Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Clerk charged for Joe the Plumber records search
Toledo Free Press ^ | Oct. 28 | Staff Writers

Posted on 10/28/2008 10:52:39 PM PDT by jessduntno

Clerk charged for Joe the Plumber records search

An Oct. 28 Toledo Police Department news release stated Toledo Police Records Clerk Julie McConnell, has been charged with “Gross Misconduct” for allegedly making an improper inquiry into a state database in search of information pertaining to Samuel “Joe the Plumber” Wurzelbacher on Oct. 16.

The record inquiry was made for a non-law enforcement purpose, which is a violation of both department policy and state policy governing the use of the Law Enforcement Automated Data System (LEADS) database, according to the news release.

McConnell was hired by the Toledo Police Department in April 1995. She is assigned to the Investigative Services Bureau and is a member of AFSCME Local 7.

Consistent with the bargaining agreement, a disciplinary hearing will be scheduled within the next ten days on a date and time mutually agreed upon by the City AFSCME Local 7.

Police Chief Mike Navarre said a member of the media, whom he would not name, asked McConnell to verify an address, and because the request was for a non-law enforcement matter, her searching computer records violated regulations.

(Excerpt) Read more at toledofreepress.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Politics/Elections; US: Ohio
KEYWORDS: joetheplumber; juliemcconnell; mccain; mcconnell; obamatrufile; ohio; waronjoe
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-43 next last
To: All
Police Chief Mike Navarre said a member of the media, whom he would not name, asked McConnell to verify an address, and because the request was for a non-law enforcement matter, her searching computer records violated regulations.

Right, like all Julie McConnell did was "verify an address". I am not buying that.

21 posted on 10/28/2008 11:13:48 PM PDT by pepperhead (Kennedy's float, Mary Jo's don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

If anyone wants to let the Toledo Police Dept know how they feel.

TOLEDO POLICE DEPARTMENT

please enter how you feel in the box under

Please enter any additional questions or comments regarding this program:

http://www.toledopolice.com/citizen%20survey.htm


22 posted on 10/28/2008 11:14:49 PM PDT by april15Bendovr (Free Republic & Ron Paul Cult = oxymoron)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

as of now Joe does own the town but different than so far stated......if I was the PR gig, ole Joe would sue for lawyer costs total, lost wages total and 10 bucks. Get your convictions all,everyone and smile leavin the courthouse

..on the way thru congress to the senate.


23 posted on 10/28/2008 11:23:12 PM PDT by advertising guy ( CHARITY BEGINS AT HUT !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

If Joe the plumber gets Sydney the lawyer he should be able to get justice and a fair bit of cash.


24 posted on 10/28/2008 11:25:29 PM PDT by BJungNan (Spend yesterday's money good, today's money ok. Never spend tomorrow's money)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

Guess who AFSCME endorsed for president?


25 posted on 10/28/2008 11:28:23 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (Barack Obama: In Error and arrogant -- he's errogant!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GLDNGUN

“I think in the back of people’s minds many are thinking...if this is what they are doing to a plumber who asks a question about a candidate...imagine what they will do to anyone who resists when they are in power!”

These are very good questions, and historically tend to work out poorly for the questioner. This person almost HAS to jump on the train of his popularity to give him some protection for what is to come later, most particularly if Obama wins.


26 posted on 10/28/2008 11:30:13 PM PDT by WoofDog123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: pepperhead
Right, like all Julie McConnell did was "verify an address". I am not buying that.

Wouldn't a phonebook do that, too? Especially when sourcing information is not necessary to msm when the story is juicy, I'm not buying it either.

27 posted on 10/28/2008 11:43:48 PM PDT by rvoitier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno
Violation of rights under color of law is a federal offense
28 posted on 10/28/2008 11:44:41 PM PDT by vigilante2 (Thank You Troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
Verify an address? There are dozens of legal ways any media outlet could have verified Joe’s address.
You know it's nothing more than "for public consumption".
"The little people" believe what they're told without critical thought if it's from on high. /sarcasm
29 posted on 10/28/2008 11:52:44 PM PDT by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno
The record inquiry was made for a non-law enforcement purpose, which is a violation of both department policy and state policy governing the use of the Law Enforcement Automated Data System (LEADS) database, according to the news release.

