A deputy sheriff in Sumter county, Florida was arrested and fired yesterday for using police tools to cyber stalk her husband’s ex-wife. Detective Almany created official electronic records that falsely represented the searches as legitimate Sheriff’s Office investigations so she could access:
- Comprehensive Case Information System (CCIS)
- Flock Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR), and
- Driver and Vehicle Information Database (DAVID)
The maintenance of these databases, and the uncontrolled access to them that begs for misuse is a clear violation of the rights of the people. Their existence in their current form is purely a 4th Amendment issue that needs to be addressed. Having an electronic dossier on every American, their whereabouts, and a real time database of their movements is simply egregious.
Not just that, but police need more oversight and less unfettered deference. Qualified immunity needs to go, and police should be forced to obtain malpractice insurance, just like most other businesses do. Medical professionals, accountants, and even travel agents are required to carry insurance against mistakes made in the course of their jobs. I don’t see why police are any different. These databases should require a warrant for access, and any misuse should result in criminal charges, termination, and liability to the person whose rights were violated- to be paid personally from the offending cop or his insurance.
There are people here who would say posts like this reflect a bias against cops. I disagree. These posts instead reflect a lack of bias towards cops, in that I don’t think police are any more righteous than the average person and special care needs to be taken in preventing people from abusing police powers.
10 Comments
ghostsniper · July 24, 2026 at 11:52 am
To whom, and how, do these cameras benefit anyone?
For every jackboot that gets caught abusing the system there are 100 more that don’t get caught.
Joe Blow · July 24, 2026 at 12:41 pm
Bahahahhahahhaaaa!!! That’s a good one!
Never gonna happen… you’re not wrong, but it’s never gonna happen.
This is one of the reasons why I’ve finally accepted tinvowoot. Because the courts will never throw out qualified immunity, nor any of the other ‘special’ protections for the enforcer-class (hint: they NEED them to be on their side).
rick · July 24, 2026 at 4:53 pm
Never is a long time. QA was created by the court within my lifetime. Through usurpation of powers, the court has become more strong. This is not what the Founders intended. Meaning the court has those powers on paper only.
As untenable as it seems to be today, it can be overtirned easily.
rick · July 24, 2026 at 4:44 pm
Not all law enforcement officers have surety bonds. That is up to each state. I would change that to a mandatory requirement. And bond premiums are 100% paid from the personal income of each officer.
Some professions require only Errors & Omissions (E&O) insurance. Claims against E&O are usually limited to refund a portion or all of the cost of service provided. I would change that to remove that limitation.
Any compensation, penalty, refund of damages from violation of civil rights (in this case at least the 4A) comes straight from the pocket of that officer(s) involved. Further, any assistence from employer, or any source of public monies is prohibited.
A sentencing of guilty parties shall include a minimum of ten years incarceration.
We either mean business, or not.
Steve · July 25, 2026 at 9:12 am
Not sure if it’s what you meant, Rick, but lets not start off by violating the Constitution. Leave surety bonds up to the states.
But we can certainly give them the incentive to do the right thing. If the officer doesn’t have enough in savings and pension and future earnings, it comes out of the officer’s superiors’ holdings, through the city/county (police/sheriff) officials’ personal holdings, the state legislators, and governor, if necessary, to settle the judgement.
If every elected official is in the poorhouse because of a failure to act, serves ’em right.
rick · July 25, 2026 at 1:13 pm
Steve, I do not advocate for changing any part of the Constitution. In fact, I resist any effort to change or alter except that process already within the document.
Where I spoke of making mandatory surety bonds, I mean that requirement does remain with the states. However, in the same manner that certain items are mandatory of professionals and tradesmen, surety bonds be a mandatory requirement of employment for officers of the court.
I do not see elsewhere in my previous comment that alteration of the U.S. Constitution could be construed.
Steve · July 26, 2026 at 8:38 am
Fair. That’s why I phrased it as I did. I just wasn’t sure what you meant by making it mandatory if a state chose not to.
JC · July 24, 2026 at 7:10 pm
You know what pisses me off? When a LEO calls me a civilian.
That’s a hard line. So you wear a uniform.
So what. So do the waitresses at Hooters, and the greeter at Walmart.
Steve · July 25, 2026 at 8:40 am
He’s a civilian, too, and he’s damn glad he is. UCMJ would not go easy on him.
Steve · July 25, 2026 at 8:52 am
Offhand, all I can think of to improve it is a finder’s fee for whistleblowers. Yes, like the rest of us they are supposed to do the right thing anyway, but give the thin blue line a reason to be moral.
Comments are closed.