Couple Who Catch Cop Speeding Could Face Charges 876
a_nonamiss writes "A Georgia couple, apparently tired of people speeding past their house, installed a camera and radar gun on their property. After it was installed, they caught a police office going 17MPH over the posted limit. They brought this to the attention of the local police department, and are now being forced to appear in front of a judge to answer to charges of stalking."
Well... the cop changed his mind. (Score:5, Informative)
Interesting story.
This is going nowhere (Score:5, Informative)
A person commits the offense of stalking when he or she follows, places under surveillance, or contacts another person at or about a place or places without the consent of the other person for the purpose of harassing and intimidating the other person.
The key phrase here is "for the purpose of harassing and intimidating". The statute goes on to define this:
"For the purposes of this article, the term "harassing and intimidating" means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes emotional distress by placing such person in reasonable fear for such person's safety or the safety of a member of his or her immediate family, by establishing a pattern of harassing and intimidating behavior, and which serves no legitimate purpose."
In order to convict the people in this case the state of Georgia would have to prove they were causing the officer emotional distress and "establish a pattern" of behavior. From what is shown the office got caught once, and that does not constitute a pattern, therefore there is no harassment and no stalking. (There are also several other problems if you apply the facts to the law such as the emotional distress--is the officer suffering from depression because he got caught speeding? And you have the defense of legitimate purpose; the couple could easily argue there is a legitimate purpose).
This is just a case of the police force trying to intimidate someone who caught an officer doing something maybe they should not have been doing. The problem is that when this hits big in the media it is going to be a larger embarrassment than if the police department just told the people the truth or lied and said it was official business.
Re:This is going nowhere (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Well... the cop changed his mind. (Score:5, Informative)
For those that are too lazy to read either article, it seems that they were also emailing the officer in question about his speeding and he wanted some kind of court order to prevent them from continuing to email them. Neither article clearly specifies what exactly the "stalking" was referring to: the actual recording of the speeding event, or the constant emails he received from them (or perhaps both).
Call 'em and tell 'em how stupid this is... (Score:5, Informative)
135 W Cherokee Ave
Suite 368
Cartersville, Georgia 30120
Phone (770) 387-5080
Fax (770) 387-5085
Office Hours: 8:00 am - 5:00 pm
T. Joseph Campbell, District Attorney
Re:Call 'em and tell 'em how stupid this is... (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.daily-tribune.com/NF/omf/daily_tribune
The police officer has withdrawn the complaint.
RTFA. (Score:3, Informative)
In order to convict the people in this case the state of Georgia would have to prove they were causing the officer emotional distress and "establish a pattern" of behavior. From what is shown the office got caught once, and that does not constitute a pattern, therefore there is no harassment and no stalking.
You should have spent less time on your post, and more time reading the article(s). They repeatedly emailed him about the matter, and he felt it was harassment. We haven't seen the emails, now have we?
The second article says he wanted to meet with the couple to ask them to stop emailing him. They refused, and when it came down to decision time, he asked the judge to drop the request for an arrest warrant.
I'm pretty tired of speeding being too high a priority in this nation; there's only indirect links between speeding and collisions/injuries/deaths, but it is a mountain made out of a molehill because insurance companies and "public safety officials" want us to believe that speed is the only, or primary, factor in crashes.
That said- this couple were treading on the fine line of harassment AND the cop took the "high road", backing down. Much of the whiny comments posted under this story are unjustified.
Re:Believe it or not... (Score:3, Informative)
Bad idea. The dashcam will effectively implicate both drivers. It'll be obvious from the video that not only was one car blocking the road, but that the other had sufficient time to stop, and both drivers will be charged with a traffic violation. Probably better to find a friend on the police force to periodically check out the area where she does this, particularly during times when she's likely to be driving down the road. Once caught, I'm sure she won't repeat the action.
Re:Believe it or not... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The police are not there to protect the citizen (Score:3, Informative)
In order to protect law enforcement, certainly.
Like when the original restrictions were allowed to sunset and we were assured by Millions of Moms that we'd be awash in ruthless killing machines [bradycampaign.org]. We have to do something to protect our kind hearted, well intentioned, peace loving peace officers, whether from violence thirsty lunatics with sandbagged machine gun nests or from speed gun toting stalker weirdo suburbanite couples. These people, hell bent on their vigilante campaigns against docile doe eyed public servants, have to be stopped.
Re:Quis custodiet custodes ipsos? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I see this all the time. (Score:1, Informative)
1) speeding if the siren & lights are on. (It also specifies WHERE the lights have to be, and interestingly the newer police cars where the lights try to "blend in" to the car DO NOT have lights in the required locations.. hmm...)
2) Matching a speeders speed to determine how fast they are going, in lieu or in addition to a radar reading.
The speeding to catch up to suspected speeders, and miscellaneous other speeding is all speeding unless the flashers are on though.
