Restaurant Has Sheriff Track Down Non-Customer's Home Address, Sends...
It also has a policy stating that non-customers who insist on using its restroom pay $5 for the privilege Steep, yet still fair.
Join the discussion below, or Read more at Gawker.
#1 Mar 1, 2013
Sheriff Darrell "Barney Fife" Allison needs to read the Tenn. law concerning this:
2010 Tennessee Code
Title 39 - Criminal Offenses
Chapter 17 - Offenses Against Public Health, Safety and Welfare
Part 1 - Miscellaneous
39-17-105 - Charge for use of public toilet facility prohibited.
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.
(b) Each toilet facility maintained in violation of this section constitutes a separate offense.
(c) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.
[Acts 1989, ch. 591,§ 1.]
#2 Mar 3, 2013
The people involved in pursuing this woman who
only wanted to use their toilet have too much
time on their hands.
What kind of moron would prevent someone from
going to the bathroom, or charge them the
rediculous amount of $5.00 ,(or anything), for
the use of their facilities.
And to run out to get her license plate number.
Give me a break !
Absolute brain dead imbeciles.
Close that greasy spoon and then you won't have
to worry about such trivial things as toilet use.
You people are dumb, dumb, dumb.
Get a life.
#3 Mar 4, 2013
The woman VANDALIZED the toilet. That's a crime.
#4 Mar 5, 2013
Prove that it was her.
It would be impossible. All we have is "he said she said."
#5 Mar 5, 2013
Please, don't post irrelevant laws. It makes you look completely silly by those of us who actually know the law.
#6 Mar 5, 2013
You monkeys that "pretend" to know the law amuse me to no end.
I think the most appealing part about it all is that you took the time to research something that you thought was applicable to the aforementioned issue and posted it with good intentions through interpretations of what you perceived in the law.
It's actually kinda cute.
Reading and interpretations are two different beasts. Stick to your day job, Sherlock.
#7 Mar 5, 2013
It is illegal for the sheriff to run the plates at the request of the restaurant owner.
I think they might have thought "theft of service". I am not sure but thats my guess. However, in that reasoning the restaurant owner would have to file a civil suit, then the sheriff could have served the defendant.
This person has a good case against said sheriff and restaurant owner on stalking charges.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Laws were broken here indeed, not by the person whom used the facilities.
#8 Mar 5, 2013
Care to show us where it is illegal to "run the plates?"
A theft is a criminal issue, not a tort.
Please understand laws before pretending to know them.
#9 Mar 5, 2013
Legal Council for a restaurant group in Houston, TX.
May I ask you a question? I was only assuming that theft of service was your angle here, is it?
If not, what is?
I have no dog in the fight, I only find it interesting and want to know how it plays out.
#10 Mar 5, 2013
I wonder how much business this dive has lost since their moronic actions landed on national news? I'd like to know if the owners/manager think they've got their $5.00 worth of POSITIVE publicity? Ignorant fools who evidently lack the common sense to own/run ANY type of public establishment. Oh wait - may be the perfect people to operate a row of "pay-as-you-go" skid-o-cans.
A possible employment opportunity for the sheriff after his misconduct is investigated (but then he doesn't look like the brightest crayon in the box).
#11 Mar 5, 2013
I think it's funny all ya'll want to talk about the law. The Sheriff is the one that needs law classes. In his fruitless attempt to cover up a bad judgement call he stated that he had "probable cause" to check the owner of the plates. Since when is "probable cause" required to preform a license plate check? There is no tier of suspicion needed to preform a plate check on anyone at anytime. The term "probable cause" is a legal tier of suspicion and it's uneducated use in this statement was to mislead the public.
39-17-105 Does not apply unless one can show that this business was operated as a public toilet facilities.
#12 Mar 5, 2013
Just because probable cause isn't required, it doesn't mean that it cannot be used for rationale and justification.
#13 Mar 6, 2013
There are no requirements for a plates check so there is no justification or rationale. "Probable Cause" is a tier of suspicion that is unrelated and not used where no suspicion is needed.
#14 Mar 6, 2013
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were the sole dictator in how another presents a message. Perhaps we all should check in with you from now on prior to making any comments; just to be sure it is approved among your own context.
From what I gathered, he was presenting probable cause, not in terms of legal realms, but through general rationale context.
I had probable cause to take a shit this morning. I had probable cause to follow my girlfriend because I suspected she was cheating. You see, probable cause alone doesn't mean it's strictly limited to the exact legal definition used by the courts among operations of enforcement, super-genius.
#15 Mar 7, 2013
PENAL CODETITLE 8. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIONCHAPTER 39. ABUSE OF OFFICESec. 39.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:(1) "Law relating to a public servant's office or employment" means a law that specifically applies to a person acting in the capacity of a public servant and that directly or indirectly:(A) imposes a duty on the public servant; or(B) governs the conduct of the public servant.(2) "Misuse" means to deal with property contrary to:(A) an agreement under which the public servant holds the property;(B) a contract of employment or oath of office of a public servant;(C) a law, including provisions of the General Appropriations Act specifically relating to government property, that prescribes the manner of custody or disposition of the property; or(D) a limited purpose for which the property is delivered or received.
