Protected class? What does that have to do with anything? I’m not making an Equal Protection argument. I’m suggesting that the line between “celebrity” and “one exercising his right to political speech” is pretty thin, and we might frown upon selective investigation based upon the exercise of political rights.
OK, OK, fair enough. I didn’t clearly specify I was talking about the outside world, and not the boards.
In fact, I must say, for all the shit I fling (deserved shit, mind you) at hypocrisy by liberals here, this is an area in which our liberals have been very consistent; those who support privacy rights tend to do it across the board, and are quick to condemn regardless of the political affiliation of the players involved. So no – I was griping about the World, not the Boards.
In a way, isn’t Joe’s situation very similar to someone who actually did win the lottery? I mean, how much cash is he probably making right now going on Fox News and Good Morning America, etc?
Charges have been filed for unlawfully investigating Joe the Plumber. The charges in this case were not a result of the child support investigation, but another, similar search of police records by a clerk in the Toledo PD.
Seems like that answers the question whether it was illegal or not.
How so?
Are you saying that it’s reasonable to suspect that someone interested in purchasing a business might be a deadbeat dad? If so, I’m not seeing the link.
This is exactly why many citizens are reluctant to come forward to help out authorities etc.
In order to make house searches, authorities must show some cause for concern. Leaving aside the privacy issue, how is a television appearance a cause for concern ?
I think that was a different person in the article than the one talked about in the OP.
Oops, guess that was a different person — someone in the Toledo Police Department, rather than the person named in the OP.
No, no, no, no.
Step 1. Joe makes his announcement that he’s going to buy a business that would make him $X per year. Subsequent inquiries are reported on the news that Joe does not appear to have the finances to afford said business. A reasonable person might wonder where he’s going to get the money for it.
Step 2. Joe’s ex-wife hears about this, and says to herself, “I didn’t think Joe had that kind of money! Because if Joe can afford that business, we need to revisit his child support payments.” Investigation naturally follows.
Is that clearer?
Unless the information is publicly available for anyone requesting it, I do think there’s a pretty big ethical problem if this type of records are accessed for any other reasons than strictly professional ones. I do not see why Helen Jones-Kelly need to know about Joe the Plumber (am I ever tired of that name) just because he’s popped up in the debate, no matter the rationalizations. The potential for abuse is huge.
If no rules and/or laws were broken, perhaps it’s time to put some in place.
My reasonable (I hope) assumption would be that he’s going to borrow money from somebody.
It’s clearer but that’s an entirely different kettle of fish than Director of the department deciding that they should investigate him because he “quickly thrust into the public spotlight”.
Agreed. And your reasoning applies even more strongly to non-citizens.
But as far as we can tell he was just shooting off his mouth. Hell, someone saying they plan to go to Tahiti for a month shouldn’t trigger a credit check to see if he can afford it. When Joe tries to buy the business, then the appropriate parties can check. Not before.
This whole thing might tend to discourage political speech, since someone asking a question of a candidate (randomly in this case) should not feel subjected to checks by random government officials for no reason. In this case McCain was the one who made a big deal about it. If there was a complaint about lack of payment by someone triggered by the appearance that would be one thing, but someone just checking every name that comes up is another. I assume the computer system can sort by level of deadbeatedness. Even assuming Joe is behind, why should he be pushed ahead of people owing a lot more?
I have not yet seen any evidence that Kelley-Jones or her subordinate published any information about Wurzelbacher. I thought they had only admitted to running the check without revealing the results.
If any results were publicized, I say they are in clear ethical violation, regardless whether they can find a clause in the law to cover their butts.
The first incident to which I alluded might have been to the Toledo police situation and I have no problem nailing that employee for an unethical (and probably illegal) search.
I believe that the man’s privacy was violated when someone with the government abused her or his position of power by looking up Joe’s record. The government official may have done that in response to “Joe’s” statements. (“Joe” did more than just ask a question.) Or the official may have done that because “Joe” was brought up 25 times in a Presidential debate. At any rate, looking up his record sounds unjustified to me.
But once the information was leaked to the press, I don’t see that journalists were under any obligation to sit on the story that “Joe” had lied in his statements before the public or that he was behind in child support and tax payments or that he would actually benefit by Obama’s tax plan. That was relevant information to the voting public. McCain had made it relevant.
What’s the difference between a police employee and some other State department?
The only records checked by the department Kelley-Jones runs appears to be his documentation regarding earnings which are managed by that department.
The guy in the Toledo police department was poking around in files to which he could gain access, but for which he had no official purpose for his queries.
To put it in a slightly different analogous context: a person in HR who went snooping around the payroll files would be out of line to look up a co-worker’s rate follower just to see which of them had a higher salary while it would be perfectly acceptable for a person in HR to look up the records of a co-worker to determine whether the person had a currently valid W-4 on file if there was a question about the company withholding the appropriate taxes.
Had the guy in the police department run a very quick check on Wurzelbacher in connection with a statement of Wurzelbacher that implied the violation of a law and immediately dropped the inquiry when a hit appeared, I would have less problem with his actions (and he would not, now, be under investigation, himself).
ETA: Kelley-Jones authorized a query against the SETS database mentioned by black rabbit. The Toledo police records keeper did a query (or more than one queries) against the Law Enforcement Data System.
did I miss SETS somewhere in this thread? Can’t find it on the net. If you wouldn’t mind (please) explaining what kind of database it is and for discussion purposes why it’s OK to use it based on headline news as a criteria.
update: Never mind. I was looking on the first page.
That is exactly right. Expressing a desire to purchase such a business should NOT be construed as justification for an investigation. Even if you think that his ability to afford such a purchase is questionable, that doesn’t justify delving into his financial affairs. After all, people have all sorts of ways to fund these purchases, including the borrowing of money.