Road Rage involving Oak Ridge officers in Knoxville

[JayC]

Not unless you have access to DMV records. You would have to have an LE agency do the search

I'm pretty sure tag information is a public record... just have to go down and pay the fee to get access to it.

[wewoapsiak]

These officers pay taxes too and cancel out your opinion. It seems the same faction who doesn't want the government violating their privacy has no problem violating these officer's privacy. If they are charged, post their names, if not, leave them alone.

Just like when you join the military, by agreeing to wear the uniform you agree to give up some of your rights and bear additional responsibilities. I paid taxes while serving, but that didn't stop my loss of certain rights. These officers, IF guilty, are obviously not ready to be a public servant. I do agree however, if they are not guilty then who cares.

The "victim" had every right to go to media since often the police are seen as a good ol' boys club and take care of their own even when they are in the wrong.

Sent from my Jitterbug.

[Guest bkelm18]

These officers pay taxes too and cancel out your opinion. It seems the same faction who doesn't want the government violating their privacy has no problem violating these officer's privacy. If they are charged, post their names, if not, leave them alone.

You would be incorrect. Smaller, more transparent government should be our goal. These officers are members of the government, voluntarily I might add. If they are accused as a violator of law, their identities should be released in the interests of public knowledge and safety. If these officers did not want to be known to the public they should not serve the public. If you're happy with the status quo, that's your choice. I'm not.

[diablo982]

I guess we will have to disagree on giving up ones privacy just because you work for the government. I know there is no law or agreement which gives these guys less rights to privacy than the rest of us. My main issue is the investigation isn't over. How about I go to the media and accuse you of sending me child porn via email? Without any investigation/confirmation, I think your full name and employer should be posted for all to see. Honestly, does that seem fair to you?

[DaveTN]

I know there is no law or agreement which gives these guys less rights to privacy than the rest of us.

I couldn’t believe it either, but according to what I was reading today in Tennessee there is a law that allows that.

I would want my name printed. Because if it turns out this story is made up or embellished, not only would I make sure he was arrested, but I would sue him civilly.

I’m not implying that this didn’t happen the way he said, we have no way of knowing that. Usually the Officers name is printed when this kind of action reaches the papers. I can assure you everyone at Oak Ridge PD and their families knows who these Officers are; it’s only a matter of time until it’s printed.

[Fallguy]

I'm pretty sure tag information is a public record... just have to go down and pay the fee to get access to it.

When I was dispatching I always heard anyone could go to the County Court Clerk's office and ask for the information associated with a tag number.

But I never heard of anyone doing it.

I also think the kicker maybe you have to go the county that tag is registered in.

[Dolomite_supafly]

As I said LE officer's names are public record as well as the fact ANYONE can inspect their personnel files for any reason or no reason at all. So these officers performance record is fair game as is their names, when they got hired, their salary, as well as any disciplinary issues. That is how the news agencies in our area always seem to have "dirt" on officers, they request it and by law they are to be provided with everything except those safeguarded in section "(f)" below.

© (1) Except as provided in § 10-7-504(g), all law enforcement personnel records shall be open for inspection as provided in subsection (a); however, whenever the personnel records of a law enforcement officer are inspected as provided in subsection (a), the custodian shall make a record of such inspection and provide notice, within three (3) days from the date of the inspection, to the officer whose personnel records have been inspected:

(A) That such inspection has taken place;

( The name, address and telephone number of the person making such inspection;

© For whom the inspection was made; and

(D) The date of such inspection.

Now after the inspection the officer will be notified of who did inspect their records. But there is nothing that prevents you or me from walking in and viewing their personnel file. It may have personnel information safeguarded but no one can refuse to allow you to see their public personnel record.

