Well now… this is an interesting turn of events. Is this prudent and legal law enforcement or somehow a violation of presumption of innocence or privacy protections?
You’re right, mr. Mayor.
But tell you what. Bend over and kiss your ass goodbye. I give it weeks, not months.
Just curious, samclem – what is the constitutional basis for your objection, if any?
Bricker.
I just said that because it was late and I was still pissed at december. IANAL.
But, what struck me from the story that might give some grounds would be:
WHERE do they get the names and addresses? I understand that you can photograph people.
And the answer may be
So, here’s Bricker walking down the street in Chicago, it’s a not nice neighborhood but his favorite ethnic restaurant happens to exist here. He is waiting in the middle of the block for his friend who let him off and went to park the car.
All of a sudden a “flying squad” appears, rousts him and two other guys standing in a doorway. Loitering is gonna be the charge. So they make you give your name and address, ID, etc.
Now what I want to know is, can they gather this info under the guise of arresting people for things like “loitering?” They seem to let the go without charging them. They obviously just wanted the information.
Where’s minty or Sua when you need them?
Just another fine side effect of the “War On [sub]some[/sub]Drugs.”
I read an article about this subject today in the newspaper and I have to say it scares the hell out of me. From what I read it seems to excrete all over the concept of innocent until proven guilty. And unfortunately if some judge does not declare this unconstitutional soon I expect that within a year or two that every state will have a database like this, and that every person who has contact with a law-enforcement officer in any manner will find their name listed in the database as a potential suspect. I expect that within a few years every police officers standard equipment load will include a miniature digital camera and a small portable computer terminal with fingerprint scanning ability tied into an automatic fingerprint identification system ( A.F.I.S. already in use here in Houston ) and that every witness, complaintent, criminal and innocent bystander will be mug shot and fingerprinted on-site as standard operating procedure.
Orwell was not wrong, he just missed the date by about 30 years!
Peace
LIONsob
The phone book? Since when is your name and address sensitive information?
Listen, I don’t mean to alarm you folks, but the police do record information for their personal use. If you’ve had your ID run by an officer, there’s a pretty good chance that there is a computer record of you somewhere. This really doesn’t mean anything. I don’t know any cop who would go out of his way to bother you because somebody ran your plate late at night a few times, or because you got pulled over for speeding. It happens. In-house records are for officer safety purposes. I know that must sound awfully insidious to some, but really, it’s true. It’s very good to know that the house you’re going to has a schizophrenic who may or may not be on medication, or where a number of domestic situations have occurred, or where a known gang member lives, or whatever. Lots of things happen out there that are dangerous to cops but don’t necessarily end in criminal charges. This sort of information is used by police to supplement personal recollection or, often, to confirm them (“Is this the same guy I dealt with at that bar fight last week?”).
Having a state-wide database of such people is probably a bad idea, but is it that, or is it simply that “police in Delaware” compile information for use within their own jurisdictions? If so, where’s the story? Sure, I’m sure such a system can be abused. So can a lot of the information available to law enforcement – but there are systems in place to monitor what’s being accessed, and by who. (Read: just because you CAN get somebody’s criminal history or home address doesn’t mean you should, because you can easily lose your job over it when the logs are checked.)
I dunno about this. Seems kinda repugnant to me. If I’m a law-abiding citizen and have a clean record, the cops should have absolutely no interest in me and no reason to record any information about me. If I have a criminal record, anything they need to know should already be a matter of public record. Another thing that bugs me, and this should be a large contention, is that these “jump-out squads,” are apparently detaining citizens under false pretense; this has to be illegal. The database itself may not be, but their method of collecting information sure as hell is.
I would like to know exactly what information the cops are recording though; the article doesn’t say.
I once read an interview in which Kurt Vonnegut said “everything is going to get worse and never get better.” I was outraged. That was unbearably pessimistic. ---- Looks like he was right.
I believe (hope) the courts will put a stop to this kind of police intrusion, but I don’t think the courts can put a stop to this kind of police mentality.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
In many jurisdictions, if you have a driver’s license or state-issued ID, the police can call up that picture of you on the small computer in the patrol car. Obviously, your name, address, driving record, and previous history of arrests and convictions, if any, are also available to them.
I guess I don’t see how the database described above is of any additional benefit to them. It doesn’t serve as probable cause or even reasonable suspicion – that is, an officer can’t say, “I saw Bricker walking down the street, recognized him from our database of persons detained on suspicion of loitering, and therefore stopped him and searched him.”
