Police Harassment?

[ktm7385]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

First off, I'm new, so if I am posting this thread in the wrong section, please let me know. I'd like to know if I've got grounds for any kind of harassment case. I work for a large corporation as a service rep. My job is a field position, meaning I spend all day going in and out of people's houses' installing and servicing our products. About two months ago, I arrived at a customer's house to assist another rep. Shortly after I arrived another rep also arrived. I helped begin the install, but there wasn't enough work to justify having three people there so I left. Two days later I was called into HR and asked to give a statement about the job. The customer had claimed personal items were missing ($5,000 diamond earrings and an antique handgun according to my HR rep) from his home and he had filed a police report with the local PD. I gave my statement and didn't really think about it much after that. On Monday of this week I was driving to my second job of the day when a plain white sedan began following me. When I pulled up to the customer's home, it parked and two plain clothes detectives got out and asked me to turn off my vehicle. They asked if I had anything in my pockets and I said I had tools in them. I went to remove them and they said if I didn't put my hands on my head, they would draw their weapons. They patted me down. I asked if I was under arrest for something and they said no. The female detective then read me my rights. They then said they wanted to talk to me about the incident from two months ago. The first two questions were "Do you have a mother?" and "Are you close to your mother?". They proceeded to tell me how they knew I had taken the things and how the woman just wanted the gun back and if I didn't give it back to them they were going to arrest me. I said I couldn't give back what I didn't have. Then they said that the woman's daughter had been murdered and that the gun was the only possession of hers that they had left and if I could get someone else to return the gun, there would be no questions asked. I again told them that I had not taken anything therefore I had nothing to return. They told me they had the jewelry box that earrings had been in and that they were going to get prints off of them and charge who evers prints they found. I encouraged them to do just that as I was sure that would prove I hadn't taken anything. They then wanted to know which of the other would have taken it. I said I didn't think any of us would do that. They then asked how to find my co-workers. I told them to call my company. They said I could tell them or they could still take me in. I gave them two address' and they told me not to call ahead. This whole scene took about twenty five minutes and was in the middle of the street, in front of my customer's house, with him watching the entire thing from his doorway. After they left I called my boss and was horrified to learn that before stopping me, they had first gone to my corporate office and wandered around and asked about me. My corporate legal team got involved and by the end of the day my company (not me) had a personal apology from the Chief of Police. My concern is that in the corporate world, accusations are almost, if not just as bad as actual wrongdoing, especially when pertaining to character issues. My company has disciplined the employee who admitted the detectives to our office and launched an internal investigation to find out who told them how to find me, at least showing that they believe in me on an HR level, yet I'm concerned about further ramifications done the line. Any thoughts?

 

[CdwJava]

The customer had claimed personal items were missing ($5,000 diamond earrings and an antique handgun according to my HR rep) from his home and he had filed a police report with the local PD. I gave my statement and didn't really think about it much after that.

You gave a "statement" to whom? The police? Or, to the HR representative?

After they left I called my boss and was horrified to learn that before stopping me, they had first gone to my corporate office and wandered around and asked about me.

They were getting background. You were apparently a possible suspect in a serious grand theft including a firearm. The police get paid to be nosy.

My corporate legal team got involved and by the end of the day my company (not me) had a personal apology from the Chief of Police.

Uh ...did you SEE this apology, or is that what they told you? No Chief worth is salt is going to apologize for his detectives doing their job. So, unless these detectives were real A-holes, I doubt the Chief said more than "I'm sorry they disturbed your daily operation, but they were doing what we expect them to do." If they crossed some professional or legal boundary, then that is different. But nothing you have written thus far seems to indicate that.

Any thoughts?

Just be open with your bosses. if nothing comes of the investigation, and you are not charged, then the matter goes away. I am sure it is not the first time that your firm has had people accused of thefts. When stuff comes up missing it is most often the hired help or contractors that are suspects, even if the stuff could have been missing for months or if family or friends of family members are much more likely. The victims will almost always point to the last unknown person or people there.

I don't know that you have anything to worry about. If you do not want to talk with the police in the future, you can always politely decline.