No where in TCA does it say their names are confidential. And additionally in this instance the officer's driver's licences are not confidential either because operating a vehicle is part of their job. Now they may hide the SSN, address or DL number but their name and picture are part of public record. And I suspect their driving record would also fall into the public realm of things because they do drive a public vehicle as part of their public employee job

Here is what MUST be safeguarded (notice no mention of name):

(f) (1) The following records or information of any state, county, municipal or other public employee or former employee, or of any law enforcement officer commissioned pursuant to § 49-7-118, in the possession of a governmental entity or any person in its capacity as an employer shall be treated as confidential and shall not be open for inspection by members of the public:

(A) Home telephone and personal cell phone numbers;

( Bank account and individual health savings account, retirement account and pension account information; provided, that nothing shall limit access to financial records of a governmental employer that show the amounts and sources of contributions to the accounts or the amount of pension or retirement benefits provided to the employee or former employee by the governmental employer;

© Social security number;

(D) (i) Residential information, including the street address, city, state and zip code, for any state employee; and

(ii) Residential street address for any county, municipal or other public employee;

(E) Driver license information except where driving or operating a vehicle is part of the employee's job description or job duties or incidental to the performance of the employee's job; and

(F) The information listed in subdivisions (f)(1)(A)-(E) of immediate family members or household members.

It is crazy to think that a public official has a right to privacy. When they become a public servant and for the rest of their lives their record of public service remains a matter of public record. Their names are in no way shape or form confidential information and trying to keep it private only screams that the administation is trying to make this go away. I would love to see what would happen if a request was made to view their personnel records as well as that of the Chief. And when they refuse, whcih they will, they are in violation of TCA which they are sworn to uphold.

Dolomite

[diablo982]

That code spells it out (except if they are undercover police officers, then they are exempt.) So go ahead and get their personnel files. I'm interested to hear what you find, good or bad. Of course that might be hard to do without their names. Is there a code section which says the police chief has to give you names of the files you wish to review? I think it's up to you to figure that out. If you can quote that section I'm all onboard with you.

If I'm the chief, I'll be glad to make a statement and release information if wrongdoing is uncovered. If my officers did nothing wrong, I'd protect them from the cop-bashers of the world.

Edited December 24, 2011 by diablo982

[BigK]

I'm on the fence.

On one hand, public figures or not, until they're charged w/ something I don't see how dragging their names through the mud is fair. Let's assume briefly that we find out Estep gets out of his car 1st and approaches the off-duty cops' car ranting like he's done before. If the cops' names had been published before those details come out, half the folks that didn't follow up on the whole story have the wrong idea about these cops. Yet, their names will forever be mentally associated with some wrong-doing even though their actions were justified.

On the other hand, let's assume it's proven that it all went down exactly like Estep says. Knowing these cops' names and whether they have a history of anything similar is very relevant...especially if the cops' names are withheld and later all they get is administrative duty with pay or some similar slap on the wrist. The public may never find out who these bad cops are and they'll just get away with it and likely do it again.

To me it's a tough call either way, but something doesn't sound right about this Estep guy's story. I'll be glad when more details come out, so we can alll stop speculating. Moreover, I hope what details do come out are verifiable (eye-witness, camera footage, etc.). I'd hate for it to just wind up being a stalemate, because somebody actually did something wrong and should be punished.

[LDRider]

I'm really curious what the "eyewitness" account is.

That may be closest to the "truth" about what happened after both cars stopped.

Whatever happened before this has little legal implications. It's what happened at this point that has any real legal implications re; who did what, when.

Jeff

Edited December 24, 2011 by LDRider

[Guest WyattEarp]

Dave,

any reason why they aren't formally interviewing the two police officers?

DeBusk said Tipton would not formally interview the two Oak Ridge police officers "but is obtaining their information." The probe includes "interviewing a couple of witnesses, third-party witnesses," DeBusk said.

I read the article from the Knoxville News Sentinel. Here's the problem I have. Read the last two paragraphs of the article. "Knox County records show Estep was arrested last year on charges of public intoxication and disorderly conduct involving the driver of a vehicle on Cumberland Avenue.

