Posted on 09/20/2007 4:29:27 PM PDT by decimon
BARROW COUNTY, Ga. -- A Barrow County woman says an off-duty deputy handcuffed and had her strip-searched because of a simple dispute over a power line.
“My life has never been the same since. I’m having a very hard time with it,” said Sue Worley.
A farm in Hoschton in Barrow County has been home to 60-year-old Worley all her life.
Late last year, a letter from the Georgia Transmission Corporation told her a 230 Kilovolt power line was going to go through her property. When surveyors showed up, Worley said she went down the road to talk. She said she didn’t threaten anyone, but the Barrow County deputy working with the surveyors didn’t see it that way -- the deputy called for backup.
“I saw two sheriff’s cars drive up,” said Worley. She was handcuffed, arrested and charged with disorderly conduct.
“I was in the car and I went all the way to the jail handcuffed,” she said. Worley was booked into the jail, patted down and strip searched.
“She sprayed me down with lice spray. It was so humiliating,” Worley said. “They made a criminal out of me.”
The charges were dropped, but Worley and her lawyer are suing the Georgia Transmission Company.
“It’s just pure, old-fashioned intimidation. They want people’s land and they don’t want to pay for it,” said Worley's lawyer, Don Evans. “They’re going to set their power poles wherever they want and if anybody gives them any lip, they’ll put you in jail.”
She and her lawyer said they’re suing, not just for her, but for other Georgians facing the threat of eminent domain and what they see as loss of property rights.
“I just don’t see how this could happen in a land of freedom, but we don’t have freedom anymore because people can just do anything they want to,” said Worley.
Project H.O.P.E. -- Homeowners Opposing Power Line Encroachment -- said Worley's case shows the need for the governor and legislature to draw stronger citizen-friendly laws to prevent what it calls, "preferential treatment," for power companies.
A spokesperson for the Georgia Transmission Corporation told Channel 2 they had hired a deputy because they'd had some subtle threats from other residents in the area.
Right now, it looks like the power line will go up either late next year or in early 2009.
Dude, there was a smiley on that.
“on your own property”
From the article:”Worley said she went down the road to talk.”
So,,, maybe she wasn’t on her own property.
However, the deputy that was providing security didn't arrest the woman. He called the sheriff's office and they sent other deputies to respond to the incident, and they arrested her.
The utility workers do have a legal right to be there. If you go and harass someone that has a legal right to be where they are, that is disorderly conduct, even if you remain on your own property while doing it.
The deputies that showed up after the off duty deputy called for backup are going to take him at his word that she was disorderly even if she was not misbehaving when they arrived.
So you're suggesting that this off duty officer just called in the other sheriff's deputies for the fun of it? If he did he must really like being ridiculed by his co-workers for not being able to deal with an old woman.
You think his co-workers are going to enjoy going out there and arresting an old woman and taking her to jail?
You're suggesting he is doing this to make the utility workers or the utility company happy. Why would the workers make a big deal out of this unless she was harassing them. Why would the utility company want the bad press of arresting an old woman?
She went over to them, not the other way around. Arguing with utility workers is also a pretty useless thing to do. They don't have any authority to change where the power lines go.
I find it hard to believe that officers arrested a little old woman for disorderly conduct when she didn't give them reason to do so. I also find it difficult to believe that an off duty deputy is going to call out other deputies just because a woman is standing on her own property and watching them.
LEO should not be permitted to moonlight as private security. It is a conflict of interest.
There's no evidence that he called out the other officers because of a conflict of interest, and if you want to ban deputies from having side jobs, you're going to have to pay them considerably more, because deputies don't get paid very well, and the side jobs are where they make a very large portion of their incomes. If you take away their ability to make a reasonable living, you're just going to end up with lower quality deputies.
“Dude, there was a smiley on that.
Sorry, didn’t really mean that towards you. That was more in general towards folks who nit pick about unimportant details.
Just trying to lighten things up.
The FCC has gone a long way in reliving local communities from the burden of extorting large sums from those wishing to place cell phone towers. Bottom line? Less costs to be passed on to cell phone customers. This is a case of the federal government allowing people to actually use the property they own, as opposed to the locals who think they own every square inch of the city.