I like the situtation in Pennsylvania -- someone who got a speeding ticket argued it's illegal to park in the ditch (as the police running speed traps tend to do), and successfully got his ticket invalidated. So now the police there running speed traps have to sit with the gumballs going 8-). Driving through I still saw them catch plenty of speeders.. and honestly, if a speeder is so oblivious as to blow buy a police car WITH flashers running, well, they probably aren't paying attention to the road and deserve a ticket 8-).
Re:The police are not there to protect the citizen (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The police are not there to protect the citizen (Score:4, Informative)
Cops are people.
There are good people and there are bad people.
Therefore, there are good cops and bad cops.
Nonsense argument.
Cats are animals.
There are furry animals and there are scaly reptilian animals.
Therefore, there are furry cats and scaly reptilian cats.
Re:Moo (Score:5, Informative)
But the police are allowed to speed (Score:2, Informative)
Impeding traffic is ILLEGAL. (Score:3, Informative)
No, it's most emphatically not, at least in Georgia, and in most states as well.
Here's the code [ganet.org] (your state may vary, but most states are very similar):
Note the reference to the "normal speed of traffic," not "the speed limit." Also, more specifically to these idiots who decide to be do-gooders and prevent people from passing them:
So if you (and by "you," I'm talking to the reader of this post, not the parent, who I think agrees with me) deliberately travel in a passing lane to impede traffic, you're breaking the law just as badly as anyone who might be speeding. (At least in Georgia; and as I said, most states have very similar laws.) So if you do it, stop being an idiot and doing something just as bad and dangerous as the people you're trying to stop.
Drop it. (Score:5, Informative)
cop drops complaint [daily-tribune.com]
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Moo (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The police are not there to protect the citizen (Score:1, Informative)
The mere fact that he has pointed out to you that there is no repercussion for speeding from his fellow officers should be an indication that he believes he is above the law. Maybe not all laws, but at least the ones pertaining to motor vehicle speed limits, etc. And maybe that's how it all starts - with the "inconvenient" laws being disregarded because they don't apply to him or his coworkers. Maybe not - Maybe your friend is so pure that he won't assume to be more and more above the law. Then again, if he were so pure, he wouldn't breaking these laws, would he?
Also, you say that on a daily basis he deals with bad people that in turn call him a bad person, and he has seen in the past many atrocious things, but there are many other people in the world that see just as many terrible things (soldiers, nurses, medical doctors, firefighters, etc) - does that entitle them to speed when they're off duty, or even worse? I don't think so, and most normal people wouldn't think they are exempt either.
If nothing else, police officers should be even more responsible for their actions, since they are supposed to be setting an example for everyone else, whether on or off duty. And if they do slip up (and everyone does!), they should own up to the fact that while off duty, in a non-emergency situation, they are just like everyone else, and responsible for their actions.
Maybe you should re-evaluate your friend and his motivations. Maybe you could approach him and point out to him that although he can avoid speeding tickets, if he ever gets in to an accident, and hurts anyone, or worse, kills someone while speeding, he is not going to get a "walk" for it.
Re:Desert island (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The police are not there to protect the citizen (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The police are not there to protect the citizen (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The police are not there to protect the citizen (Score:4, Informative)
The following states require only ONE person to be aware of it being taped. That can be the person recieving the call. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolinas, North Dakota, Ohio
The follow require all parties to consent. California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan Montana ("the law does not apply to public officials or employees speaking in the course of their duties, to anyone speaking at a public meeting, or to anyone who has been warned of the recording." I think cops are public officals.)
New Hampshire (A misdemeanor if you have only one, felony if you have none) Pennsylvania ("consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication.")
Washington
Other Vermont "There is no legislation specifically addressing interception of communications in Vermont, but the state's highest court has held that surreptitious electronic monitoring of communications in a person's home is an unlawful invasion of privacy. Vermont v. Geraw, 795 A.2d 1219 (Vt. 2002); Vermont v. Blow, 602 A.2d 552 (Vt. 1991). The state's highest court, however, also has refused to find the overhearing of a conversation in a parking lot unlawful because that conversation was "subject to the eyes and ears of passersby." Vermont v. Brooks, 601 A.2d 963 (Vt. 1991)."
from http://www.rcfp.org/taping/ [rcfp.org]
The Police are Henchman for the truely Evil (Score:2, Informative)
You, my friend, don't live in Connecticut. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Cops are less responsible than fry cooks (Score:3, Informative)
Similarly, that guy who was tazered and pepper sprayed for refusing to present his ID card in a college library was just being an asshole. There's no reason to tazer an asshole, and it was downright abusive (if not criminal) for them to do so. They're menat to ARREST law-breaking assholes. If they don't want to move, carry them. If they violently throw off your grip, THEN you spray and taze 'em. If they throw a punch, beat 'em until they go down (but not AFTER they go down.) If they draw a gun, blow their fucking heads off (but stop shooting if they drop the gun.) How hard is that to comprehend?
Re:The police are not there to protect the citizen (Score:3, Informative)
Actually no, they [wikipedia.org] did use a semi-automatic weapon [wikipedia.org].