Records show Estep "was overtly hostile, agitated and was screaming profanities" at the officer trying to investigate the crash between one vehicle and another one in which Estep was a passenger. The charges were dismissed upon payment of court costs, records show".

But the names of the officers involved have not been released. So Estep is being dragged through the dirt and the officers names won't be known till the case goes to the grand jury.

If Estep got the tag number, is there a way to look it up and see who the vehicle is registered to?

here's the problem I have with this whole thing. Estep has a history of this type of behavior. I'm seriously starting to doubt his story. Something doesn't add up. off duty police officers don't just stop and get out of their vehicles and pull their guns because someone gave them the bird. I'm not going to put these officers up on a pedestal, and I realize that no police officer is perfect or above this type of behavior, but I just can't see two uniformed officers doing this just to intimidate the guy or because they were mad he flipped them off. I've been flipped the bird before and I just wave at them and grin and keep going. There's more to this than Estep is telling, something else had to of happened for them to pull their guns. These officers most likely have families, pensions, and careers at risk. Why jeopardize it in this fashion?

I could be wrong, but i hope if that surveillance camera caught the incident, that it will get posted and we can see for ourselves what really happened.

you can go to the DMV or clerk's office and pay a $10 fee I think, and get the name and address of the person that the tag is registered to.

Estep's name is being "dragged though the dirt" because he went to the media and got this story published.

the last thing I would want is my name in the paper or the media being associated with something like this, especially when he's already been in trouble for similar behavior himself in the past by the way he was screaming at that one cop, and acting hostile. sounds like he has a temper he can't control, and he wonders why he got into a situation where he had guns pointed at him.

Edited December 24, 2011 by WyattEarp

[Guest mcgyver210]

I would want my name printed. Because if it turns out this story is made up or embellished, not only would I make sure he was arrested, but I would sue him civilly.

I would agree with this as long as the punishment was equal meaning if a LEO is discovered making up or embellishing their side of any allegation they also should be in your words Arrested & Sued personally as well as the department that condones it & maybe even charge anyone as accessories that may help cover up the wrong doing. But we all know that wouldn't ever happen.

Doesn't sound so cut & dry when you actually treat both sides with the same equal treatment. This guy may or may not be telling the whole truth but this investigation already looks like a coverup to protect the two LEOs involved.

Also while dragging the alleged victims name thru the mud using anything from his past maybe we should also get a picture of the Alleged assailants past, Fair is Fair Unfair is Unfair. Doesn't really matter because if the story is proven accurate nothing will really happen to the LEOs in this case. But if the alleged victim can't prove his side with acceptablr witnesses his word alone will not be enough against the two LEOs.

I guess what puzzles me most is when a LEO accuses someone of a crime their word is good enough & in some cases doesn't even require real proof other than their word against yours. Innocent until Proven Guilty isn't real life.

Edited December 24, 2011 by mcgyver210

[TMF]

Once again, unless that ONE man was presenting a reasonable threat of death or great bodily harm to TWO men that happen to be police officers their actions were not justified. I don't care if Mr. Estep was acting like a raving lunatic and cursing their mothers. He would have been disorderly, but shouldn't have a gun drawn on him. I think it's curious that the investigator in this case is not going to interview the two officers. Do any of you think that if you pulled your weapon on someone that the investigating officer wouldn't even bother to talk to you?? I can already see the direction this is going. Don't expect charges to be filed.

[billyscott]

Wyatt, do you see that's what I was talking about? Because he was arrested in the past a lot of people will assume he is not telling the truth now. We don't know the story on his previous arrest but we do know the charges were dismissed. Innocent until proven guilty, right. And we still don't know the background on these officers.

TMF 18B, yeah, what you said.

[JayC]

When I was dispatching I always heard anyone could go to the County Court Clerk's office and ask for the information associated with a tag number.

But I never heard of anyone doing it.

