Random harassment
Apparently, that was the policy of the Camden police department. They’re being sued.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
February 7th, 2011 at 11:10 am
Interesting that the police union is part of the lawsuit against the department. Apparently the leadership of the union thinks it might be bad for their members’ employment to have anything to do with such a harebrained idea.
Of course, it is usually easier to harass the law-abiding than confront those dangerous criminals.
February 7th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
Trawling for criminals.
February 7th, 2011 at 5:32 pm
I have to wonder, were they running people through III for this crap? If so, they violated federal privacy law, and the agency could lose NCIC access for violating both law and NCIC policy for use of the Interstate Identification Index.
February 7th, 2011 at 7:52 pm
Remember, Camden just laid off half their police when the union wouldn’t accept an across the board pay cut. Plus, a section 1983 suit puts the cops at personal liabilitynot jsut the city.
@Firehand: NJ is a POC state. If anyone has access to NICS, it’s the State Police – FFLs call them for the 4473 check-off and the local cop-shops send the applications to the NJSP for background checks when they’re issuing paperwork. I’d be a tad surprised if the town cop-shops have direct access to NICS.
February 9th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
NICS is basically the dealer calls it in and a operator runs the information through NCIC to see if any warrants or criminal history that would disqualify the buyer from having a firearm(NJ may call it in through the SP, don’t know). Every LE agency has access to NCIC(check for wanted, stolen, etc.) and a lot of latitude in checking if someone is wanted, or a car stolen, when they make a stop. III is a criminal history database that also has lots of other stuff in it(background checks that involved fingerprints, security clearances, etc.) and unless something has drastically changed there are only two times a LE officer can legally run somebody through it: subsequent to an arrest or as part of an ongoing criminal investigation.
If an officer runs someone III just on a traffic stop or general “I want answers” like described, or just because the officer wants to check, I believe that’s still a flat violation of federal privacy law as well as NCIC policy.
February 9th, 2011 at 9:36 pm
@Firehand: Ah – my mistake. I confused the two.
February 10th, 2011 at 12:26 pm
Easy enough to do, with all the alphabet crap out there
I used to work with this stuff, and I still get really ticked at the systems being misused
February 10th, 2011 at 9:06 pm
Hunh – so a governmental clearance investigation shows up in a criminal records DB?