Orange County, FL Sheriff abusing his LE powers?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Spieler

Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2003
Messages
650
Location
McDonough, GA, USA
It seems Orange County, FL Sheriff Beary doesn't like being called a fat body - so he used his LE position to access the citizen's DL data and wrote her a nice little letter - at home.

Story can be found here.


ORLANDO, Fla. -- Orange County's sheriff may have broken the law when he used driver's license records to track down a woman who wrote a newspaper to criticize his staff's use of Taser stun guns and described him as too fat for basic police work, critics say.

Orange County Sheriff Kevin Beary had his aides use the records to get the address of Alice Gawronski so he could send her a scathing letter, which some say violated federal privacy law. It is illegal to access a driver's license database to obtain personal information, except for clear law-enforcement purposes, under the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994.

"I recently read your slanderous remarks about the Orange County Sheriff's Office in the Orlando Sentinel," Beary wrote Gawronski on March 23. "It is unfortunate that people ridicule others without arming themselves with the facts before they slander a law enforcement agency or individual."

Gawronski said, "I thought I was exercising my First Amendment right of free speech -- expressing an opinion in an open forum about a paid public official." She considered Beary's letter a form of intimidation.

Violators of the driver's privacy act can be sued in U.S. District Court for damages of at least $2,500, punitive damages, attorney's fees and all other relief the court determines to be appropriate.

"If I were her, I'd sue and get him in front of a jury. He'd probably get laughed out of the courtroom," said Chris Hoofnagle, the senior counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center. "This is the most common problem with surveillance -- who's watching the watchers."

But sheriff's officials said Tuesday that it was legal to look up Gawronski's address on the driver's database. Sheriff's spokesman Jim Solomons said responding to a resident's concern is well within Beary's official duties.

The issue arose when Gawronski's letter appeared in the Sentinel on March 10. The Winter Park mother of four said her concerns about Tasers peaked when an Orlando police officer zapped a suspect handcuffed to a hospital bed to obtain a urine specimen.

In her letter, she referred to a televised news conference last June when Beary allowed himself to be zapped with a Taser to demonstrate their safety. Seeing Beary incapacitated by 50,000 volts and "in an obvious state of duress" convinced her the stun guns should not be used, she wrote.

Gawronski also wrote that Beary appeared so overweight and out of shape that she doubted he could arrest anyone without a stun gun. She suggested that if deputies were more fit, they might not need to resort to zapping suspects.

Beary said he was a victim of slander.

"During my Taser incident, I was never under any duress," he wrote Gawronski, adding that his heart activity was monitored by a doctor during the demonstration. Before the test, the 5-foot, 10-inch Beary estimated his weight at 290 pounds.
 
Police abusing their power? Naaaaaa, that never happens :rolleyes:


Note: This should not tarnish all officers. Many are low-pay guys who do our country good.


However, the entire concept of police lends itself to the logical conclusion of abuse of power. I don't blame the police men themselves, but rather their institution, after all, they are human. Humans are not perfect. Put one human above another and.....you get the picture. It is a cycle. It is an escalation.


This is why there should never be a monopoly of firepower. The founders were brilliant. What happened since then?
 
Eh, nobody's totally right here.

The Sheriff abused his powers. A better response than a private letter would have been a public letter to the editor. The newspapers always seem to love it when writers bicker, and having the Sheriff involved only makes it jucier.

The lady's naive. Does she want cops to wrestle with a guy and get Hep C/other nasty blood and fluid-borne illnesses or a knife in the ribs? Or hit them with batons and get cries of Rodney King? Or OC spray them and have them fight back through the pain? Nobody's saying tasers are 100% safe, but they're less damaging than shooting somebody. It'll take a while until LE organizations figure out when it is and when it isn't OK to taser people.
 
Would everyone have been happier if he had looked up her name in the phone book? or maybe public taxable property records, since she has an unlisted phone number? She may want privacy, but SHE is the one who put her name in public places, like the newspaper.

Do I understand that "free speech" means that she gets to air her "opinions" all she wants, but when he (more civilly) responds privately, that's a horrendous offence?

A little perspective, please.
 
ORLANDO, Fla. -- Orange County's sheriff may have broken the law when he used driver's license records to track down a woman who wrote a newspaper to criticize his staff's use of Taser stun guns and described him as too fat for basic police work, critics say.

Well, he is a bit of a porker. Is it slander if it's true?
 

Attachments

  • Sheriff Kevin Beary.jpg
    Sheriff Kevin Beary.jpg
    4.7 KB · Views: 101
It doesn't matter a bit that she put her name in the public domain. He didn't access it in that domain; he accessed records that may only be used for a legitimate law-enforcement purpose, which he didn't have.
 
If I was a Orange county resident I wouldn't vote for him. I think he abused his office, and I hope he is sanctioned for it.


nero
 
Buzz Knox said:
It doesn't matter a bit that she put her name in the public domain. He didn't access it in that domain; he accessed records that may only be used for a legitimate law-enforcement purpose, which he didn't have.

You are probably right, although that's for two lawyers, a judge, and perhaps a jury, to sort out. So what?

