol cars?

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :

The simplest way to expunge the record may be for Cop to withdraw his complaint. This seems unlikely, though, since he seems like a real jerk.

Another way to approach it is to go to Cop's superiors (last resort), or if the dept. is big enough to have one, the Internal Affairs dept.

Some governments also have other channels for civilian complaints about police officers.

If none of that works, you could approach it in the courts, but that could get expensive and complicated, and I have no advice there.

What's so bad about being on some database? It might be a lot more trouble than it's worth to try and deal with it.

Your "friend" might look into an email archiving service for legal purposes. Shop around, not much is needed, not like some company, it just would be nice to have a 3rd party archive any threatening/bizarre emails from these guys in case of court.

[Wave]

It's been a while, Rayann! Good luck! [Smile]

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :

quote:

Also, as a semi-related note, is there a law that prevents police officers from promoting and advertising their personal "security training" businesses using pictures of themselves in uniform and their patrol cars?

Yes.
*cringe* And it always makes me so glad to see violence fetishized ANYWAY....

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :

I have no idea. The record of the complaint is, technically, accurate. It records that someone made X complaint, not that X complaint is true. Hard to get police departments to give up information.

Whether you complain or not has got to take into account the politics of the police department, including how likely they are to circle the wagons. Can be potentially scary stuff.

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :

From personal experience, going to the Chief and Internal Affairs if you have a serious, legitimate complaint is the course most likely to result in action.

It is, however, almost always better to deal with problems on a low-key level if you can. If the officer is engaging in illegal or unethical behavior, you should file a complaint. But if it can all be chalked up to interpersonal "stuff" it's best to just walk away and let things cool off.

I believe that filing a false report (as it appears this officer did) is going to have some rather serious ramifications career-wise. It is not the sort of thing that goes unnoticed or that departments are likely to just ignore once they do see it. It may take awhile before anything "actionable" is uncovered -- Police officers do have unions and are entitled to a non-prejudicial warning first in most situations. If there's no recurrence, then eventually the matter will be dropped. If they see a pattern of behavior, though, this officer could find himself looking for a new job in the future.

Chances are, "guy" need do nothing at this point. If the officer won't let it drop, then it's time to talk to the Chief and IA.

Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :

I have a brother that frequented gun forums (and I think he was here once, but I don't know his name here as it isn't his usuals). He said crazy stuff like that happened often and had been somewhat stalked and threatened too, but certainly not by a cop.

Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :

The problem with Guy's name being in this database is that, if he ever wanted to change jobs, it would show up in a criminal history type check here in the metro area. Not a big deal if we want to relocate, but we don't! While it's true that it's not the same as a conviction, it's still a blot, and most departments won't even ask him about it, they'll just go on to the next applicant.

Cop knows this. He knows what line of work Guy is in. He even knows where Guy works. I think maybe that's the whole reason Cop filed the complaint. Unless it was to justify the butt-kicking he "invited" Guy to receive. Think about it. He files the complaint, and then a few days later tries to goad Guy into coming down there...scary stuff.

This whole thing just sucks all over.

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :

I'm not sure on this, but it may be possible to get a copy of any records mentioning "Guy" or related to this incident. If it really is a concern, you could try just asking to see the record. If that doesn't work, you could formalize the request.

Ultimately, this is way beyond my area of expertise, but I can't see any reason that the record of this would be discoverable to anyone and NOT to the named parties. If the incident is closed, that is. If it's part of an ongoing investigation, then I can see them not giving the information out.

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :

This is just bizarre.......

Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :

Bizarre. Yep, good word.

It's not a record available to anyone not in law enforcement. A normal employer can't get it in a background check, but a police department can. It's also not an "official" record, it's more like a database of everyone the police in the area have ever had contact with. But it still adversely affects many potential employees of police departments in the area; not just police officers, but dispatchers, jailers, records clerks, and animal control as well as many others.

It's called TRACES (or something like that), the Tulsa Records...something. I don't remember.

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :

quote:

It's also not an "official" record, it's more like a database of everyone the police in the area have ever had contact with.

Without knowing anything more about it, I'm fairly certain that borders on being illegal.

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :

Ahhh...no it isn't.

It isn't suppose to be part of the decisioon making process, but it often is...and if THAT were provable then THAT might be illegal...but they are entitled to have access to any information about any complaint filed against someone.

All it proves is that a complaint had been filed...not guilt...but if two candidates are equal in all other areas it can sometimes be a "tie-breaker" of sorts....

Unoffically.

Trust me, I went through this myself, sort of....

The NSA has a file on me, even though I didn't do anything wrong. [Frown]

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :

code:

       ___________    ____
     ______/   \__//   \__/____\     
   _/   \_/  :           //____\\     
  /|      :  :  ..      /        \   
 | |     ::     ::      \        /   
 | |     :|     ||     \ \______/
 | |  _  ||     ||  __  |\  /  |   
  \|     ||     ||      |   / | \
   | ___ || ___ || ____ |  / /_\ \
   |  _  ||  _  ||  __  | /  /    \
    \___/  \___/ |      |/__/      \  
                 _\____/    \      /
                /____             /
               /     \           /
               \______\_________/ 

We're still keeping tabs on you, Kwea!
--the miscreants at NSA

Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :

Reminds me of one of my favorite bash.org quotes:

quote:
<Stormrider> I should bomb something
<Stormrider> ...and it's off the cuff remarks like that that are the reason I don't log chats
<Stormrider> Just in case the FBI ever needs anything on me
<Elzie_Ann> I'm sure they can just get it from someone who DOES log chats.
*** FBI has joined #gamecubecafe
<FBI> We saw it anyway.
*** FBI has quit IRC (Quit: )

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :

[ROFL]

Knowing what I do about pre-employment criminal background checks and the type of checking that is done, if Guy never was arrested or appeared before a judge then there is nothing that can prevent him from being hirable.

There are also very strict privacy laws within the employment law area that prevent them from getting just any type of information. I doubt very, very seriously being in someone's database is going to cause Guy any hiring problems in the future. I doubt future employers even have access to this information and if they did, they can't use it against him.

Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :

Can't and won't are two different things, and this particular database IS available to most agencies he'd want to work at.

Just because they aren't supposed to, doesn't mean they don't. LOTS of candidates are passed over for this sort of thing.

Remember, we're talking about police departments here. They don't have to call anyone to get this information, they just plug his name into a computer and the record shows up. No trace of who asked for it, either.

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :

Ahh...that isn't true, there is ALWAYS some trace, particularily for police.

At least there is suppose to be, anyway....

[Frown]

Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :

Maybe there is, but it's not something they keep track of proactively.

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :

It's certainly something they SHOULD keep track of, because it seems like a clear and obvious violation of civilian rights to make that database available in that way.

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :

Which rights, exactly?

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :

How about a Freedom of Information Act request to see just what's in that database? Then you could know if it's worthwhile to pursue.

Or, if any cop has access, just have a friendly cop check informally.

Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :

We know exactly what's in it, because the detective had the report in the file he showed Guy. It says he's a "Suspect: Internet Threats."

Every police department I know of has files like this. Most small departments still keep them on paper. I think they call them "pink sheets" or something. If you get pulled over, even if you don't get a ticket, you get a pink sheet. If you get arrested, you get a pink sheet. If you file a police report claiming you're the victim of something, you get a pink sheet. It's a record of contact, with a general statement about that contact. It doesn't show any kind of disposition.

And most police departments will tell you they can keep internal records of the people they come into contact with.

The problem is that this particular one serves the entire county, as well as several adjoining ones. It's not just available to the one agency, but to all of them. They still consider this "internal" because only police departments can access it.