Essex cop abused police IT systems to snoop on his in-laws Detective Constable Leigh Valentine of Essex Police in the UK has received a "final written warning" from a misconduct panel after misusing Police intelligence systems to snoop on his ex-wife's stepbrother. The three-day misconduct panel was held from 1 March in Basildon Magistrates Court, and heard praise about the "award- …
wasn't he sacked? This is supposed to be someone beyond reproach in a postion where he has to handle evidence which will be used to put people behind bars, or potentialy show them to be innocent.
He clearly can't be trusted so what's he doing in the police force?
In my opinion the police need to be paid more, treated better but held to the highest standars.....
That's my ha' penny worth for the day!
Lots of uninformed commentardery on this thread.
Firstly he already had access to the systems - so calling it stealing is way off base, its improper access at best.
Secondly there is no suggestion he did anything with it.
Thirdly let the nerds who can say hand on heart that they haven't seen/found more that they should have been entitled to via DB/SA access cast the first stone.
its improper access at best.
Which begs the question as to how access is controlled in the first place.
This is especially the case when you consider the draft IP bill that would give the police amongst others access to far much more.
In any case the precise term is irrelevant IMO: in both cases he would have been doing something he should have known was wrong.
Secondly there is no suggestion he did anything with it.
Because they've withheld everything and we can't possibly know one way or the other? From the article: 'No information is available as to why he made these searches'
Besides which could anybody possibly prove this, especially if it was originally meant for his own use as opposed to a 3rd party so would never have been handed on?
Thirdly let the nerds who can say hand on heart that they haven't seen/found more that they should have been entitled to via DB/SA access...
If the database held information that some people shouldn't be seeing or only seeing in very well defined situations then what the hell were they doing with SA access in the first place?
"The courts and police seem to have a habit of minimising punishments metered out when it involves police officers."
This really isn't true. For each case you read about in the press I'll bet there are tens or hundeds that you don't read about. I'll give you one example that is widely reported. Drug dealer, dealing to kids in the park, spots officers and runs, swallowing drugs as he goes. Unfortunately chokes on the bag. Police attempt to resuscitate (would you do mouth to mouth on a known needle-sharing drug user? Police officers have no choice). Ambulance arrives. A&E doctor takes 30 mins to remove obstruction with the luxury of a hospital to work from.
Those officers, who did nothing wrong, have been waiting for an investigation to complete for nearly a decade now. They can't get jobs. Being in the wrong place at the wrong time will end up costing them the best part of a million.
Sure, the Met have a few officers who will cover up stuff, and I suspect most of the big forces have their skeletons, but for the most part Police officers are treated more harshly. Data Protection does seem a bit weak, but still better than almost anywhere else.
For every case like that there are dozens where police officers get off for crimes that would imprison us for years. I have a Facebook friend who is a member of the Cop Block group so I see stories about US police misconduct all the time. Saw one recently where a cop was convicted of molesting a four year old child but was given probation because "cops would be treated harshly in jail", but at least he was fired. There was another where a cop was accused by multiple women of raping them while in uniform and on duty at traffic stops. No forensic testing was ever done on the women despite them asking for it, and they were treated like criminals by the cops. The cop involved was put on paid leave for months and then reinstated due to lack of evidence. Another case where a judge was convicted of drunk driving and given no jail time even though it is mandatory and she's never given such a light sentence to any of the hundreds of drunk drivers she sentenced.
The 'justice' system in the US takes care of its own. When cops speak out against other cops who are doing something wrong, they suddenly start getting bad reviews and get fired, or given the least desirable hours/duties to make them quit, or in a few cases even die under mysterious circumstances. Pretty heavy incentive for them to know they should keep silent about whatever they see their fellow cops doing, that is how the majority of 'good' cops are silenced by the minority of bad ones and the abuses continue.
Maybe it is different in the UK, but probably not all that different.
I know very little about the US justice system but I do know a little about the UK one and some basic statistics.
To show that cops are treated more leniently than other people we also need to investigate how non-Police are treated. Tonight, Friday night, is traditional drinking night in England. There will be many crimes committed. Most of them won't be reported (public order, drunk and disorderly, domestic violence, drink driving, drug dealing). Most of those that are won't result in any arrest and no prosecution. The charges won't match the crime (ABH will be downgraded to common assault). The sentencing will be pathetic (a £70 fine for breaking someone's jaw for the fifth time) because prison would harm their job prospects and upset their baby mother's child.
