Comments on: Supreme Court Texting Case

By: Don Fewkes Sr

Don Fewkes Sr — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:20:49 +0000

I agree with what Mr. Townsend says about the officers not using cell phones that were provided by their dept. for personal use. Where I have to disagree is when he says they have “radio’s” which is true. The thing that makes the use of cell phones … is the fact that all the bad people have scanners and can listen to the police radio.

By: Mr. Porter

Mr. Porter — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 18:02:51 +0000

If and only if a signed agreement between the officer and official authorizing the use of this phone for OFFICIAL business will the case be favored to the state. Now, it’s common sense that a business phone, PC, etc.. being used, MUST be used for BUSINESS only, so technically no agreement was needed to be signed, a verbal instruction should be sufficient; however, the courts like a paper trail.

By: Rodger Townsend

Rodger Townsend — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:59:02 +0000

the officers are public servants the same as with many politicians who have lost their jobs for the same, should the city fire them or place them on UNPAID administrative leave pending the investigation by IA. Furthermore, as police officers they have radios, a dept phone is not necessary nor is it appropriate to be texting sexually explicit material during on duty hours amendment rights or not. Our societies problem is no one is setting a good example.

By: Ray

Ray — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:01:40 +0000

I think that if the city provided the device, then they should win the case. Simple as that, Unless the defendents have spicific permission to us the device for personal use, that could be a case for the court.