So does Joe The Plumber have some sort of record to warrant inclusion in such a database, or is this database some sort of Big Brother-ish collection of information about ordinary, law-abiding citizens? And what are the odds that this is the first time an inquiry has been made for a non-law enforcement purpose?

As long as authorities are allowed to compile and store detailed information about ordinary law-abiding citizens, such abuses and violations of privacy are guaranteed.
30 posted on 10/28/2008 11:55:32 PM PDT by AnotherUnixGeek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

Would certainly like to know who the “member of the media” is that made the request.


31 posted on 10/29/2008 12:04:07 AM PDT by taxesareforever (Quick justice for the senseless killing of Marine Lance Cpl. Robert Crutchfield.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek
So is this another person too?

so who is this Kelly woman?

32 posted on 10/29/2008 12:04:55 AM PDT by Repub4bush (FWF.....Speechless!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek
"Law Enforcement Automated Data System (LEADS) database"

This a fancy name for records stored in a computer. Since Joe probably has a drivers license, his drivers license information and address would be stored in a computer accessible state wide by law enforcement. If you have a license, your information is also stored in a computer and it is accessible by all law enforcement personnel in your state.

Where the clerk got into trouble here is that the information she accessed was not requested by law enforcement personnel acting within the scope of their duties. She really really should have known better, because once she accessed it, it was immediately known to someone at the State level. Normally, the act of searching a record by law enforcement personnel would not raise suspicions, but the circumstances surrounding the search raised a red flag in the opinion of someone at the State level. The clerk is toast.

33 posted on 10/29/2008 12:30:31 AM PDT by Enterprise (No Oil for Democrats!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: vigilante2
"Violation of rights under color of law is a federal offense"

I don't believe this qualifies under the Federal Statute. The clerk is probably not a sworn peace officer who violated someone's civil rights. However, the clerk is still in deep kim chi.

I don't know how it works in Ohio, but in Kaleefornia Law Enforcement officers, dispatchers, and clerks are given training and warned that searches of data bases unrelated to legitimate law enforcement investigations can result in severe criminal and civil penalties.

Many times in the course of duties, someone in Law Enforcement gets into a situation and is sued. The municipality employing the person normally hires a lawyer to defend the person if the action arose out of the scope of person's duties. However, unauthorized searches of data bases in not within the scope of duties of law enforcement personnel, and their departments and the municipalities will not defend them. They are on their own, and their unions must decide whether or not to hire a lawyer to defend them. And they DON'T HAVE TO! Thus, a person who screws up may face huge legal bills just to stay out of jail and may face huge civil fines.

I hope Ohio has the same penalties as Kaleefornia.

34 posted on 10/29/2008 12:37:48 AM PDT by Enterprise (No Oil for Democrats!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: blackbart.223

Is she fired or fined?

Well, good question. Here’s how it would work in socialist Canada if she were in a union up here. She would be put on probation for 2 weeks. Then her position would be declared redundant and closed, which is the only way to get rid of someone without the hassle. The union would contest the “layoff” and then she’d “bump” into another job in the same department at twice the salary. Meanwhile, her old position would be reopened, since they would change the job description, allowing them to refill a position that was declared redundant. Nothing would happen up here....you just can’t fire someone for a mistake, because it’s probably not their fault, really.


35 posted on 10/29/2008 1:14:31 AM PDT by CanaGuy (Go Harper!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

Is she the one that said “Oh, we do it all the time”?


36 posted on 10/29/2008 1:52:45 AM PDT by Hanna548
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

If he hasn’t already, Joe had better trademark, “Joe the Plumber”. If (please God) McCain wins, he’s the Swiftvets of the 2008 election, and has quite a future.


37 posted on 10/29/2008 2:52:56 AM PDT by doesnt suffer fools gladly (Liberals lie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

If you don’t support Obama, you won’t enjoy fourth amendment rights.


38 posted on 10/29/2008 4:34:25 AM PDT by ViLaLuz (2 Chronicles 7:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: F15Eagle

She gave the maximum amount allowed for Obama. No bias here. Move along.


39 posted on 10/29/2008 4:41:55 AM PDT by pabianice (Inexplicable and infuriating.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Fred
“I hate to be so harsh but this woman should be fired.”

lol I don't think thats harsh at all. She should be fired at the very least. She broke the law. She should go to prison.

40 posted on 10/29/2008 8:12:35 AM PDT by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-43 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson