efelony: Illinois Police Officer Uses Ticket To Ask Woman On Date

Who needs eharmony? Evangelina Paredes found a match in a handwritten note on her windshield. It was from Stickney police officer Chris Collins who used the information that he recorded on a $132 speeding ticket to track her down and ask her out. Collins pointed out “I did cost you $132 — least I can do is buy you dinner.” It is a police version of the slogan “fall in love for the right reasons.”


The note stated “It’s Chris … that ugly bald Stickney cop who gave you that ticket. I know this may seem crazy and you’re probably right, but truth is I have not stopped thinking about you since. I don’t expect a girl as attractive as you to … even go for a guy like me, but I’m taking a shot anyways. . . . But hey, I did cost you $132 — least I can do is buy you dinner.”

Collins, 27, is now being accused of violating Paredes’ privacy and is being sued for causing “plaintiff to suffer great fear and anxiety.” While I am not sure of how much fear and anxiety is reasonably caused by such a note, he clearly did use his position as a police officer to violate her privacy. He is in far better a legal position than if he had made the date a quid pro quo for the ticket — which would have led to a criminal charge. There remains the threat of criminal charge if there is any allegation of the withholding the ticket or unauthorized access to other areas of police records — which I have not seen in the articles covering the case.

The lawsuit also names Stickney Police Chief Joseph Kretch and the village of Stickney.

The village is likely to argue that this is a rogue officer who acted in violation of city protocol and rules. It is also likely to argue that the note was not left under the claim or appearance of official authority. To perfect such a defense, however, it would be necessary to discipline and likely terminate the officer for the breach. Even then, it may not protect the city from liability. The question is how serious the damages would be in such a case. What do you think?

Source: ABC

39 thoughts on “efelony: Illinois Police Officer Uses Ticket To Ask Woman On Date

  1. When I was much younger and the better half and I had just moved in together I had an occasion to call the police and one of the police (the young, handsome one) that responded to the call-out returned to do a follow-up. The better half and I worked different shifts so he wasn’t around when the police came out so it looked like I lived alone.

    He didn’t seem to have much to say of a policing nature, all he seemed to have on his mind was conversation of a non-business sort so I figured it was a personal visit and indicated that I had to let out the dogs or something before my fiance got back. No more follow-ups.

    I wasn’t at all disturbed that he would use his job as an excuse for a second opportunity to chat. You can’t always control how you meet people. Finding an excuse to meet someone again even if that excuse is your job isn’t, or hasn’t traditionally been, dangerous or dishonorable as I recall. LOL, maybe I was just more slutty in my youth- it was the very early 70’s after all. 🙂

    The magnitude of information on any given person that is available to a police officer today, their obligation to safeguard it by not using it inappropriately, and their position of authority changes the game though. I would hesitate to brand someone as a stalker or sue the city over a first contact of the sort in the above article but I’d make it clear that he could be in hot water for misusing his position to get information for personal use.

    He may just be semi-stupid (stupefied?)in some regards, due to his smitten condition; who among us have never been thrown into a state of semi-stupidity in some respect because of our hormones? This cop should have worked harder for that (faux-accidental?) next encounter like everyone else does, not taken the easy and prying way out.

  2. AngryMan, I don’t think it rises to the level of sexual harassment because there was no offer or implication of beneficial consideration for the date. It was stupid and an abuse of his position but probably not sexual harassment.

  3. InalienableWrights, probably, but if you weren’t white you’ve been catching hell from the police forever. Now you can throw steroids and whole post 9-11/militarization into the mix- everybody is the potential ‘enemy’.

  4. “I think modern day cops have worn out their welcome with most citizens and most wish they would go away — for good.” (InalienableWrights)

    Sadly, I think you are right.

    In saying that I have to remember that many of my friends in the minority communities have felt this way about cops for a hell of a long time.

  5. There is also the phenomen of Cop Groupies thatgives LEO’s that they are more attractive then they are.

  6. Technically he violated privacy, that’s wrong and he should be disciplined.

    The woman is being a bit opportunistic with the law suit, using it as a means of getting her own back for the ticket but that shouldn’t detract from her case.

    I expect that had she been attracted to the cop then she wouuld have said yes and all would be fine.

    I don’t do cop hate (or any form of group hate), it a drop dead gorgous female cop did this to me I’d take her up on it. If she were butt ugly I’d respectfully decline; I’d probably be bemused; guess I’d miss out on a chance to come out ahead financially.

  7. What he should have done was not write her the ticket and give her his card and left the ball in her court. He clearly states that he is not attractive and she is… so of course the risk is high she wouldn’t want him. If he had left his card and said I am the officer from the other day pleaae call me…there wouldn’t have been such evidence and he could have felt out the situation.
    He was out of his league and out of his mind. He knew the risk he was taking and if he is fired it is his own fault. He should be suspended for 30 days and sent to retraining.

  8. A long time ago, I dated a young lady who had a fascination with undergarment engineering: a collection of pushup bras. She drove a hot rod Camaro, in which she was stopped numerous times. By the time the LEO got to her window, she’d undone a couple blouse buttons, allowing a view of her manipulated appurtenances. She never got cited, but was asked out regularly. She claimed that she wasn’t tempted, but was at eye level with some “cop flashlights” that tested her resolve.

  9. Kyle 1, said:

    “In response to the police abuses and brutalities that seem to be ubiquitous these days, I’ve come up with 20 (so far) changes that would prevent such abuses. I apologize in advance for the randomness of them; I listed them as I thought of them and they are not yet in a cohesive order yet……”
    —————————————————-
    Kyle study your history and most of our history we did not have cops.
    I think getting rid of the vermin is the best and most logical solution.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-arch.html

    • InalienableWrights,

      “Kyle study your history and most of our history we did not have cops.”

      Given that should dueling be legal, or won’t that be moot since we’ll have no laws? Perhaps my Sig Steyr vs. someone’s Glock. In the alternative my AK47 vs somebody’s Uzi. A world where firepower prevails and might makes right. Sounds like fun if I was 22 and suicidal.

  10. @InalienableWrights. I agree cops and all people in positions of authority should have greater oversight by the people. I strongly believe that having a badge should not grant extra rights. I do not however support the idea of removing law enforcement because then we’d end up with an ochlocrasy. Until the human race has matured enough to form a proper anarcy (some time yet, if ever) it’s a bad idea not to have laws and people to enforce them.

    What needs to be done is ensure the right laws are in place, bad laws are removed and those that police and prosecute said laws are not themselves above the law.

  11. You need to use the cranial unit that God gave you. Without cops you have the county sheriff that has been the law enforcement unit since this country began.

    And you analogy of the Uzi verses the AK is the way it is now since the only way the state exists is by the threat of lethal force to be used against you if you do not go along with each and every whim of the state.

    And no matter what we will have laws since we are the law. We are the sovereign and the common law will always exist. Remember guys these are the principles that this country was founded upon after all. That all state authority comes from the people.

  12. He never said he used his authority to obtain her information. He did leave a note on her car. Once. Being asked out one time doesn’t fall under the category of stalking, in my eyes. How do we know that he didn’t just happen to see her car parked in his town, since she apparently works there…and then that was when he decided to put a note on her car? There is no evidence of any wrongdoing and he should countersue for defamation. This made not just national, but international news and all he did was ask her out on a date in a love note! Would she still sue him if he weren’t a cop? I doubt this woman fears for her life. That is just ridiculous.

    • “Being asked out one time doesn’t fall under the category of stalking, in my eyes.”

      Yes. I think it does.

      As was pointed out by InalienableWrights; Cops have access to priviledged information.

      Using that access to contact anyone for personal reasons is inappropriate use of their authority and a breach of trust with the public who is paying him to hold that information as priviledged to avoid just such stalking activities from others.

      The argument, that it is Ok because he is a Cop, is diametricly opposed to the terms of that trust and allows the Caretaker to become the Violator.

      “Would she still sue him if he weren’t a cop?”

      I would hope so. I would say yes if she was smart.

      I worked for the Public Library system for 13 years as a Supervisor in the Circulation Department (those are the people that check your items out for you and back in when you return. they take care of your records, fines etc.) These people all have access to priviledged information and confidentiallity is a huge issue; always.

      If I had; at anytime; looked up the address of a girl or woman in the records; crept to her house; and left a love note on her car; my job would have been immediately forfeit. Inappropriate use is inappropriate use; Cop or not.

      “He never said he used his authority to obtain her information.”
      “How do we know that he didn’t just happen to see her car parked in his town, since she apparently works there…and then that was when he decided to put a note on her car?”

      Copied from the article you just read:
      “It was from Stickney police officer Chris Collins who used the information that he recorded on a $132 speeding ticket to track her down and ask her out. Collins pointed out ‘I did cost you $132 — least I can do is buy you dinner’.”

      Also to be considered is the manner that he chose to approach her and his words to her.