- Carl

 

[ktm7385]

You gave a "statement" to whom? The police? Or, to the HR representative?

HR

Uh ...did you SEE this apology, or is that what they told you? No Chief worth is salt is going to apologize for his detectives doing their job. So, unless these detectives were real A-holes, I doubt the Chief said more than "I'm sorry they disturbed your daily operation, but they were doing what we expect them to do." If they crossed some professional or legal boundary, then that is different. But nothing you have written thus far seems to indicate that.

No I didn't see any apology, but subsequently the other two employees were contacted by the same two detectives and asked to make an appointment to come in to the PD, which they did, and were asked the same exact questions I was. So while I didn't see any apology, something obviously happened to make them change the way they were going about things.


Having answered your questions, I'm not sure I was clear about my concern. My concern is not being questioned by the police. Given the circumstances I fully expect to be questioned and have absolutely no problem with that. My concern is that the detectives went to a corporate office that I DO NOT work at and started asking around about me. While I may not work there, people who hold power over whether or not I get promoted do. As a field employee, my reputation is all I have, as I am not directly supervised during the day, so for them to even give even a hint of impropriety on my part, with absolutely no evidence to support any of this, to people who hold my career in their hands is unconscionable. You may say that no Chief would issue such a statement, yet given how events have unfolded, do you still feel that nothing improper was done? If not, then why did my co-workers get treated differently by the exact same detectives?

 

[dave33]

I do feel it was improper. I think if they had questions about the incident, they should have asked you first. I also think stopping and asking you questions in the street was also improper. Talking to you in front of a customers house was also improper, and making it known to your customers and your co-workers that the police were questioning you was also not right. That being said, I think you should realize that is generally how they conduct themselves. In my opinion there does not seem to be a high level improper behavior. Also improper to us means nothing to them. They are concerned with getting results and are not concerned about how you feel about the experience. They have many distasteful techniques for conducting the investigation. They are allowed to lie and use many forms of manipulation in order to obtain information. They push these principles to the limit and in some cases cross the grey line. That is the area I would consider you to be in, the grey area. I would say you may have issues with the way you were treated and the threat of giving them info. or going to the station and also the search. You have a corporate law team, maybe run this scenario by them. Also, you can see how distasteful some of the tactics they use are, they are very clever and manipulative. I would always suggest not making a statement to the police,there are just to many variables. Since they are allowed and basically expected to lie, you never know where you stand or what the real situation is. Sometimes you just don't know what's going on and in those situations, it is best to remain silent. Sometimes no matter what answer you give, it's the wrong one. Also you should know that a lot of people on this site disapprove of my views and this is just my opinion, and you may have some specific legal questions for the co. attorneys. No matter what anyone says, if you feel violated,you can always file a departmental complaint. Basically this will have no result for you, but if a pattern exists or appears in the future, maybe then some steps will be taken to treat innocent people with some courtesy. goodluck.

 

[CdwJava]

My concern is that the detectives went to a corporate office that I DO NOT work at and started asking around about me.

Apparently they assumed you worked there or that people there knew you. It's called background. Among the questions they might have wanted to know was whether you have been the subject of any complaints or internal investigations about theft. I assume the main office would have that info. When I seek personnel records of a chain store, I very often have to go to another office, too.

Did they HAVE to do it? No.

Should they have done it? I don't know. maybe. I've gone to employers before and took part in what might be termed a fishing expedition. It depends on what they thought might be gained from the inquiry.

While I may not work there, people who hold power over whether or not I get promoted do. As a field employee, my reputation is all I have, as I am not directly supervised during the day, so for them to even give even a hint of impropriety on my part, with absolutely no evidence to support any of this, to people who hold my career in their hands is unconscionable.

I understand why you might feel that way, but it is a part of the job. Not knowing the details, I can't say whether their actions were unreasonable or not. But, having done very similar inquiries, and since they were investigating what likely amounted to a burglary, I am inclined to believe they felt there was something to be gained by making the inquiry. Perhaps the way they went about it was too high handed, but the inquiry likely was necessary, or, at least was recommended.