Added by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
#16 Mar 7, 2013
This is what happened in Memphis.... I guess we don't learn from others mistakes.
A former Memphis police officer was fined and confined to his home Monday for illegally looking up information for an informant on the FBI national crime database.
Sean Fritz could have been sentenced up to a year in prison, but U.S. Dist. Judge Jon McCalla noted that the officer's crime, though serious, was not violent.
Under the law, all conduct does not require the same response, said McCalla, who noted Fritz's lack of a prior record and commendations in his career as a police officer. Prison is not the answer to every situation, but probation is not a cakewalk.
Fritz, 37, a 15-year veteran police officer, pleaded guilty in June to federal computer
#17 Mar 7, 2013
This case and that case are two totally different issues.
The police in the case of the restaurant had absolute cause.
The police in your case did not; quote "an informant."
It's like you monkeys see something and go "Oooo ooo ooo! This is similar so it MUST apply the same!!"
#18 Mar 7, 2013
For those "Google lawyers" ... Here ya go; the CORRECT applicable TCA for this situation (regarding the plates).
First, I will point out the premise of the confidentiality. THEN, I will show you where it IS legal for him to do such ...
55-25-104. Disclosure of personal information prohibited.
Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, except as provided in §§ 55-25-105 -- 55-25-107 and 55-25-108 [repealed], the department, and any officer, employee, agent or contractor thereof, shall not disclose personal information about any person obtained by the department in connection with a motor vehicle record.
Sit down, I'm not done.
55-25-107. Disclosure for certain purposes.
(b) Personal information referred to in subsection (a) shall be disclosed for use in connection with matters of motor vehicle or driver safety and theft, motor vehicle emissions, motor vehicle product alterations, recalls, or advisories, performance monitoring of motor vehicles and dealers by motor vehicle manufacturers, and removal of nonowner records from the original owner records of motor vehicle manufacturers to carry out the purposes of Titles I and IV of the federal Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992, compiled in 15 U.S.C.§ 2021 et seq., the federal Automobile Information Disclosure Act, compiled in 15 U.S.C.§ 1231 et seq., the federal Clean Air Act of 1992, compiled in 42 U.S.C.§ 7401 et seq., and 49 U.S.C.§ 30101 et seq., 49 U.S.C.§ 30501 et seq., 49 U.S.C.§ 32101 et seq., 49 U.S.C.§ 33101, et seq., and, subject to subdivision (a)(2), may be disclosed for use as follows:
(3) In the normal course of business by a legitimate business or its agents, employees, or contractors, but only:
(A) To verify the accuracy of personal information submitted by the individual to the business or its agents, employees, or contractors; and
(B) If the information so submitted is not correct or is no longer correct, to obtain the correct information, but only for purposes of preventing fraud by, pursuing legal remedies against, or recovering on a debt or security interest against the individual;
(4) In connection with any civil, criminal, administrative, or arbitral proceeding in any federal, state, or local court or agency or before any self-regulatory body, including the service of process, investigation in anticipation of litigation, and the execution or enforcement of judgments and orders, or pursuant to an order of a federal, state or local court;
Now, it was the full length of 107 simply because there is a word limit here.
To help you folks that do not understand; it simply means that a business can summons the request for legitimate purposes. In this case, possible future litigation or collection of debt.
Whether it be a tort or possible theft, the restaurant owner has every right to request the information and the police have every right to grant it.
From my understanding, the restaurant was seeking collection of a debt owed by the person. I don't think they were insisting on theft. Either way, it involves possible litigation.
Now that being said, I think it is completely screwed up for a restaurant to do that. I don't agree with it; however, it is THEIR business, they can do as they please. Poor choices, but nonetheless, their choices.
#19 Mar 8, 2013
So Wondering doesn't feel the need to ask I'll tell you where my option comes from. I'm TAC (Terminal Agency Coordinator) For GCIC/NCIC. I've done this for a number of years. The way it was explained to me and from what I've read in the laws what the Sheriff did was computer invasion of privacy. Now it is possible that every training class and every GCIC/NCIC manual I've read for the past 10 yrs was wrong. But If I was this woman I would get a lawyer and see.
#20 Mar 8, 2013
I've also done this a number of years and it appears that you are unable to read.
Add your comments below
|DARE Officer||7 hr||Another Proud Res...||3|
|hcbst (Nov '15)||9 hr||Tiredofdenisesdrama||9|
|Who do you support for U.S. House in Tennessee ... (Oct '10)||Aug '16||Lol||308|
|1989 Pontiac Firebird Forumla 350||Aug '16||Bearmkt||1|
|looking (Apr '13)||Oct '14||jacob||2|
|Disaster reconstruction grants available for fl... (Jun '13)||Jun '13||Tenant done wrong||1|
Find what you want!
Search Indian Mound Forum Now
Copyright © 2016 Topix LLC