Chicago cop sued for asking woman on a date

[Lieslntx]

I know that for me, as an employee of the state (as I assume a cop would be), it would be illegal for me to use the information I run across every day on people in any way other than the normal function of my job. Period.

 

[YankeeFan]

The cop was dumb (and a little creepy), he should be reprimanded (maybe even fired), he should have covered his tracks better, if he wanted to do this. But, I don't see grounds for a lawsuit.

But, if he wrote her a ticket, and had her driver's license to do so, did he even need to access the DMV database? Her license would have had her address, right. And, he know the car. How hard would it be to find the car near her house?

Again, creepy, and not advisable, but why would he need to access the DMV database.

 

[Lieslntx]

The cop was dumb (and a little creepy), he should be reprimanded (maybe even fired), he should have covered his tracks better, if he wanted to do this. But, I don't see grounds for a lawsuit.

But, if he wrote her a ticket, and had her driver's license to do so, did he even need to access the DMV database? Her license would have had her address, right. And, he know the car. How hard would it be to find the car near her house?

Again, creepy, and not advisable, but why would he need to access the DMV database.

Which is using the information he comes across in his daily work in a way that extends outside of his normal job duties.

I am not a cop and even I had to sign my life away saying I wouldn't do anything like this and that I would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, blah, blah, blah.

It is wrong on so many levels that he used the information this way.

 

[YankeeFan]

The cop was dumb (and a little creepy), he should be reprimanded (maybe even fired), he should have covered his tracks better, if he wanted to do this. But, I don't see grounds for a lawsuit.

But, if he wrote her a ticket, and had her driver's license to do so, did he even need to access the DMV database? Her license would have had her address, right. And, he know the car. How hard would it be to find the car near her house?

Again, creepy, and not advisable, but why would he need to access the DMV database.

Which is using the information he comes across in his daily work in a way that extends outside of his normal job duties.

Oh, I agree. And, I still think it would be wrong.

And, to be honest, I didn't even read the linked article. I'm just wondering why (or if) he actually pulled up her records in the DMV database.

 

[Lieslntx]

No matter how he obtained her information, the fact that he used it is the problem.

 

[User 11148]

The cop was dumb (and a little creepy), he should be reprimanded (maybe even fired), he should have covered his tracks better, if he wanted to do this. But, I don't see grounds for a lawsuit.

But, if he wrote her a ticket, and had her driver's license to do so, did he even need to access the DMV database? Her license would have had her address, right. And, he know the car. How hard would it be to find the car near her house?

Again, creepy, and not advisable, but why would he need to access the DMV database.

Which is using the information he comes across in his daily work in a way that extends outside of his normal job duties.

I am not a cop and even I had to sign my life away saying I wouldn't do anything like this and that I would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, blah, blah, blah.

It is wrong on so many levels that he used the information this way.

And here's where these things break down into the silly realm. In the course of our working lives, we come across many, many people. If we have "met" someone through the course of our work, are we to permanently write off that someone simply because we met through one or the other's work? I don't think so.

Please note that I am not saying that it's fine and dandy that he availed himself of DMV records/systems to track her down. I'm simply saying that the fact that he met her through his work shouldn't necessarily mean that he has to say, "Wow, wish I'd met her at a bar!"

 

[Ace]

If the cop was smart, he would have found out where she lived and "accidentally" bumped into her. Leaving a note is dumb.

This.

It ain't stalkin' if you're just out walkin.'

 

[User 1019]

***** had it comin'.

 

[KJIM]

What law did he break?

It may not ever be prosecuted, but unauthorized use of the DMV database is illegal.

What is "authorized," then? I mean, reporters look up DMV information. So do potential employers. I've never tried as a private citizen, but what's the law, exactly?

The story doesn't specify "DMV database," either. It said records. I'm not entirely sure what that means. I know I've been bored as hell before and Lexis Nexis'd many people I had no business looking up.

I don't think the cop used good judgment, but I don't think it's any more "creepy" than other things I've heard of, and I think the woman is got far, far over the top in filing a lawsuit.

Yes, IF he stalks her (which I don't think this is - at all), IF he continues to pull her over, etc. But there's no indication of that.

Rip up the letter, lady, and forget about it. And perhaps you should re-think speeding.

 

[Lieslntx]

It is unauthorized because he used information that he has access to while doing his job in a fashion that has nothing to do with his job. This is not a private sector job. You cannot do that and get away with it.

 

[deskslave]

I do happen to think that a lawsuit might be a bit of an overreaction. But who knows what history this woman has? Maybe she had an ex-boyfriend who used to stalk her, so she's sensitized to stuff like this.

Or maybe she's just aiming to make a few quick bucks in a settlement.

 

[sgreenwell]

I do happen to think that a lawsuit might be a bit of an overreaction. But who knows what history this woman has? Maybe she had an ex-boyfriend who used to stalk her, so she's sensitized to stuff like this.

Or maybe she's just aiming to make a few quick bucks in a settlement.

My thought was that she's probably trying to shame or force their hand when it comes to disciplining the guy. If she just files a complaint, maybe he gets a slap on the wrist and then he's back out there on the beat, or it just goes into some file and nothing happens to him. Also, along those lines, maybe she's thinking that he's pulled this with some other women, and her coming forward will bring them out of the woodwork.

 

[outofplace]

The cop was dumb (and a little creepy), he should be reprimanded (maybe even fired), he should have covered his tracks better, if he wanted to do this. But, I don't see grounds for a lawsuit.