You may say that no Chief would issue such a statement, yet given how events have unfolded, do you still feel that nothing improper was done?

I don't know. If the investigators behaved rude and unprofessionally, sure. If they simply made inquiry and asked questions that made you uncomfortable, then, no.

If not, then why did my co-workers get treated differently by the exact same detectives?

I don't know. Maybe they focused on you as the thief for some reason.

Without knowing their explanation, I can only guess. I can hypothesize scenarios that make them out to be boobs, and scenarios that make them out to be diligent investigators. I can see a case going in either way.

Like I said originally, if the officers acted out of line or unprofessional, I can understand the apology. If the officers acted properly then I cannot understand the Chief's apology - if indeed it was offered as an apology for their actions. I have heard my Chief make an apology under similar circumstances to the effect of, "I am sorry that your staff might have felt uncomfortable with the investigation and that it might have improperly put the employee in a negative light. That was not the intent. But, the officers were simply doing their job. If there are any other questions or concerns., please let me know."

In the end, if you are a good employee and this is not part of a pattern, I doubt this should have any lasting impact on your job. Heck, I was once accused of a residential burglary ... I survived.

- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

I do feel it was improper. I think if they had questions about the incident, they should have asked you first.

Usually, you want to get as much information as you can BEFORE you interview or RE-interview the suspect. It's a tactical situation, but you go in the direction that might be of the greatest benefit. In this case, they likely assumed the OP would deny any involvement in a theft so they wanted some other info - I suspect to include prior complaints and any suspicions co-workers might have. The rumor mill can be a good source of info, believe it or not. While rumors are not legally reliable, if you track them back a ways you can sometimes find a pattern or find someone that has first hand info on malfeasance.

I also think stopping and asking you questions in the street was also improper. Talking to you in front of a customers house was also improper, and making it known to your customers and your co-workers that the police were questioning you was also not right.

Huh?? Good thing the cops don't adhere to THAT practice or no crimes might get solved.

Did it HAVE to be done that way? Maybe not. Is it legal, and can it be beneficial? Absolutely! They contacted him where they knew he'd be. That's what they do. They aren't going to drive around randomly and wait to come across him.

Ultimately, the OP does no thave to answer questions, and if he feels the officers were out of line, rude, or otherwise unprofessional, he can file a personnel complaint.

- Carl

 

[dave33]

Hello Carl, I understand the rumor mill MAY be a good source of info., but it is just as likely to be inaccurate. I mean after all it is a rumor. This course could very well lead to more false accusations and more humiliation for an innocent man. They have his record at their fingertips. Until more concrete evidence appears that should be sufficient. Also I did not mean not to ask a suspect questions, but let's keep in mind at this point he is an innocent man. So his rights and his right to feel secure should come 1st. They could have very well made a phone call or asked to meet, or any number of things. I think we both know, they were trying to catch him unprepared and put him in an uncomfortable situation. Maybe even just tell them what they want to hear so they will go away. Never once considering the impact there actions have on an innocent man. I realize they have a job to do, but to show some discretion in this situation would not be to much to ask. Since he was not the correct suspect they were going on nothing. I think that crimes would still get solved if they treated people with dignity and respect."You catch more bees with honey", Right?

 

[CdwJava]

Hello Carl, I understand the rumor mill MAY be a good source of info., but it is just as likely to be inaccurate.

That's why you track it back until you find a source. All rumors have a point of origin, and most have some element of truth in them originally. We solve a lot of cases by following up on rumors.

They have his record at their fingertips. Until more concrete evidence appears that should be sufficient.

All a record reflects is the times one has been caught ... in the jurisdiction for which the record applies. How many times have you committed traffic violations and NOT been caught? I suspect, quite a few. By that account, you have never broken any traffic laws. As a point of fact, if your driving record is clear, you have never been CAUGHT (or convicted) of a traffic violation. Remember Ted Bundy, the mass murderer? His record was clear prior to his being caught, too.

Also I did not mean not to ask a suspect questions, but let's keep in mind at this point he is an innocent man. So his rights and his right to feel secure should come 1st.

