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 ...
Right, like all Julie McConnell did was "verify an address". I am not buying that.
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
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.
If Joe the plumber gets Sydney the lawyer he should be able to get justice and a fair bit of cash.
Guess who AFSCME endorsed for president?
“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.
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.
Would certainly like to know who the “member of the media” is that made the request.
so who is this Kelly woman?
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.
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.
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.
Is she the one that said “Oh, we do it all the time”?
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.
If you don’t support Obama, you won’t enjoy fourth amendment rights.
She gave the maximum amount allowed for Obama. No bias here. Move along.
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.
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.