- Rick
What happens if you apply for a job that requires a background check sometime in the future and all of a sudden this list pops up?
It seems to me that this list has the potential for screwing up someone’s life since I don’t see any way for a person to know that they are on the list, nor do I see a way to get off the list.
People could find out couldn’t they? Freedom of information and all that.
I also get a bad feeling when I read about this. While the argument that why would a law abiding person worry about such a thing can be used I as a law abiding citizen (well mostly, I like a smoke 
) would be very uncomfortable if this system came into my country.
I don’t see anything essentially new here. Whether the names of the suspects are on computer disks or in the minds of law enforcement, such a list can be valuable or subject to abuse.
The danger is harassing or accusing an innocent person. The court system is one protection against that and it isn’t perfect.
If an innocent person is NEVER wrongly accused, why have a trial?
If I remember correctly, the Manchester, NH police department tried something cute like this, and thankfully, it was struck down by one of the local justices. This violates one of the most fundamental rights we have as Americans, which is to tell the government to take a flying leap.
This is way beyond the scope of a Terry stop, and more than smacks of harassment.
Not possible. This would be a huge liability issue for the police, and trust me, they are very mindful of that. Background checks do not include in-house recordkeeping, which is confidential – this is just as much for the protection of the police as the citizens.
Background checks occur in a very regulated way. They do not include the same information as law enforcement and are handled by completely different groups. Anyone giving out information that was intended for law enforcement eyes only that cost someone a job would lose their job if discovered, and could, themselves, be sued for damages.
I realize you don’t have a background in law enforcement – I have a little. I’m not trying to back the police in everything they do, but I think you should get alarmed for the right reasons.
To be perfectly frank – confidentiality is a huge issue in law enforcement. A cop or a dispatcher can lose their job very easily for simply accessing information with which they cannot prove a genuine job-related interest, let alone passing said information to the public. There is a lot more sensitive information out there (your driver’s license, registration, and criminal history, to start) that can be accessed by law enforcement, and yet, the police are not handing those out illegally. Why would they here?
Why would it screw up someone’s life if it’s impossible for anyone but law enforcement to know if they are in the system? (Note: being in a system is not a huge deal, and any cop will know that. If they are checking their jurisdiction’s list, it is usually for safety purposes, not so they can go out of their way to screw somebody. Why would they? Information is routinely recorded through all sorts of means – data entered into the computer, video, audio – for the protection of officers, in case they are taken to court over a routine affair. Going out of your way to cause trouble for someone who has had contact with the police – even in a beneficial way such as a witness – just because they are ‘listed’, as you put it, is nonsensical.)
I don’t think the issue here is what information the police are collecting, Bricker. Unless, of course, (not to turn this into a gun debate) they’re recording names of those they feel likely to commit crimes because a person owns a gun, or some similar attribute. I think the issue is how the authorities intend to ultimately use the information they’re recording.
And as I said before, how they are apparently going about collecting the information. That’s a problem.
It’s 2014?
WAIT A MINUTE! Stop the presses! I’ve discovered The ULTIMATE list of potential future felons. And it will only cost Delaware about $7.50/hr. to compile this list.
Have some low-level bureaucratic employee in the water department, while they’re not reading the supermarket tabloid, do the following:
l. Obtain a copy of the annual report of all corporations incorporated in Delaware.
-
Turn to the page which has a photo of the CEO, the CFO, (and, for good measure, the Chief Legal Counsel).
-
Clip their photos. Paste to an index card. Copy their names.
There’s a good bet that you have a master-criminal list here. Potential, but, hey, that’s what we’re looking for. And it’s all legal.
:rolleyes:
I find this quote particularly troublesome, as it represents a mindset that’s becoming more and more prevalent among representatives of the legislative and executive branches. “Eh, I’ll just do what I want, and if it’s unconstitutional, a court’ll let me know later.” Don’t these officials have at least an obligation to obey the constitution on their own, at least implicitly? I know that the president, house and senate members, and some others have to swear to “uphold the constitution”… do state and local officials typically have to take similar oaths?
Jeff
samclem,
Such a list is already available for free. If you go to Yahoo and look up various stocks there will be links to a database which contains profiles one the corporate officers. You are just trying to rip off the states by charging for information that is already compiled and available.