      This guy is a Cop. Brave, Strong, Confident; right?

      “The note stated ‘It’s Chris … that ugly bald Stickney cop who gave you that ticket. I know this may seem crazy and you’re probably right, but truth is I have not stopped thinking about you since. I don’t expect a girl as attractive as you to … even go for a guy like me, but I’m taking a shot anyways. . . . But hey, I did cost you $132 — least I can do is buy you dinner’.”

      Sound more like: Self-conscious, Self-deprecating, and Cowardly; to judge from the fact that he didn’t even have the balls to approach her in person so as to explain himself.

      No. He rather snuck around hiding notes like a middle school child; told the girl all the reasons why she shouldn’t want to date him; and then says something that changes the intent from a romantic date; to a repayment of a debt he owes her; for giving her a ticket.

      Why does he feel he owes her for the ticket if the ticket was given in the honest performance of his duty?

      “I doubt this woman fears for her life.”
      Answer #1:
      I don’t believe it’s relavent. He is being charged with “Violating Her Privacy”
      The other is a civil suit filed by the victim.

      “I doubt this woman fears for her life.”
      Answer #2:
      She should.

      He should be charged with misuse of his authority and some charge dealing with his attempt to extort co-operation from this woman as follows:
      “Collins pointed out ‘I did cost you $132 — least I can do is buy you dinner’.”

      Were I this woman; I would be asking myself some questions.

      Is he saying that if I don’t go out with him; I could get more such tickets?”

      Did he purposely stake me out to give me the first ticket as an excuse to meet me?

      Did I even deserve the ticket?

      If I say no; will his attitude change and become vindictive?

      Anyone who is in touch with events in this country should be able to see that Cops; on orders from the Corporate Power Structure i.e. the 1% are becoming more violent and more intrusive.

      As our rights have been eroded; first by the Un-Constitutional; Patriot Act and NDAA; then by the violent, blatant; and yet unchallenged violation of those rights by Cops and Courts all over America; the abuses have increased in number and severity until we are left with no option but to admit the obvious. *

      * 1) Something has changed in America; no matter how much we try to deny it.

      2) The change; although visable throughout our society; is especially obvious where the Government most directly, tangibly, and confrontationally; interacts with the civilian population; that being the Police/Citizen interaction.

      3) The language that we use to talk about the Cops has changed. The only time you hear the words “Protect and Serve” is with a snear or a sarcastic twist to the words. people everywhere are complaining about the level of service; the order of priorities; and the overly agressive and abusive attitudes and actions of the Police. Like never before in my 53 years. even in the 1960s the Police got more respect from the average citizen.

      4) They deserve all of the critisizm they are receiving.

      5) This problem will only get worse unless we stop it.

      So; any woman (or man or child) who is approached by a Cop today should fear.

      For your life; your freedom; your dignity; your rights.

      In fact any contact with Police may potencially be turned around on you.

      If you are an immigrant or your English is less than perfect or your skin color is darker than beige; it is almost a certainty.

      Todays Police are little more than Thugs; hired by the 1% to bully and browbeat the people into submission to their twisted Fascist Dream State.

      Take as just one example, the Cop in the video on this blog who wasn’t sure if it was Ok for the Lady driving the car to read the Constitution or not.

      He thought he might aught’a conficeulate that there radical reading material.

      So I guess what I want to say is: I disagree with you about the nature and severity of the case and the possible injury and trauma experienced by the victim.

      “That is just ridiculous.”

      Indeed. Indeed. It is ridiculous.

      It is ridiculous that; in a supposedly free country; peopled by descendents of those who hungered and bled to be free of one or another brand of Tyrany; I should have to come here and consider such issues.

      Christopher Hitchens: Died Dec. 15, 2011: “Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way” – in a debate Nov. 2010

      • “Being asked out one time doesn’t fall under the category of stalking, in my eyes.”

        AMS,

        Brilliant summation of why this Cop violated his trust and should suffer for it. I’m with you on this all the way.

  13. The difference is that cops have access to personal information on people that has a very high potential for abuse. I for instance can not get the home address of every good looking woman that I run into, but a cop can and would very likely get away with illegal access to this information.

    If you ask me this makes a very good case against having your home address accessible to the State at all. What excuse does the state have for 4th amendment access to information of people that are not accused of a crime? They should require a warrant to try and get ones address.

    “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

    How can you be secure in your home when the state demands to know where innocent people live? Is no access to your home address an unreasonable search? I sure think so.

Comments are closed.