I also think the kicker maybe you have to go the county that tag is registered in.

You do, except with certain kinds of tags... and I've done it... we've had a vehicle parked on one of our lots before for a long period of time, and needed to get in touch with the owner... trip down to that counties clerk, and less than a dollar in copying costs and I had all of their information.

[JayC]

That code spells it out (except if they are undercover police officers, then they are exempt.) So go ahead and get their personnel files. I'm interested to hear what you find, good or bad. Of course that might be hard to do without their names. Is there a code section which says the police chief has to give you names of the files you wish to review? I think it's up to you to figure that out. If you can quote that section I'm all onboard with you.

If I'm the chief, I'll be glad to make a statement and release information if wrongdoing is uncovered. If my officers did nothing wrong, I'd protect them from the cop-bashers of the world.

Getting the names is simple enough... Using the same 'sunshine' law go in and request to view all email sent the day of and the day after the story broke in the paper... They can't charge you, and I'll bet a nickle somebody on the force sent an email talking about these 2 officers by name.

[DaveTN]

any reason why they aren't formally interviewing the two police officers?

Well, it could be because unlike a citizen, these Officers can be called in by their department and ask to make a written follow-up report to the incident. They have two choices then; make the report, or invoke the 5^th.

What caught my eye is that one Officer is on “Modified Duty†and the other Officer is not. That, to me, implies that either something happened that is putting that Officers actions in question, or he is refusing to make a statement. Also, they talk about presenting it to the DA. If the investigations fails to show any wrong doing and they don’t have RAS or PC to believe anything happened; there isn’t anything to present to the DA. On the other hand if the investigation turns up nothing they could simply be presenting it to the DA to be totally transparent and letting the DA make the decision on whether or not to close the complaint.

These types of accusations generally are made to the same department where the Officer works. I guess the fact that two departments are involved could be slowing this investigation down. I think it’s important to note that the alleged victim says “It appears that KPD has responded to his complaint and is conducting a thorough investigationâ€. If he’s satisfied with the way things are going, that’s all anyone can ask at this point.

[analog_kidd]

If this had been two groups of "citizens", in other words no officers, the paper would be reporting everyone's names. Now, I believe that off duty officers should have some expectation of privacy. However, once they identified themselves as officers, that to be says they were using their positions for intimidation, and now they are acting in the capacity of a public servant. And I believe that all public servant activities should be out in the open for all to see.

I'm pretty annoyed that the paper brought up all the old stuff from Estep's past and gave the cops a free pass. As far as we know, since the cops aren't commenting, the only account we have to go on is Estep's. If his account is 100% true (IF), then this old info should not matter one little bit.

Lastly, and this is pure conjecture on my part, put this whole incident just sounds like there is alcohol involved. I can't see how good cops would let this kind of thing happen, and escalate the way it did without a night of drinking being involved. I seriously doubt that the KPD did alcohol checks on the two ORPD officers, but that would have been good info. And, it would have seriously changed the path of this case.

[DaveTN]

Once again, unless that ONE man was presenting a reasonable threat of death or great bodily harm to TWO men that happen to be police officers their actions were not justified. I don't care if Mr. Estep was acting like a raving lunatic and cursing their mothers. He would have been disorderly, but shouldn't have a gun drawn on him. I think it's curious that the investigator in this case is not going to interview the two officers. Do any of you think that if you pulled your weapon on someone that the investigating officer wouldn't even bother to talk to you?? I can already see the direction this is going. Don't expect charges to be filed.

If you are accused of pulling a gun on someone the order of those judging you will be the following; the responding Officers, the DA, and possibly a Judge or jury. It appears that is what is happening here. We don’t know if the investigating Officer has decided to arrest the Officers or not, they have submitted the reports to DA for him to make that decision. Even if he decides not to pursue charges it may not be over for the Officers; they can still face disciplinary action by their department.

