In Hudson, Ohio, a cop who accidentally stuck his cruiser in the mud didn’t much like it when a passer-by took pictures of the incident.
I wouldn’t like it much either. But I wouldn’t have the power to do what this cop did: radio for a fellow officer to stop the photographer for no good reason, then confiscate the smart card on the digital camera and erase the images.
This confrontation was caught on video tape, and the city suspended the officer for one day. The photographer is suing the city for $25,000, saying his civil rights were violated.
I’m usually a defender of the cops, even if, in hindsight, they didn’t choose the absolute best course, because I do think they need some leeway when they’re in high-pressure situations.
This doesn’t come close.
The city’s one-day suspension is a joke. The officer’s abuse of his position was blatant. I’m not sure I see how he could have possibly believed this was appropriate, and how his supervisors can possibly believe he should remain employed.
Story time: A relative of mine was driving through that very town once, and got hit by a drunk driver (totalled the car). The driver turned out to be the chief’s brother. The cop said nothing to my relative, just brushed the guy off and took him home, didn’t even take out his pad.
Yeah, that’s fucked up. The cop threatened to “make his life a living hell”, which I would assume was well within the power of a police officer.
And it was just pics of the police car getting towed out of some mud. That cop seems to have some significant mental issues. The guy who’s suing is asking for psychological testing of officers, which seems quite appropriate.
Not to hijack this thread or anything, but it’s stuff like this that makes me wary about “national ID cards” and similar attempts to centralize all our identity information. Just imagine what kind of abuses someone like the insecure cop in the OP could do if he had easy access to your personal data.
Yeah, I know, it’s already possible for folks in authority to abuse their position and do crazy things with your information. But why make it easier?
I hope he wins his case, that was a violation of his rights, and such things need to be stopped, a strong message needs to be sent as a deterrant for other officers of the law who might be tempted to do such things.
On preveiw: rjung I agree, the idea frightens me too. :eek:
Small town cops can be sooo incredibly stupid. I agree that a one day suspension and counselling for the officer is way too light. His actions, to me, clearly violate 2921.45. Interfering with civil rights of the Ohio Criminal code. What a jagoff.
And, to once again emphasize the over-litigiousness of America, I’ll note that the guy who was stopped and had his photos arrest is suing for half a million dollars. While I fully sympathisize with the guy and I think he was wronged, how can what happened to him be worth $500,000?
I don’t know about the amount he’s asking for either, I suppose it’s symbolic, he wants them to get a “hard spanking” from the judge, not a slap on the wrist that they can shrug off. I hope he wins and that the damages awarded are substantial, and not just a slap on the wrist.
Local police are searching for two photos who were involved in the robbery of a local QuikPhoto. The photos should be considered armed and overexposed.
The same way it can be worth $1,000, the city’s counter-offer. 500K is excessive. 1K is insulting. I don’t know what price tag I would put on this incident, but it would definitely be enough to send the message to the cops in that town that their actions will have consequences.
That’s what he asked for to settle. According to the story, it seems he’s suing for 25,000. Must have got a sensible lawyer.
Anyways, punitive damages are supposed to be just that - punitive. Too small and the town will be going, “Shit, that’s all? We’ll do that every day of the week!”
Well I don’t think this guy suffered $25,000 of damages. He should be refunded for his time, I don’t know what this guy does for a living or what he was doing at the time her was pulled over. But I think a fair rate would be to guesstimate what a rough hour of this guy’s time was worth and compensate him for that (if it was over an hour then 2 hours worth.)
Something I’ve never understood about punitive damages, they’re supposed to punish the person who did something. I can understand the reason, if you break a contract that costs another company $500,000 then yes, you should obviously have to pay that other company $500,000. And I also agree you should have to pay more than that out of your pocket because if you only lose what you shouldn’t have taken in the first place then there’s little reason for you to not just do the same thing again and again.
But the punitive damages IMO don’t need to go to the aggrieved party, I think the aggrieved party should be compensated for the amount they lost + whatever amount we can assume that lost money would have earned in interest over the period for which it was unjustly not present in the company’s coffers. But the punitive damages could still serve the needed purpose of punishing the party that acted inappropriately without creating the overly-litigious situation that arises when these huge damages go to the aggrieved party. The damages should instead be paid to the jurisdiction where the trial takes place, I don’t see it as being necessarily just that punitive damages go to a party that has done nothing to earn any right to them.
That cop deserves to lose his job. I hear that in the Navy, it is a career killer to ground your ship. How can it be okay for a frickin’ police officer to ground his cruiser on a damned median, unlawfully pull over a law abiding citizen, threaten him with harassment under the color of authority, and wrongfully take private property?
Now that I think more about it, the cop should go to jail.
If the city refuses to fire that jackass cop, the city should be soaked for every dime. Like most others here, I question whether the photographer is entitled to a windfall because of his experience, but the city certainly deserves to be financially punished bigtime for their callous attitude toward a blatant abuse of power.
I only have the news report to go on, so we probably don’t have all the facts, but the article says: “Now the two are headed for court, with Bell suing Devore and the city for more than $25,000 in punitive damages” and “Bell asked for $500,000 and new police department procedures, including psychological testing of officers, to settle the complaint. The city offered $1,000.” It sounded to me like he was seeking $475,000 in non-punitive (i/e actual) damages. Relying only on the article (which I fully admit is a bad idea), I thought that number was insanely high. Punitive damages of $25,000 is probably well in the ballpark, but $475,000 in actual damages is ridiculous.
First, have trouble believing that the guy would have been dumb enough to yell “stupid fuck” at the cop, although i concede that it’s possible.
Second, what does he mean when he says that he pulled the guy over “in an attempt to see if he needed anything”? Either the guy broke the law by making an illegal u-turn, and deserved to be pulled over, or he didn’t make an illegal u-turn and the cop had no reason to pull him over except his own petty anger at having pictures taken of his predicament.
Third, what grounds did he have to take the camera at all, given that it was entirely unconnected to the guy’s alleged offence, which was an illegal u-turn? The idea that the camera may have contained any evidence relevant to this is ridiculous.