His rights were not violated. And the police are paid to be suspicious. If they did not treat him as innocent, he would have been arrested. That is why they investigate. And part of that investigating includes asking a lot of nosy and potentially embarrassing questions. The people don't pay me to sit in the office waiting for people to come in and confess.

They could have very well made a phone call or asked to meet, or any number of things. I think we both know, they were trying to catch him unprepared and put him in an uncomfortable situation.

Better to catch him by surprise rather than give him a time to create a story, an alibi, or even consult an attorney. Again, it is what we do.

Never once considering the impact there actions have on an innocent man. I realize they have a job to do, but to show some discretion in this situation would not be to much to ask. Since he was not the correct suspect they were going on nothing.

How do you KNOW he was not the correct suspect? The police were following the leads as they could. If the best suspects are the people that had been in the house, that is the avenue they pursue. If he has been exonerated even in the eyes of the investigating officers, well, then it would seem the investigation had its desired results. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.


- Carl

 

[dave33]

He was the wrong man. You cannot justify treating everyone this way because there are unanswered questions. So you are saying it was right to treat anyone who had been in the house in this way? To threaten to point your weapon at them because there is a slim possiblity wrong doing existed 2 months ago? Question friends and co-workers about a crime he may have commited while conveniently leaving out they really have no idea. Being suspicious of someone is a lot different than actively, openly investigating them. Making a spectacle of the situation is not suspicion. What's wrong with contacting an attorney, just the fact it may make your job (as you see it) a little harder. Isn't it also your job to protect his rights? When do you decide 1 is more important than the other? You say it had the desired results. I say who's desired results and at what price? You can use Ted Bundy and I'll use Rodney King. Dave

 

[CdwJava]

He was the wrong man.

And you know that ... because the suspect says so? How would the officers know he was the wrong man unless they investigated it? The mind reading machines have not yet been fully developed, but we're working on them.

You cannot justify treating everyone this way because there are unanswered questions. So you are saying it was right to treat anyone who had been in the house in this way?

Treat them in what way? By investigating? Asking questions o fthe suspect(s) and gathering info from possible other sources? Yes. That's how we do our jobs. Most suspects do not walk in and confess.

To threaten to point your weapon at them because there is a slim possiblity wrong doing existed 2 months ago?

If someone is reaching into pockets or hidden places when told to keep their hands visible ... uh ... yeah.

Question friends and co-workers about a crime he may have commited while conveniently leaving out they really have no idea.

How do you know what they asked the friends and coworkers? It could have been, "Do you know the guy? Have you ever seen him take anything that is not his? Have you ever heard that he has taken anything that does not belong to him?" etc.

Being suspicious of someone is a lot different than actively, openly investigating them.

That's what the police do - they investigate potential suspects.

Making a spectacle of the situation is not suspicion. What's wrong with contacting an attorney, just the fact it may make your job (as you see it) a little harder. Isn't it also your job to protect his rights?

Please point out where any of his rights were violated?

The suspect is free to contact an attorney if he wishes, the police do not have to do that for him and are not often even legally required to read him his Miranda rights..

When do you decide 1 is more important than the other? You say it had the desired results. I say who's desired results and at what price? You can use Ted Bundy and I'll use Rodney King. Dave

Bundy was an undiscovered mass murderer and King was a fleeing felon (like most people you forget the previous vehicle pursuit and fight with officers that led up to the infamous video)... your point?

- Carl

 

[outonbail]

The moral of the story is that when the police want to interview you and ask you some questions concerning an unsolved crime, you respectfully choose to exercise the most important right you have in that situation.

The right to keep your pie hole shut!

Anyone and everyone who chooses to volunteer any information to the police when they are being questioned about a crime, regardless of their guilt or innocence, is about as smart as bait.

The more you say, the longer the interview will be. It will not stop until your mouth does, or you are arrested.

This simple act, keeping your mouth shut, is for some reason, the most difficult thing for people to actually do.

Remember, if the police have enough evidence to arrest you, they don’t play twenty questions and make believe they’re your friend. They make a bee line to wherever you are, slap on the bracelets and march you directly to jail.