Some of us here are waiting to hear the evidence and the decisions made. Some have convicted these cops already based on one side of the story. I hope none of you ever have to pull your gun on someone, but if you do I hope you are judged by those that look at evidence and not the fact that you are an HCP holder and should have known better.

It’s made for a lively discussion though hasn’t it? And whether charges are filed or it’s dismissed; it will get livelier.

[DaveTN]

this whole incident just sounds like there is alcohol involved.

I’m surprised it took 118 posts for that to get thrown out there.

[TMF]

If you are accused of pulling a gun on someone the order of those judging you will be the following; the responding Officers, the DA, and possibly a Judge or jury. It appears that is what is happening here. We don’t know if the investigating Officer has decided to arrest the Officers or not, they have submitted the reports to DA for him to make that decision. Even if he decides not to pursue charges it may not be over for the Officers; they can still face disciplinary action by their department.

Well for all I know Mr. Estep threatened to kill the officers. That would cause me to draw my pistol on an advancing person. However, we don't have that information yet. For right now we're fairly certain that weapon(s) were pulled. There is only one reason why a weapon should be pulled, right? If he wasn't presenting a threat then it's obvious that the two officers are in the wrong. I'm not convicting them, I'm waiting to hear what he did to get a gun in his face. I just don't think that it will pan out that he was presenting a real threat (1 man vs. 2 men).

My big problem is how this is being handled now. It seems to me that there is going to be a clear double standard. The lead invesigator from KPD told the press that she doesn't intend on interviewing the officers. I don't understand. I don't give a crap about department policies or whatever; if that were any of us we would be questioned or we would be getting a lawyer. The fact that the investigating officer has no intention of talking to the two LEOs involved speaks volumes. Double standard.

From the article:

"Knoxville Police Department Investigator Patty Tipton should complete her probe today and share the results with prosecutors to determine if any charges should be brought, said KPD spokesman Darrell DeBusk. Tipton interviewed the alleged victim, Brock Estep, 31, of Knoxville on Tuesday.

DeBusk said Tipton would not formally interview the two Oak Ridge police officers "but is obtaining their information." The probe includes "interviewing a couple of witnesses, third-party witnesses," DeBusk said."

[Makiaveli]

I guess we will have to disagree on giving up ones privacy just because you work for the government. I know there is no law or agreement which gives these guys less rights to privacy than the rest of us. My main issue is the investigation isn't over. How about I go to the media and accuse you of sending me child porn via email? Without any investigation/confirmation, I think your full name and employer should be posted for all to see. Honestly, does that seem fair to you?

First off those of us that work for the govt chose to go to work every morning just like every one in the private sector. Part of that is our names, salaries etc posted online for the world to see.

How is it not fair when we chose to apply to work there?

Also, as to your hypothetical, as long as your full name and employer are listed as the accuser, the only harm is the stupidity of the populace believing the story with no proof. That fault doesn't lie with the media. Publishing the story with no investigation on the other hand, again would go back to the public for watching such nonsense after the last time they did something so stupid.

[Makiaveli]

From the article:

"Knoxville Police Department Investigator Patty Tipton should complete her probe today and share the results with prosecutors to determine if any charges should be brought, said KPD spokesman Darrell DeBusk. Tipton interviewed the alleged victim, Brock Estep, 31, of Knoxville on Tuesday.

DeBusk said Tipton would not formally interview the two Oak Ridge police officers "but is obtaining their information." The probe includes "interviewing a couple of witnesses, third-party witnesses," DeBusk said."

"not formally interview". That speaks volumes. Translated to English, that means if we don't ask them on the record, then they can't get caught in a lie. I've seen people get a few days off for a damaging expensive property through negligence or stupidity, and then someone else gets fired over lying about a cheap piece of equipment that was damaged in a legitimate accident.