This is the reality of the justice system. You may not like it, you may downvote, but it is what happens multiple times a day. A tiny fraction of crime overall is prosecuted whereas almost all Police misconduct is prosecuted. Even if it was just 10% (and it isn't) it'd still be 1,000 times higher than the prosecution rate for non-Police.
Most of those that are won't result in any arrest and no prosecution.
Making sure this happens would be the responsibility of those same police officers surely?
almost all Police misconduct is prosecuted
*very* debatable. One name for you for example: Daniel Morgan.
It's also not difficult to see the government appeal lenient sentences at the drop of the hat when it involves members of the general public, yet I can't think of a single instance of this happening when it involves police officers.
"Thirdly let the nerds who can say hand on heart that they haven't seen/found more that they should have been entitled to via DB/SA access cast the first stone." --- Gordon 10
Some time ago, walking the dogs at night, I looked up and saw my rather attractive air stewardess neighbour walk naked past her bedroom window. I'm pretty sure this does not give me an excuse to stand outside her house looking up in the hope of a repeat performance.
You might need to acquant yourself with the concept of mens rea.
"Lots of uninformed commentardery on this thread." --- Gordon 10
Well, some, at any rate.
This post has been deleted by its author
Stephen Morely, counsel for Essex Police against Valentine, told the hearing that he appreciated "any father who has the opportunity to look up people who are having access to their children... [is] going to do it. But if you are a police officer, you can't do it, and everybody knows you can't."
Surely that is the defence of his actions vs huge data collection. Either he is responsible for his actions or we cannot store all this data because it will certainly be misused. I think he really did spell out the problem there.
...this was not one of them.
Yes, it was naughty to look them up, but, as far as we know, he didn't act on the information. I'd be more worried if he searched people not connected to his family.
I don't buy this crap about 'highest standards'. That only leads to Robocops modelled on Theresa May.
I'm sorry, but this is a serious crime as it involves a police officer abusing his privilege to access this data.
This isnt someone stealing your email address from a British Gas contact centre, this is someone who has access to a lot of information about us all
None of us here buy this crap about "highest standards" but more because we all know full well that the standards alluded to seem to be pretty much at a comedy level.
However, it is absolutely a serious crime when someone with some fairly aggressive powers deliberately and for personal gain abuses those powers, whether it be accountants embezzling, Politicians lining their own pockets or as in this case, Coppers using their systems to spy for personal gain. I pretty much do not care what the guy's motives were, he broke one of the most serious rules they have.
In any other job, he'd have been sacked for gross misconduct, and rightly so. As always, one rule for the Police, different rule for mortals.
Yes, it was naughty to look them up, but, as far as we know, he didn't act on the information. I'd be more worried if he searched people not connected to his family.
Only because there was apparently nothing in the information worth acting upon. We have no idea what could have happened otherwise. BTW, according to that Adam and Eve story we're apparently all family. The lack of genetic diversity in that scenario is worrying, though :).
PNC is logged and audited
Most force copies have much looser restrictions and its infeasible to audit the huge number of lookups that go through each day.
Think about the practicalities of searching for a missing child, you need all family, friends, contacts, places, people associated with those places. All to be done massively urgently.
And a busy shift will get 5 of them over 10 hours.
I'd been building up to it, for some time.
When you start, you never think you'll get caught.
First I murdered 4 to start with, then escalated to 7, and finally, just before I was apprehended, I did the 9 of them all at the same time. 'Orrible it was. For them anyway.
However, I received a written warning, and I can tell you, I NEVER did that again!
How about the Suffolk police using the computers for internet porn and child porn. That was never supposedly found. It has to be realised that the bill is just another cross section of the community just that more criminals migrate to them. That is the reason why you get a lazy could not give a fig 30% a very good 30% and the rest just bent to a greater or lesser amount. A copper who tells kids off for scrumping, takes the apples and eats them is just as bad as the one who is having it off with an officer of the opposite sex in the cells or one that is taking back handers.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