I'm waiting for the day when the extremely subjective, fuzzy charge of "disorderly conduct" is canned by some good judges. How can a charge of "disorderly conduct" be proven? What is the objective standard by which a citizen would know when he is or is not engaging in "disorderly conduct"? Can there even be the necessary unlawful intent present in such circumstances?
"Disorderly conduct" translates to: "because the cop wanted to arrest you". It has no place in reasonable law, IMO.
Well, there's your problem right there.
Every tenth post on FR. ;-)
“land of freedom”
where have you been? The freedom has been lost.
Care to respond to my closing question in 199?
In my neighborhood, all the power lines are underground. I don’t know why this is not done everywhere. Not only is there no worry, about snowstorms, hurricanes, etc., less people are hitting poles with their cars, which does shut down our lines, but they are underground, so I don’t know why anyone would complain about them.
If Goodyear needs the property, they can buy it, where there is a will there is a way.
This is a completely different set of circumstances, than routing a utility or a highway.
It doesn't matter what you think anymore.
The people from your camp (including judges) have given the power to take the land by eminant domain.
Their logic? The Goodyear plant is vital to the interests of the people of Akron, just as the building of a utility line is also vital to a specific group of people.
The Michigan Supreme court recently ruled the decision to allow General Motors to build the Poletown plant was wrong. They ruled against Wayne County Michigan, when they wanted to take land to build a industrial park by the Detroit Metropolitan Airport.
So maybe you are right, what I think does not mater, but at least in Michigan, the State Supreme court still has some sway.
By the way what is your camp? If you really practiced what you preached, you would not travel on any public road built by using eminent domain, or use any electricity distributed over any power line built on a government obtained right of way. You remind me of the Kennedys who are for wind power, except in their back yard.
Um....I doubt it.
If that’s all that happened, a lawyer wouldn’t be taking the case. Much of her claims would be documented in the jail system itself, the paperwork would be accessible to her, and she would have given permission for her lawyer to have copies of the paperwork from the county.
Well I see that you live in Ohio, but I do not which county. But here in Lake County the Deputies are pretty well paid IMO. With an added benefit of driving their cruiser home considerably cuts the cost of living
So you're suggesting that this off duty officer just called in the other sheriff's deputies for the fun of it? If he did he must really like being ridiculed by his co-workers for not being able to deal with an old woman.
Your above does not take in to account that if he arrest the woman he would have to leave his off duty security job to take her away. His surveyor charges would be unprotected.
You think his co-workers are going to enjoy going out there and arresting an old woman and taking her to jail?
No, but I do believe that they will take their fellow deputy’s word that the woman was disorderly.
You're suggesting he is doing this to make the utility workers or the utility company happy. Why would the workers make a big deal out of this unless she was harassing them. Why would the utility company want the bad press of arresting an old woman?
What I am suggesting is that harassment is often a matter of perception. The property owner did not believe that she was harassing anyone but the officer did. I believe that the officer’s perception could be unconsciously altered by his employment with the utilities.
Spending time with these surveyors long enough he is going to form friendships with them.
It is likely that if he has been with these surveyors for a few months that other land owners have stopper the surveyors and asked similar questions. The surveyors after a time would start to become irritated by these questions as would the officer. Over time the officer might get a little short tempered and confrontational. If the old woman did not back down right away he may just decide to arrest her.
It is the personal relationship with the off duty employer (or their employees) that I see as the problem. It has the potential to change the way that a LEO perceives the behavior of those who interact with those he is hired by.
Arguing with utility workers is also a pretty useless thing to do….I find it hard to believe that officers arrested a little old woman for disorderly conduct when she didn't give them reason to do so.
She said she was asking questions not arguing. As I said above disorderly is a matter of perception. I suspect that the officer told her to leave the vicinity of the surveyors and she balked at being told to leave her own property. The officer having been in this situation again and again over the months of doing this part time job decided she was being disorderly.
We both are just surmising what happened because we have only the woman’s side of things. But this is my take.
Um...I don’t know, and, um, neither do you. So save your “um” for someone else.
The rest of your post is possible.
Are they going to PAY her for the land use AND for the fact her ENTIRE PROPERTY will now lose value?
Seems they are taking without paying.
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.