• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Virginia woman arrested for blogging about the police

TexasNative

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
856
Location
Austin, TX
imported post

Deanimator wrote:
But it's ok because she's not a cop, right?
But it's ok because he wasn't a cop, right?
I must have missed it when LEO 229 said he wanted CHP info published "because they're not cops." Can you please point that out to me, Deanimator?

Or are you just making it up so you can bash LEO with it?

~ Boyd
 

scarletwahoo

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2008
Messages
76
Location
, ,
imported post

The name 'Jefferson Area Drug Enforcement Task Force' is offensive. They would have been forced to raid Thomas Jefferson's house since he grew marijuana. From Jefferson's background, anyone with half a brain would also realize he probably would not support JADE.

But to open carry related:

It was all available through public record. What ever happened to the person that released the names and addresses of CHP's? It would make sense her penalty should be similar.

Can an officer get charged with harassing a civilian?
 

Deanimator

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
2,083
Location
Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
imported post

TexasNative wrote:
Deanimator wrote:
But it's ok because she's not a cop, right?
But it's ok because he wasn't a cop, right?
I must have missed it when LEO 229 said he wanted CHP info published "because they're not cops." Can you please point that out to me, Deanimator?

Or are you just making it up so you can bash LEO with it?

~ Boyd
Was it not HE who drew a "safety" distinction between cops and people with CCW credentials? Tell me how the cop is in more danger than the woman with a restraining order.
 

TexasNative

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
856
Location
Austin, TX
imported post

Deanimator wrote:
Was it not HE who drew a "safety" distinction between cops and people with CCW credentials? Tell me how the cop is in more danger than the woman with a restraining order.
Boy, if you just conveniently leave out stuff, you can put just about anything in somebody else's mouth.

But rather than deal solely in generalities, here's a direct quote from 229:

I am completely against posting a CC holder list.
Gosh, it's almost like he supports the privacy of the little people, isn't it? He can't have meant that, could he? I mean, he is a JBT, right? (/sarcasm)

He was saying that undercover cops generally have a greater need for privacy of their personal information than your run-of-the-mill CHP holder. He also said that the CHP list isn't the only way to find the woman with a restraining order, which, if we're being honest, is a long way from saying that "the cop is in more danger than the woman with a restraining order."

You're putting words in his mouth. He didn't say what you say he said. You should retract the claim.

~ Boyd
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
imported post

This is getting interesting. I 've been to Charlottsvill this week and took a few pictures. It's not like they're hard to find.

I tried to look up the code she was charged under, but The Charlottsville Clerks office (If that is where she was charged) is like trying to contact my insurance company.

According to Carlos Miller, she was threatened with the following statute:

§ 18.2-186.4. Use of a person’s identity with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass; penalty.
It shall be unlawful for any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass another person, to publish the person’s name or photograph along with identifying information as defined in clauses (iii) through (ix), or clause (xii) of subsection C of § 18.2-186.3, including identification of the person’s primary residence address. Any person who violates this section is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
Any person who violates this section knowing or having reason to know that person is a law-enforcement officer, as defined in § 9.1-101, is guilty of a Class 6 felony. The sentence shall include a mandatory minimum term of confinement of six months.

Boy, that's stretching things...

Again, according to Miller, she received this letter from the Chief of Police.

Dear Ms. [Me]
Personnel of the Charlottesville Police Department and the Jefferson Area Drug Enforcement Task Force brought to my attention your recent behavior directed towards them. The most troubling behaviors they identified consisted of following police officers while they are on duty, photographing them or their personal property, and publishing potentially identifying information about them on readily accessible public media.
The purpose of this correspondence is to notify you that your behavior is interfering with the ability of these officers to conduct necessary and appropriate law enforcement activities. I presume that you may be unaware of the degree to which following and photographing police investigators may constitute a material interference with their work. This is especially true with narcotics enforcement officers who must be able to meet with citizens, suspects, and others with complete confidence that they have not been followed and are not being watched. These officers must be able to assure confidential informants and operatives that their anonymity is being scrupulously maintained.
Furthermore, your behavior is placing officers in fear for their safety and that of their families. I presume that you may not have been aware previously that officers live on a daily basis with the concern that their families will be subjected to danger as a result of their work. Your behavior in following officers to their homes and posting photographs of their property on publicly accessible media places officers in fear for their safety and that of their families. Posting identifying information about officers and their property on publicly accessible media makes it easier for those who might do them harm to gain information that can be used to do just that.
I urge you to stop the activities in which you have been involved as they are interfering with the work of law enforcement officers in the City of Charlottesville. Continuation of your behavior may further disrupt their work and may obstruct ongoing law enforcement efforts that are being undertaken on behalf of our community.
Furthermore, I urge you to cease the behaviors you have exhibited that place officers in fear for their safety and that of their families.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter with you in person. Please feel free to contact me at [555-555-5555]
Sincerely,
Timothy J. Longo, Sr.
Chief of Police
Lots here that hasn't been said but if the officer wanted to remain low key...this isn't the way:lol:
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
imported post

