Some kind of slander, maybe? If they were just making stuff up about the guy to get him fired, that would be illegal.
I’m actually surprised the police went this route rather than go right to the arrest. People often say officers should do this or that first rather than arresting someone right away.
I wonder if the employee made any more calls to the police after they talked to the boss?
I’m having a hard time imagining how the facts as presented here would be considered a crime, but obviously I’m not familiar with every state and local statute.
In Canada, it’s illegal for police to use information they have access to for their job for non-job related purposes. If the weed smoker isn’t guilty enough to be put in jail, then they’re not guilty enough for the police to be going around telling everyone that the guy is a criminal weed-smoker. Absent an actual charge or conviction, the information that the person was subject to an investigation is probably privileged.
In most of America, arrest records are public so I’m not sure that the officers would be using privileged information.
This is one of those situations where the details matter. It is probably perfectly legal for the police to tell the employer that the employee has been arrested a few times for smoking pot. After all, there are still places where arrests are published in a police blotter in the local newspaper, so the fact that someone was arrested is public information. Change it just a little bit though - the employee (Joe) really was arrested a few times for smoking pot but a police officer tells the employer about the arrest to get Joe fired because the cop objects to Joe dating the cop’s daughter and now it might be “official misconduct” since he used his authority for his own benefit.
But in this case, I think the analogy would be if the police got repeated complaints that the employee was smoking marijuana in the parking lot of his workplace - in which case involving the store manager would seem appropriate.
This is exactly my line of reasoning on this subject.
Yes, I agree. The caller was acting as an employee, and called while an employee.
How is he “using his authority” in this scenario? How is this different from any other dad reading about his daughter’s boyfriend’s arrests in the public police blotter and complaining about it to the employer? Unless he’s threatening some sort of official consequence (“Be a shame if I had to impound your car for that busted taillight I saw”) I don’t see where he’s committing “official misconduct”.
As others have said, cops are allowed to have conversations with people – even ones driven by selfish motives – without it being a crime.
That’s why I said might - was he in uniform? Driving a police car? On duty? Say he was a cop/show his shield? Did the employer already know he was a cop from prior interactions? Act like he was making this notification on behalf of the police department?
How in the hell did this turn into so many “what if this” or “What if that” scenarios?
Or questions that no here could even possibly answer?
It’s like some folks are just throwing shit against the wall to see if anything sticks.
The customer didn’t just raise some hell, he sued Walmart for racial profiling and they lost and now have to pay $4.4 million dollars.
And that is why it was the business of the employer, Walmart.
If a person is complaining about people who he’s interacting with on employer time or through contact with these people with whom he’s first exposed to at his work, then you bet the employer must be made aware.
Because the main question in the thread has been answered, and peoples’ interests have expanded the subject to include related scenarios. You know, human curiosity.
I get that but still.
I’m surprised no one asked what the cop’s shoe size was (as if that would be important–but I guess one never knows)
edit: sorry folks. I guess I’m in one of those moods or something.
I’m pretty certain that that’s a jab at the police for their well-known disinterest in things that should get their attention.
I don’t think so. Police have finite resources that have to be allocated, just like anyone else. All things being equal, if they have to pick one of two incidents to respond to first, knowing that one of them is likely bogus (like the clerk’s calls from Walmart) is going to send them to the other one first most of the time.
Why can’t the police tell the truth to an employer about the actions of one of their employees? Even if it had nothing to do with the employer’s business so far it might eventually affect the business. If you owned a business wouldn’t you want the police to let you know that one of your employees has a record of filing false charges against people with the police?
If the police were lying about this person it would be a different matter.