billed for using restroom...

[NoBanStan]

We dont know the severity of the bomb dropped. Maybe this person give birth to a mud baby that never found its way into the bowl or something. :)

[VERO1]

Would have been easier to just take a leak behind their building!

[Murgatroy]

Would have been easier to just take a leak behind their building!

I got to spend several hours with a small county's finest for similar antics.

 

I just can't suggest it.

[G27]

You guys aren't gonna believe this, but TN Code Annotated:

 

39-17-105.  Charge for use of public toilet facility prohibited.

  (a) It is an offense for a person maintaining toilet facilities available to the public to impose a charge for the use of the facility.

 Each toilet facility maintained in violation of this section constitutes a separate offense.

(c) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.

Amazing. And awesome.

[vontar]

well since she has the bill, if she really wanted she could press charges on the restaurant but probably won't be worth the effort.

 

It was totally a bad call by the police to turn over her information.

Edited February 24, 2013 by vontar

[Wingshooter]

Better aim good when you go pee at The Flood Zone...

"The Flood Zone"... Appropriate name for the circumstance, lol

[MarkInNashville]

Personally I always buy something if I use a store or restaurant's restroom. I look at it as common courtesy! I know it doesn't cost them much for to use, but a couple of gallons of water, some soap, and paper products DO cost that business something, Not to mention the time it takes for a person to maintain the facilities. And then of course there is the complete a** holes that actually tear them up! Of course I am sure they business owners do get tired of people who come in just to use it and leave and I cant blame them but I beat it is going to cost them more in negative publicity now (hell, I don't want to eat there, just because of this)!

 

But honestly it IS an abuse of public trust and was very poor decision for the sheriff to give that information out! I would be surprised if it doesn't break some law that says what can be done with that information. THIS is the much more serious issue in this entire incident, if you ask me!

[TMF]

I would seek some kind of civil case against the cop. It sounds like me like he is misusing his position to gather information for the benefit of a business, such as the cop is in cahoots with the business owner. Sounds to me like this is no different than a cop running someone's information to give to a third party "buddy", which I'm pretty sure is illegal. The facts of the case are the officer ran the person's information who had not committed a crime, then turned said info over to a third party. No way that is legal.

[Patton]

"If" there had been a crime, he could have given just about any information. I'm sure this officer thought that there was a crime or was convinced that there was a crime. He probably gave the "suspect" information out at the scene and figured he wouldn't do a "information" report, although he still can. The officer is lucky he didn't make an arrest, like me he probably figured this was simply a civil matter and all he is required to do is assist in identifying a suspect.
For a criminal court to convict the officer the DA would have to prove that the officer knowingly acted in complete malice.
Otherwise, "A Law Enforcement Officer Acting in Good Faith and Possessing Probable Cause Will Not Be Liable for Constitutional Rights Violations Under 42 USC 1983, Et. Seq." Actually this may not apply but the officer was acting in good faith, or so the court most likely would believe.

I can think of two examples similar to this; An officer I knew once supposedly helped someone break into a house that they were ordered by the court to not return to. The court saw that the information provided to the officer was sufficient for the officer to believe the suspect still lived there(his license said so). No civil or criminal action was taken against the officer.

The second one was when a woman called saying her kids went to their dads and they have not been heard from in several days. The police went to the house and made forced entry to find no one in the house. The family returned to find their door busted in. The police had every reason to believe a crime may have been committed but actually the family went on vacation. It turned out the mother wasn't even in the kids life's, she was just stirring up trouble. The Police said they didn't have an issue with fixing the door. The courts would not take an action against the officers or the department. Edited February 24, 2013 by Patton

[TMF]

"If" there had been a crime, he could have given just about any information. I'm sure this officer thought that there was a crime or was convinced that there was a crime. He probably gave the "suspect" information out at the scene and figured he wouldn't do a "information" report, although he still can. The officer is lucky he didn't make an arrest, like me he probably figured this was simply a civil matter and all he is required to do is assist in identifying a suspect.
For a criminal court to convict the officer the DA would have to prove that the officer knowingly acted in complete malice.
Otherwise, "A Law Enforcement Officer Acting in Good Faith and Possessing Probable Cause Will Not Be Liable for Constitutional Rights Violations Under 42 USC 1983, Et. Seq." Actually this may not apply but the officer was acting in good faith, or so the court most likely would believe.
I can think of two examples similar to this; An officer I knew once supposedly helped someone break into a house that they were ordered by the court to not return to. The court saw that the information provided to the officer was sufficient for the officer to believe the suspect still lived there(his license said so). No civil or criminal action was taken against the officer.
The second one was when a woman called saying her kids went to their dads and they have not been heard from in several days. The police went to the house and made forced entry to find no one in the house. The family returned to find their door busted in. The police had every reason to believe a crime may have been committed but actually the family went on vacation. It turned out the mother wasn't even in the kids life's, she was just stirring up trouble. The Police said they didn't have an issue with fixing the door. The courts would not take an action against the officers or the department.

I understand the premise there, but in this case the officer gave away personal information to a third party. I would think there is some kind of procedure rather than just running the information and giving it away. Perhaps the officer thought it was a theft of service crime, but still, that should require some sort of paperwork. From the outside looking in it appears as if this was nothing more than a favor done to the business owner by the LEO, since there is zero paperwork to back up any of the story.

For example, if I am cut off in traffic and it causes me to spill my coffee, thus burning myself and giving me grounds for a civil suit there would be some kind of process other than me simply calling up my LEO buddy and saying, "hey, I got this plate and need the name and home address of this individual so I can sue them." Do you think that there are any departments out there who would just hand that information over? Is there not some sort of protection under the law regarding that?

