My relatives in Seattle say they are melting and I’m sure folks around here will be flocking to the lakes, Art on the Green and the Street Fair downtown. Any thoughts, questions or comments on this first weekend of August?
August 1, 2009
Open Session, Weekend
5 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
This morning’s Press has a story headlined Suit claims sex assault by Cd’A cop.
The newspaper also provides a link to about 45 minutes of police video and audio of the contact.
I’d be interested in comments from anyone who watched and listened to the entire online video.
Comment by Bill — August 1, 2009 @ 8:09 am
Bill, I got through only part of it before I was shocked that they put this online! This young woman gives her name, address, phone number, date of birth, personal medical information, etc. and it’s all on the world wide web. That part was BEFORE she was ever charged with the DUI, she had simply been pulled over for a traffic concern.
The other thing that seriously bothered me was that, from early on, she kept asking if she could call her Dad and kept saying that her Dad told her that if she was ever pulled over to not say anything until her Dad was able to get there. The cop kept asking her questions, even when she asked if she could not answer until she could call. He kept promising her she could call later, but then asked more and more questions.
It did not sound proper to me, but I have no background in law enforcement.
Comment by mary — August 1, 2009 @ 9:17 am
I have not watched the entire video yet. On several levels this bothers me greatly. The picture in the Press was enough. The officer is clearly touching her breast. And even worse, why was a male officer doing a body search? Nowhere, absolutely nowhere does a male office body search. Why wasn’t a female officer summoned if a body search was deemed necessary? There have been several questionable instances of police behavior. The absurd arrest of a local football coach for DUI when he HAD NOT been drinking at all. It is ironic that this has surfaced just after the salaries of CDA police were published. Is this what we are paying for? It is truly unfortunate that a federal suit must be filed to obtain justice. In this case, one picture is indeed worth a thousand words. The victim said she wanted her name made public. The remainder of the personal information should have been redacted from the video.
And….she was well below the legal limit.
If this type of situation ever happens to anyone there are two absolutes. 1) if you are pulled over for DUI, INSIST that the blood alcohol be done immediately at the hospital, not the police station. and 2) insist that you be allowed an attorney. Once you have requested an attorney, it is illegal for the police to further question you.
Comment by Faringdon — August 1, 2009 @ 9:59 am
It looks like they may have a bit of a larger problem in releasing the video or even asking her for her social insecurity number. The Privacy act of 1974 makes asking for a number without first making some disclosures a crime.
“Any Federal, State or local government agency which requests an individual to disclose his social security account number shall inform that individual whether that disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by what statutory or other authority such number is solicited, and what uses will be made of it.” Sec. 7(b). The CdA police must abide by the disclosure rules of subsection (b), meaning that they cannot disclose personally identifiable information unless they have consent or the disclosure falls within one of the twelve conditions mentioned in the Requirements for Government Disclosure of Information section.
The penalties are harsh for non-compliance. If any officer or employee of a government agency knowingly and willfully discloses personally identifiable information can be found guilty of a misdemeanor and fined a maximum of $5,000. Also, if any agency employee or official willfully maintains a system of records without disclosing its existence and relevant details as specified above can be fined a maximum of $5,000. The same misdemeanor penalty (and $5,000 maximum fine) can be applied to anyone who knowingly and willfully requests an individual’s record from an agency under false pretenses.
Comment by Spencer — August 2, 2009 @ 11:59 am
Spencer,
It may not make any difference, but the officer did not ask for her entire SSAN; he asked only for the last four digits. She provided the entire nine digits. Regardless, the Press should not have run the video without redacting her SSAN as well as her other highly personal information. If a government agency, e.g. the police, provided the video to the Press, I believe they were obligated to redact confidential private information that would normally not be subject to disclosure under the public records laws.
Comment by Bill — August 2, 2009 @ 3:20 pm