Etcetera

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.

Tags: edited by Port1080, written by MayorBob, speed cameras, privacy rights, public records, inappropriate use of government database (all tags)

This story: 9 comments (0 from subqueue)
Post a Comment
4

Not private

profwhat.

Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 10:25:09 AM EST

5.00 (informative)

Your traffic violations aren't private.  Perhaps you imagined that they were sitting somewhere in a high-security database, accessible only to police officers equipped with rubber gloves, nondisclosure agreements, and search warrants.  Not so.  It's a criminal conviction, like any other, and criminal convictions in this country are a public record.  Traffic convictions in particular are recorded at the court, and also by the DMV.  The DMV keeps all this stuff on file, so they know when and if to suspend your license.

I'll bet the police guy just pulled this dude's DMV record, and used that to answer him.  This should strike you as intimidating only if you for some reason were under the impression that the DMV was not keeping track of your driving record, and that those "points" people keep talking about are part of some fun game somewhere.

5

^ 4

Re: Not private

pO157.

Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 10:45:21 PM EST

none

At least in my state the average person has to go through some legwork to find the driving record of another motorist. Fill out a state DMV form. Pay a fee. Wait several days for a response (if one is granted). The cops, of course, can type it all in to their computer and find out immediately. Of course, access to the database through that route should be for official police business only, not to reply to some smarmy resident's letter.

Did the cop in question use any official police route or method to query the complainer's record? Was it done outside of normal procedure or without proper cause? If so, then I believe that should be considered out of bounds.

As noted by others before me, if the guy did come across as a real whack job in his missive I probably would have just ignored it or sent back a quick "Thanks for your comments" type of reply rather than escalate it further.

6

^ 5

Re: Not private

profwhat.

Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:00:20 AM EST

none

I will never understand the notion that public officials should turn a blind eye to data that is publicly accessible to the rest of the world.  Anyone in the public could have gotten their hands on this information; if they didn't like slow DMV bureaucracy, they could've gone through one of several private services that aggregate and then resell criminal record data (check Google).  So why treat this information as being as private as the guy's underwear?  It's not underwear; it's a winter coat.  Everyone can see it.  Maybe one day a government will put it all online for free.

You think cops shouldn't see or use this information unless it is part of "official police business."  Fine; in general, cops shouldn't use any of their toys for anything but official business.  But responding to a citizen complaint is official business.  I am a bit surprised that you think the better outcome here would have been to ignore the guy's letter.  In an ideal world, everyone with a complaint about their government should get as detailed and clear response as this guy got.

7

^ 6

Re: Not private

pO157.

Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:52:28 AM EST

5.00 (astute)

I will never understand the notion that public officials should turn a blind eye to data that is publicly accessible to the rest of the world.  Anyone in the public could have gotten their hands on this information; if they didn't like slow DMV bureaucracy, they could've gone through one of several private services that aggregate and then resell criminal record data (check Google).  So why treat this information as being as private as the guy's underwear?  It's not underwear; it's a winter coat.  Everyone can see it.  Maybe one day a government will put it all online for free.

Everybody can see it. But if the police officer utilized databases that were restricted to law enforcement to bypass the DMV bureaucracy that is a problem. Anyway what was the reason to reply to a query about public policy by citing the guys criminal record?

8

^ 4

Worse than you think

Lou.

Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:03:25 PM EST

none

Thousand of insurance agents like me can access the DMV records whenever we want.  In fact, I sold three auto polices today and I ran a motor vehicle report on each one.  

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

9

^ 8

Re: Worse than you think

thefadd.

Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 11:20:13 PM EST

none

Why, that's horrible! Verified, trustworthy information was made freely and quickly available for purposes of transacting business? I, for one, am shocked to find such behavior occurring here!

Seriously, they should outsource that stuff. Three independent companies can't get my credit score right but the government maintains my complete, accurate driving record? They're making capitalism look bad.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

1

the answer being

songofthepogo.

Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 03:18:56 PM EST

3.50

was Danskey intimidating, threatening, coercing or discriminating against Romanoff

yes.

2

^ 1

Let me play devil's advocate for a moment.

MayorBob.

Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 07:22:19 PM EST

none

How exactly was Danskey "intimidating, threatening, coercing or discriminating" against Romanoff?  Romanoff ripped off an inchoate bitch note to Leggett about speed cameras -- to wit, they're fascist and Orwellian.  He wasn't threatening Leggett or county officials with any sort of action.  Thus Leggett tells Danskey to handle it and Danskey apparently decides, while he's answering Romanoff's ill-formed complaint, maybe he ought to deal with facts.  What better set of facts to present Romanoff than to tell him what his public traffic citations would have cost him had they been issued by a human officer?  It wasn't like Danskey did anymore than respond with a private communication to Romanoff.  Romanoff is the one who opened his personal data to public view by making sure the news media learned about it.

Having said that, don't think I'm a proponent of speed or red light cameras.  It has been documented that red light cameras can be set so that they're taking pictures of cars which are in an intersection on the yellow.  Speed cameras, like other forms of radar, can give false readings.  They also take pictures of the car and the license plate and, at times, the resolution on those cameras is so poor that identifying the actual car becomes guesswork for someone.  Also, there is no certainty that the person behind the wheels of the car that gets dinged by a red light or a speed camera is the person who ends up getting the ticket.  In retrospect, Danskey probably would have been better off had he stayed away from Romanoff's driving record.  But, I fail to find that Romanoff should have felt intimidated, threatened, coerced or discriminated against in this matter.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

3

^ 2

Re: Let me play devil's advocate for a moment.

songofthepogo.

Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:47:48 AM EST

none

i should have elaborated in my previous post.  i'm of the opinion that Danskey could have made his arguments clearly and convincingly without needing to include Romanoff's personal details.  perhaps Danskey had only the best intentions when he chose to so specifically illustrate his points, but if it were me receiving such a letter i do think i'd feel there was an intent to intimidate.  i guess i'm saying i don't find Romanoff's interpretation of the intent of the letter to be beyond the pale of rational thought (though i've not decided whether or not he's had an overreaction).  i feel this way despite the fact that Romanoff's initial letter (which i've not read, to be honest) may have been just one, ginormous and rude rant.  that is, regardless of the tone of the original letter, a response intending to intimidate the complainant into silence (let's assume, for the sake of argument, that it was intentional) is inappropriate.  

and y'know, if i were Leggett and had received a letter that sounded like it'd been written by a half-witted lunatic, i think i would've simply chosen to ignore it, rather than issue any kind of response at all.

This story: 9 comments (0 from subqueue)
Post a Comment