I realize that you're looking at this from a criminal aspect, as in your reply you posit that the officer believed a crime has taken place, but if that is so why is there no paperwork to support it? I'd at least give him the benefit of the doubt if the guy wrote a report and classified it as theft of service. But no report, just personal information handed over like its nothing. Well, then I believe the victims here should be able to post this officer's home address for anyone... you think he'd be so understanding if they did that? Edited February 24, 2013 by TMF

[Sam1]

+1 TMF

[DaveTN]

I find this story both funny and bizarre.

I think the Sherriff used bad judgment if he gave the info to the store owner after he found out they did nothing more than use the restroom.

I ran every license plate that was involved in my calls and every driver’s license that passed through my hands. Most of the time that was done through my personal radio and the people at the scene could hear it. I would not have done that for someone calling about a person using the restroom. On patrol I routinely ran the plates of vehicles that were suspicious to me.

Courts have continually held that there is no expectation of privacy on a vehicle license and running it is not a search covered under the 4th amendment.

Each state and each Police Department does (or should) have written procedures for accessing and disseminating that information.

There is both Tennessee state law and Federal law on this, but it does not apply to Police departments carrying out their duties.

Tennessee Highway Patrol fired a Trooper for running background checks that had nothing to do with his work. He became a target after he ran a check on a reporter that had written an article critical of the THP.

A state probation officer was arrested for running plate numbers of his neighbors. He said they were “illegals”.

[daddyo]

If you own a business and you don't want people coming in just to use the restroom, then put up a sign that says "For Patrons Only". Otherwise, I'm using it and don't feel compelled to buy anything.

[Lumber_Jack]

So this brings up an interesting question.

I have had road rage incidents where other drivers have become upset at my actions and written down my plate number. Both were my fault, one I accidentally pulled out in front of a guy who then proceeded to tailgate me so I escalated the issue by driving incredibly slow. I could visibly see him write my plate number an dial his phone.

The second was an accident, on the interstate, I merged on a guy in my blind spot. Again he tailgated me or a few miles, and again I may have antagonized him by driving slowly. Either way, whether I was wrong in my actions or not, how do police address such "reports"? I have to believe they get them often. Do people think the police will just show up and write me a ticket?

[DaveTN]

So this brings up an interesting question.

I have had road rage incidents where other drivers have become upset at my actions and written down my plate number. Both were my fault, one I accidentally pulled out in front of a guy who then proceeded to tailgate me so I escalated the issue by driving incredibly slow. I could visibly see him write my plate number an dial his phone.

The second was an accident, on the interstate, I merged on a guy in my blind spot. Again he tailgated me or a few miles, and again I may have antagonized him by driving slowly. Either way, whether I was wrong in my actions or not, how do police address such "reports"? I have to believe they get them often. Do people think the police will just show up and write me a ticket?

No, if it’s merely a traffic complaint the Police will generally run your plate and then put it out as a “Make your own case” (reckless, DUI, suspended/revoked, etc). If it rises to the level of a criminal charge, they can take a report and possibly arrest you. It’s happened a few times when guns were displayed or threats were made.

Of course every Officer and every department may have their own way of handling things.

[Patton]

IFrom the outside looking in it appears as if this was nothing more than a favor done to the business owner by the LEO, since there is zero paperwork to back up any of the story.



I realize that you're looking at this from a criminal aspect, as in your reply you posit that the officer believed a crime has taken place, but if that is so why is there no paperwork to support it? I'd at least give him the benefit of the doubt if the guy wrote a report and classified it as theft of service. But no report, just personal information handed over like its nothing.

Agreed the officer should have made the restaurant wait for the info, this wasn't a car wreck or some other incident of a timely manner.
I would assume that the officer was probably still investigating the incident. He probably looked into enough to see what we see. That the restaurant may have/did committ a crime. Not knowing what to do from here his case has stopped cold. Does he put the restaurant in the subject block? Chances are this incident was given a case number (just about every call gets one when it comes in) and that officer will use that number when he finally does a report. Just because there isn't one now doesn't mean there wasn't going to be one. The officer should have told them to wait and get it off the report.
It is to my understanding that the DMV will give out information if you have a reason, abondoned vehicles are the most common reason. They make you read the Drivers Privacy Act. but seeking damages would meet the criteria.

[Mike.357]

Would have been easier to just take a leak behind their building!

 

that is the reason the store I am at has a public restroom. If someone needs to go they will just walk around back and do it.   We don't exactly want people peeing on our walls.

[Dustbuster]

Now, Barnes and her husband wonder what could've happened if that
information got into the wrong hands, because they have gone to great
lengths to keep their address unlisted after taking out a restraining
order against someone in their past.

 

Someone could have adhered to the polite golden rule,but going to the media just works so well supporting the RO they had allegedly taken out for some reason....

The sheriff should have contacted the "pee and flee" suspect and asked them if they could contact the restaurant owner over an issue.

The sheriff professionally should not have provided anyone with their tag info although the store owner could have obtained it from the clerks office,without using the sheriff.

Last but not least,the suspect could have gone into the restroom and caused plumbing damage needing professional repair ( more than just a plunge) with that part not being disclosed to anyone....( some adults can probably be worse than 5 year olds when it comes to what they can try to get a toilet to flush).

Sometimes it amazes me at what chan 4 puts out and what they wont put out...

 

Its because of all of the idiots involved in a stupid issue like this,that more critical items get cast to the side to where law makers will now waste time on a toilet bowl usage law instead of getting funds to buy school books or getting more money for much needed teachers or body armor for officers.....<efg>

Ill never use the bathroom at ruth chris or lowes vanderbilt as i cant afford to buy a 50 dollar steak or pay for a 500.00  room after taking a quick whiz between calls   LOL  thanks for the humorous post

Edited February 24, 2013 by Dustbuster