Thanks Bill!

Had to run out for a while. The wife bought a new pistol:lol:
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
imported post

architect wrote:
peter nap wrote:
Had to run out for a while. The wife bought a new pistol:lol:
So you're typing while she's reloading?
:p

I haven't given her any ammo yet. Told her I had to load some girley boolits tonight.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

scarletwahoo wrote:
The name 'Jefferson Area Drug Enforcement Task Force'  is offensive.  They would have been forced to raid Thomas Jefferson's house since he grew marijuana.  From Jefferson's background, anyone with half a brain would also realize he probably would not support JADE.
lol, you got that right.

In general I might agree with peter nap's sentiment, were we discussing any sort of legitimate (Constitutional, as well as moral) law enforcement. In this case, though, I can't bring myself to feel sympathy for a group of officers who basically embody the root cause of everything that is wrong with American government and society.
 

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
imported post

Bill in VA wrote:
peter nap wrote:
... I tried to look up the code she was charged under, but The Charlottsville Clerks office (If that is where she was charged) is like trying to contact my insurance company. ...
She was charged in Albemarle County, case number GC09014087-00. The complainant was a "J.Trent" and she was indeed charged (as a felony) withharrassing law enforcement under 18.2-186.4. It looks like it has been continued until 17SEPT09.

HTH
Between you and Peter, the research here on this topic is excellent. It will be interesting to see what happens in September. Obviously, being charged with a Felony is serious.
 

Sheriff

Regular Member
Joined
May 19, 2008
Messages
1,968
Location
Virginia, USA
imported post

peter nap wrote:
Lots here that hasn't been said but if the officer wanted to remain low key...this isn't the way:lol:

None of the JADE club are low key. Everybody knows them. Even the gang bangers know them on sight. I'm of the opinion that the vast majority (if not all) of their arrests are based on information from informants, and using informants to make purchases.

Anybody can obtain the same information Alisha Strom obtained simply by attending a few drug cases in open court to learn their names, and by sitting outside either of the JADE club houses to learn the various vehicles they drive.

There's just not anything secret about them. And almost all of them were in uniform and patrol before their "promotion" to the JADE club.

If they truly want to be undercover they need to stop wearing clothing that gives them away. They need to conceal their weapons and badges at all times. They need to stop carrying SWAT bags to and from their cars. They need a secret office located in such a way that nobody knows where it is.

The JADE club is simply embarrassed by her blog. Images of them laying out on the grass goofing off. Images of one of them going to meet a girlfriendand play golf (or without looking again, did I read that wrong?). Images of them walking to and from their cars while easily recognized as cops by whatever they are wearing or carrying.

I think the JADE blog was a pretty bad idea on her behalf, but I don't think she has violated the letter of the law. Anybody over the age of 13 with an IQ over 60 can obtain the information she is charged with posting in her blog.

I suspect JADE is hoping for a plea agreement. Stop blogging about JADE and we'll drop the charge. IMHO, this is basically the cops using a law to intimidate a citizen into submission.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

§ 18.2-186.4. Use of a person's identity with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass; penalty.

It shall be unlawful for any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass another person, to publish the person's name or photograph along with identifying information as defined in clauses (iii) through (ix), or clause (xii) of subsection C of § 18.2-186.3, including identification of the person's primary residence address. Any person who violates this section is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

Any person who violates this section knowing or having reason to know that person is a law-enforcement officer, as defined in § 9.1-101, is guilty of a Class 6 felony. The sentence shall include a mandatory minimum term of confinement of six months.