My point is that she ran her mouth off in public, and he politely answered her in private. Would it have been better the other way around?

I understand that many folks feel uncomfortable being reminded that police have access to all sorts of information about them, but if they have any intelligence, they are more uncomfortable with the fact than with being reminded of it. After all, it is true, and has whatever potential for abuse it has, regardless of whether any reminders show up in ones face.

In this case, all the chief did was answer a letter, and with a lot more couth than the original letter (other than where he got the address). So far, I still say "No big deal."
 
In this case, all the chief did was answer a letter, and with a lot more couth than the original letter (other than where he got the address). So far, I still say "No big deal."

Well, he violated the law and his department's own regulations, so I think that's a big deal. And if he's cut slack here, that sets a standard. The police are entrusted with information to do their job. Sending a private letter had nothing to do with his job as if he wanted to refute the bad publicity, he had to to it publiclly. As a public relations expert, he's a failure. As a civil servant, he's a failure.
 
I personally don't think he did anything wrong at all. He didn't show up at her house and tase her!! All he did was write her a polite letter rebutting her statements in the paper. If I were him I probably would have sent it back the newspaper, but a letter to a constituent is not big deal in my opinion.
 
This sheriff is an idiot. He obviously abused his office. What's really stupid about it is that he could have just sent his letter to the newspaper and asked them to forward it to the author.

This shows an obvious comtempt for the privacy laws he is charged with enforcing. It also shows he has stupid staffers since they just did this rather than pointing out that it was illegal and suggesting another route.
 
Flatrock has it..

>>>What's really stupid about it is that he could have just sent his letter to the newspaper and asked them to forward it to the author.<<<

My thoughts exactly! . This guy should be tarred and feathered. This is a somewhat minor infraction but it sets a VERY dangerous precident. One of continuous abuse if allowed to continue.

But have no fear, they are here to protect us.

:rolleyes:
 
Well, he violated the law and his department's own regulations, so I think that's a big deal. And if he's cut slack here, that sets a standard. The police are entrusted with information to do their job. Sending a private letter had nothing to do with his job as if he wanted to refute the bad publicity, he had to to it publiclly. As a public relations expert, he's a failure. As a civil servant, he's a failure.

You say he violated the law. He says he didn't. The matter has not yet been adjudicated. You say he violated his department's own regulations. I haven't seen that regulation yet. Do you have a copy?

Who said he wanted to refute the bad publicity? Maybe he figured most folks knew better, but this person would understand a private explanation without carrying on a name-calling feud in public. If he felt he was educating her, it would be far more diplomatic to do this in private than in public.

You can't find out whether he's a PR failure without doing a proper poll of the audience he's supposed to be concerned with. You say he's a failure as a civil servant, but I think that might be better judged by those whom he serves.

No big deal.
 
My point is that she ran her mouth off in public, and he politely answered her in private. Would it have been better the other way around?

I understand that many folks feel uncomfortable being reminded that police have access to all sorts of information about them, but if they have any intelligence, they are more uncomfortable with the fact than with being reminded of it. After all, it is true, and has whatever potential for abuse it has, regardless of whether any reminders show up in ones face.

In this case, all the chief did was answer a letter, and with a lot more couth than the original letter (other than where he got the address). So far, I still say "No big deal."
The Chief did not "answer a letter" ... she wrote to a newspaper, she did not write to him. And it's debatable that his "answer" was polite. I tend to agree that the sheriff's letter was an attempt at intimidation.

And despite the fact that the matter has not (yet) been adjudicated, I think it should be very clear that since the letter was sent to a newspaper and not to him, there was no law enforcement purpose attached to looking up her driver's license data and therefore the sheriff (and/or whichever staffer did the actual lookup) did violate the law.
 
Tarred and Feathered?!!!

This guy should be tarred and feathered.

Logistics,

Tarred and feathered, my dear fellow? Have you any idea what this entails?

Let's be sensible about this. If the sheriff abused his office, there are remedies that the offended party may seek.

I have not had the opportunity to read the letter, so I can not say that it was polite or not. Perhaps those of you who have stated that it was polite have had the opportunity to do so, but the AP article reports that it was "scathing."

If the sheriff had obtained the lady's information through public means, he would have been entirely within his rights to have sent her a letter directly, polite or not. The report indicates that the sheriff did, however, have her information obtained through a driver's license database, and further states that

It is illegal to access a driver's license database to obtain personal information, except for clear law-enforcement purposes, under the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994.

If all this is the case, then he may have abused his rights as a public official and she may easily see this as an implied threat because it was sent under the color of authority. In a case like this, I tend to hold public officials to high standards. The sheriff should know the law and abide by it. If he's wrong, let him pay the fine and go back to sheriffing a little wiser.

I know nothing about this lady's character or demeanor and can not comment on that.

However, I think I disagree with her concerning the TASER because of the type of people law officers have to deal with routinely. I do think they should be used judiciously, and not simply because the user is tired of arguing (for instance). I am quite willing for them to be used to avoid an imminent fight, but not simply a potential fight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top