But, if he wrote her a ticket, and had her driver's license to do so, did he even need to access the DMV database? Her license would have had her address, right. And, he know the car. How hard would it be to find the car near her house?

Again, creepy, and not advisable, but why would he need to access the DMV database.

Which is using the information he comes across in his daily work in a way that extends outside of his normal job duties.

I am not a cop and even I had to sign my life away saying I wouldn't do anything like this and that I would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, blah, blah, blah.

It is wrong on so many levels that he used the information this way.

And here's where these things break down into the silly realm. In the course of our working lives, we come across many, many people. If we have "met" someone through the course of our work, are we to permanently write off that someone simply because we met through one or the other's work? I don't think so.

Please note that I am not saying that it's fine and dandy that he availed himself of DMV records/systems to track her down. I'm simply saying that the fact that he met her through his work shouldn't necessarily mean that he has to say, "Wow, wish I'd met her at a bar!"

And if he hadn't misused his position to find her again, your might have a valid point.

 

[The Big Ragu]

What law did he break?

It may not ever be prosecuted, but unauthorized use of the DMV database is illegal.

What is "authorized," then? I mean, reporters look up DMV information. So do potential employers. I've never tried as a private citizen, but what's the law, exactly?

The story doesn't specify "DMV database," either. It said records. I'm not entirely sure what that means. I know I've been bored as hell before and Lexis Nexis'd many people I had no business looking up.

I don't think the cop used good judgment, but I don't think it's any more "creepy" than other things I've heard of, and I think the woman is got far, far over the top in filing a lawsuit.

Yes, IF he stalks her (which I don't think this is - at all), IF he continues to pull her over, etc. But there's no indication of that.

Rip up the letter, lady, and forget about it. And perhaps you should re-think speeding.

Driving records are not public. Haven't been since the mid 1990s, when Congress passed a privacy law regarding them.

Even though reporters my have friendly cops who will run addresses for them on the down low, it is NOT legal.

Potential employers, which you mentioned, can't just run checks on random people. You have to give them written permission, and then it is for verification purposes, to check the info you have supplied them. Same deal with insurance companies. You are giving them access to your info. They can't just go to the DMV, give a name and get access to the database.

Obviously, law enforcement has access to DMV records, but it is illegal for a cop to get info from a DMV search and use it for non-official purposes.

There's no gray area on this one. It may not be the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby, but what he did actually broke the law.

 

[Lieslntx]

This ^

 

[Tarheel316]

What law did he break?

It may not ever be prosecuted, but unauthorized use of the DMV database is illegal.

What is "authorized," then? I mean, reporters look up DMV information. So do potential employers. I've never tried as a private citizen, but what's the law, exactly?

The story doesn't specify "DMV database," either. It said records. I'm not entirely sure what that means. I know I've been bored as hell before and Lexis Nexis'd many people I had no business looking up.

I don't think the cop used good judgment, but I don't think it's any more "creepy" than other things I've heard of, and I think the woman is got far, far over the top in filing a lawsuit.

Yes, IF he stalks her (which I don't think this is - at all), IF he continues to pull her over, etc. But there's no indication of that.

Rip up the letter, lady, and forget about it. And perhaps you should re-think speeding.

Driving records are not public. Haven't been since the mid 1990s, when Congress passed a privacy law regarding them.

Even though reporters my have friendly cops who will run addresses for them on the down low, it is NOT legal.

Potential employers, which you mentioned, can't just run checks on random people. You have to give them written permission, and then it is for verification purposes, to check the info you have supplied them. Same deal with insurance companies. You are giving them access to your info. They can't just go to the DMV, give a name and get access to the database.

Obviously, law enforcement has access to DMV records, but it is illegal for a cop to get info from a DMV search and use it for non-official purposes.

There's no gray area on this one. It may not be the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby, but what he did actually broke the law.

This. But isn't one of the perks of being a cop the privilege of breaking the laws you enforce?

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

Here's why what that cop did is illegal, besides creepy:

http://www.citypages.com/content/printVersion/2411141/

 

[albert77]

Cops looking up people's info for their own personal use is a terrible idea. I say this, and I trust police a lot more than most people.

It's an awful precedent to set.

Never trust the police. They are not your friend. It's one of the most valuable lessons a kid should learn. If they get in trouble and the cops want to question them tell them not to answer without an attorney present.

Easily solved if your kid does not break the law.

Terribly, awfully and incredibly false.

I want to come back to this for a second. IllMil and Boom are right. It doesn't matter whether your arrest is justified or not; never EVER volunteer information to a cop without a lawyer present, for any reason.

 

[qtlaw]

This is why you do not take someone's initial position without cross-checking it. This is ridiculous and I'm glad Ms. Rasmusson has attorneys who are protecting her rights. Sure everything was just "harmless." Right oh. Don't do anything wrong, you won't get served. Pretty easy rule to live by.

 

[Batman]

This is why you do not take someone's initial position without cross-checking it. This is ridiculous and I'm glad Ms. Rasmusson has attorneys who are protecting her rights. Sure everything was just "harmless." Right oh. Don't do anything wrong, you won't get served. Pretty easy rule to live by.

I don't believe Rasmusson was the person involved in the original story. She lives in Minnesota. The original story for this thread was in suburban Chicago.

Seeing the pictures posted with Rasmusson's story, though, makes me wonder how hard up cops are -- or why the hell they were so fascinated with her. She's reasonably attractive, but not so much that half the cops in Minneapolis should be checking out her information and getting their jollies off seeing her driver's license picture.