Thank You For Your Interest In Government; Now About Your Arrest Record
MayorBob.
Posted to Etcetera on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 07:37:47 AM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.
Normally, when you dash off a note to your local political leader it's nice to get an answer back from him or her. But, most people recognize that the top guy in government may not have enough time to deal with your problem. So you sort of expect that you'll get some sort of response from someone a little lower down on the organizational chart. But, if the answer comes to you in the form of a challenge to what you said to el jefe and the underling is dredging up facts which could only come from a government database, you probably would stop and go - WTF! Such is the case of case of Mark Romanoff from Silver Spring, Maryland.
Romanoff was highly cheesed at the use of speed cameras by Montgomery County. Thus he sent a 42 word email to Montgomery County Executive Isiah Leggett protesting same. Okay, he did refer to their use as "facistic" (sic) and "Orwellian" and he did seem to imply that the county was on the slippery slope to being a "peeping Tom" because of their use.
Sure enough, his answer didn't come from Leggett but from a member of the Montgomery County police force. Captain Tom Danskey, director of the Traffic Division, sent Romanoff a detailed response, perhaps a bit too detailed for Romanoff's comfort. Danskey kicked things off by saying the US Supreme Court had "time and again ruled" that driving on public roads gives nobody a "personal expectation of privacy." Then he mentioned what the speeding threshold was which kicked in the use of the speed cameras. So far, so good. But then Danskey veered off the course of defending speed cameras and onto a roadway containing too much information for Romanoff's comfort. Danskey mentioned how much more money it would have cost Romanoff to have a police officer pull him over and cite him. He mentioned the number of times Romanoff had been cited for speeding and on what dates and what type of vehicle he was operating. Note from the link that Romanoff had mentioned none of this in his email to Leggett.
Romanoff believes that it's "appalling" that his brief note to Leggett resulted in Danskey dredging his files to have his citations thrown back in his face. He saw this alleged invasion of privacy to have justified his original complaint of the inappropriate use of technology. Due to the tone of Danskey's letter as well as the information it contained, Romanoff wants an answer from Leggett. The county's ethics code (pg 21 of pdf doc) does mention:"A public employee must not intimidate, threaten, coerce or discriminate against
any person for the purpose of interfering with that person's freedom to engage in political activity."
The question being, was Danskey intimidating, threatening, coercing or discriminating against Romanoff or was he simply completely responding to the complainant? What are the privacy rights of a citizen to things like traffic records? The newspaper.com mentions a similar case up in Canada. But, is that comparison fair? Both cases involved complaints about speed cameras. But in the Canadian case, police apparently responded by trying to frame the complainant as payback for complaining. In the Montgomery County case, a police official simply went to the county database and provided facts and figures to correspond with the complainant.
< Hot Rod Bob Novak Gets A Crash Course In Life
Can You Hear Me Now With That Instrument Of Death In Your Hands? >