Just based on that quote it leads me to believe the dept knows the ofc's forked up, and are trying to cover it up. Others here are probably right in that Mr. Estep is a hothead, probably has a history, and so they don't want to ruin "good" officer's careers over this. Same vein as just because he raped a girl once (maybe, we all know how girls from that part of town are), is no reason to ruin a football scholarship. Hope I'm wrong, and I doubt we will ever know.

[Dolomite_supafly]

I feel just the opposite as to why KPD is not talking to the officers questions. It is so they can remain a bit more impartial or at least appear so and not to cover things up. Realistically what motivation would KPD have to cover for officers that are not part of their organization?

Also they may not need the ORPD officer's statement to get a accurate picture of what happened. The investigators are probably relying heavily on those third party witnesses, that do not have a dog in this fight, as well as any video evidence.

Additionally, it is important not to make statements to police whether you are the police or not. The ORPD officers may have refused to answer any questions. Nothing good can come of the ORPD officers speaking to the investigators. Now I am willing to bet they have "come clean" to their own administration and that is why one is on "modified" duty status. And with one being on a modified duty status speaks more to what is the truth than anything else in the newspaper.

Dolomite

[Guest mcgyver210]

Even if he decides not to pursue charges it may not be over for the Officers; they can still face disciplinary action by their department.

WOW Paid Leave is in their future.

Some of us here are waiting to hear the evidence and the decisions made.

Unfortunately the way these type of incidents go is the only way we will ever see any evidence is if it clears the accused LEOs. Other than that it will be buried until people forget.

Some have convicted these cops already based on one side of the story.

I haven't convicted them but I know enough to not just assume because they are supposed to be trust-able Good Guys doesn't mean they are. For now one side is all we have & I wont assume the victim is lying just because he has a past issue & the problem is with two off duty LEOs he didn't even know were LEOs.

I also know they have lots of protection so I start out thinking that & looking for real evidence they are innocent of the allegations which usually shows up if they are. Also this is how LEOs do it in everyday life when they accuse someone of a crime. In their mind they are convicting you aren't they? Or why do they give you a ticket or arrest you, stop you for a Terry Stop (which IMO is another slap to the constitution but that is another argument) since they wouldn't possibly be dishonest in their judgement? The movie Judge Dread comes to mind.

Also I just can't wrap my head around why the victim would need to become the aggressor based on the fact he already won the conflict since the LEOs (that he didn't know were LEOs) didn't get out in front of him which we don't know how pushy they were in their attempt. Incidentally this happens to all of us at times & the LEOs were most likely used to people letting them do what ever they pleased. Example: most people wont even pass a LEO on the HWY that is going under the posted speed limit for fear of retaliation.

I hope none of you ever have to pull your gun on someone, but if you do I hope you are judged by those that look at evidence and not the fact that you are an HCP holder and should have known better.

I just wish I would have the same Immunities & Protections afforded the few (Not Just LEOs) which is why I might be hurt before I defend my self for fear of the rest of my life being turned upside down. I do know I wont get Paid Administrative leave though but instead will pay for a Lawyer & even if found innocent will be out allot of $$$$s in the process of defending my actions. I also know I wont be alloud to us the same reasoning for my decision to take action. I also know there will be a full investigation without any biased towards me being innocent. Point is not Apples to Apples closer to Apples to Bananas.

It’s made for a lively discussion though hasn’t it?

Yes it has & none of us have pulled guns on each other. I know I am openly very opinionated which gets me in trouble but I wasn't born this way I was made this way by life experiences which is also one of my reasons I didn't follow up on becoming a LEO. OH & before someone says I couldn't be one I did take test & get called back later just decided it wasn't for me. I have Martial arts Back Ground as well as a Spotless Past.

I also respect any GOOD LEO & have many LEO Friends & Clients.

And whether charges are filed or it’s dismissed; it will get livelier.

We most likely wont hear the real truth no matter how it ends. But I can almost bet how it will end can you?

Merry Christmas to all including all GOOD LEOs that don't deserve what the Bad Ones cause.