18.2 186.3.....

C. As used in this section, "identifying information" shall include but not be limited to: (i) name; (ii) date of birth; (iii) social security number; (iv) driver's license number; (v) bank account numbers; (vi) credit or debit card numbers; (vii) personal identification numbers (PIN); (viii) electronic identification codes; (ix) automated or electronic signatures; (x) biometric data; (xi) fingerprints; (xii) passwords; or (xiii) any other numbers or information that can be used to access a person's financial resources, obtain identification, act as identification, or obtain money, credit, loans, goods or services.



OK, so what information from the 18.2 186.3.C that is on the prohibited list did she disclose?
 

Sheriff

Regular Member
Joined
May 19, 2008
Messages
1,968
Location
Virginia, USA
imported post

Thundar wrote:
OK, so what information from the 18.2 186.3.C that is on the prohibited list did she disclose?
That's where and why a "judge" is involved. Just because a cop looks for something to charge her with, and the magistrate might skim the code, agree with the cop and issue the warrant, doesn't mean she really hasdone anything wrong. This is what's going to make this case so interesting to follow. Unless she wimps out and accepts some type of plea agreement.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
imported post

Sheriff wrote:
Thundar wrote:
OK, so what information from the 18.2 186.3.C that is on the prohibited list did she disclose?
That's where and why a "judge" is involved. Just because a cop looks for something to charge her with, and the magistrate might skim the code, agree with the cop and issue the warrant, doesn't mean she really hasdone anything wrong. This is what's going to make this case so interesting to follow. Unless she wimps out and accepts some type of plea agreement.
It is way too easy to charge people with a crime and very difficult to get retribution after you are exonerated.
That;s why it is so important to hit an officer with everything you can use afterward. Despite 229's concern about filling an officer's file with complaints, keeping him in court and on the defense for years and in general, destroying his career, it needs to be done.

If the GA would just open the door to effective litigation for questionable arrests, it would eliminate the need for all the games.
 

Sheriff

Regular Member
Joined
May 19, 2008
Messages
1,968
Location
Virginia, USA
imported post

peter nap wrote:
It is way too easy to charge people with a crime and very difficult to get retribution after you are exonerated.
It's really not as difficult as people think. It's just aggravating and time comsuming. And a city or county will fight you tooth and nail until the judge finally sets a court date for the lawsuits to be heard in front of a jury.

If you have a good case, you can find an attorney who will takeit on a contingency fee arrangementmost of the time. It's never cost me a penny to have damages awarded in wrongful police actions. And I never accept a little piddling amount of $5,000 or $10,000 when a city or county waves a check in an attempt tomake a lawsuit go away out of court.

I hate to see people walk away from a wrongful police action lawsuit simply because they don't think they have the money to hire an attorney to fight a city or county.

 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

TexasNative wrote:
Deanimator wrote:
Was it not HE who drew a "safety" distinction between cops and people with CCW credentials? Tell me how the cop is in more danger than the woman with a restraining order.
Boy, if you just conveniently leave out stuff, you can put just about anything in somebody else's mouth.

But rather than deal solely in generalities, here's a direct quote from 229:

I am completely against posting a CC holder list.
Gosh, it's almost like he supports the privacy of the little people, isn't it? He can't have meant that, could he? I mean, he is a JBT, right? (/sarcasm)

He was saying that undercover cops generally have a greater need for privacy of their personal information than your run-of-the-mill CHP holder. He also said that the CHP list isn't the only way to find the woman with a restraining order, which, if we're being honest, is a long way from saying that "the cop is in more danger than the woman with a restraining order."

You're putting words in his mouth. He didn't say what you say he said. You should retract the claim.

~ Boyd

eyup... Boyd got it. I sure did think I postedmy opinion for privacy of the CC list. I was getting confused as to what I really said with all these words being put in my mouth. :lol:

Time to get back to shining my boots.. Damn things take forever. I wish they would not me wear shoes instead! :p
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
TexasNative wrote:
Deanimator wrote:

Time to get back to shining my boots.. Damn things take forever. I wish they would not me wear shoes instead! :p
Is thems Jack Boots or Hob Nails, 229?

Pics???????

:lol:
 
Top