LEOs and confidentiality question

[Melvin]

Is there any confidentiality guidelines in CO that prevent an LEO who has made contact with you but there were no violations, then going and discussing the subject of that contact with your employer
when it has nothing to do with the employer, but results in you losing your job?

[OneGuy67]

Interesting question. It's pretty vague though. You want to provide details that might better assist in answering your question?

[Great-Kazoo]

ANYTHING YOU SAY, CAN AND WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU.

yes it pertains to being arrested. However Unless there is something like Dr./ Patient Confidentiality mum's the word

[strm_trpr]

As an LEO dealing with a specific subset of the population, I advised one of my clients that I would report their drug use to their employer because they are working for a home health provider, if it continued. It has continued. I gave him one week to report it to his employer, after that I would contact them. The only things I cannot disclose are any HIPA info I am privy to via releases of information.

[Sawin]

Is there any confidentiality guidelines in CO that prevent an LEO who has made contact with you but there were no violations, then going and discussing the subject of that contact with your employer
when it has nothing to do with the employer, but results in you losing your job?

AFAIK, Not unless it's medical related. In my experience, what is said to a public servant, then becomes public knowledge.

[Melvin]

Interesting question. It's pretty vague though. You want to provide details that might better assist in answering your question?

Okay no legal violation. No broken law. Moral violation in some peoples eyes. LEO said there isn't any problem. Then days later employer claims had contact from said LEO describing situation knowing full well employer has a whole holier than thou moral code. No drugs involved. Just teenage hormones.

[bogie]

Okay no legal violation. No broken law. Moral violation in some peoples eyes. LEO said there isn't any problem. Then days later employer claims had contact from said LEO describing situation knowing full well employer has a whole holier than thou moral code. No drugs involved. Just teenage hormones.

Sodomy, bestiality, necrophilia are off the table right? I kid...

[cstone]

There are things that LE may have access to (CCIC/NCIC) information that are improper to relate to non-LE. Privacy Act covers a lot of personal related information and under what circumstances it can be provided and to whom it can be provided to.

How did the LEO contact you? If you were not under arrest and you were not driving, you had no obligation to provide any information. I can only assume that you provided information to make the situation go away. I assume the information you provided was not related to criminal activity.

Do you know for a fact it was the LEO who provided the information to your employer? Why do you think the LEO contacted your former employer? Can you prove the answer to either of these two questions?

Bottom line, if you are hiding something from an employer that you know the employer will fire you for as soon as they find out, then you will spend every moment on that job sitting on a time bomb, just waiting for the thing to go off. Be up front with your next employer and move on.

Be safe.

[OneGuy67]

Okay no legal violation. No broken law. Moral violation in some peoples eyes. LEO said there isn't any problem. Then days later employer claims had contact from said LEO describing situation knowing full well employer has a whole holier than thou moral code. No drugs involved. Just teenage hormones.

Still pretty vague. Let's guess. You have sex with the boss's teenaged daughter in the back of a vehicle and were contacted by LEO who later told dad about catching you and daughter in the vehicle. Close?

[jerrymrc]

Still pretty vague. Let's guess. You have sex with the boss's teenaged daughter in the back of a vehicle and were contacted by LEO who later told dad about catching you and daughter in the vehicle. Close?

I would think that only because it is very rare at least in my case to be asked where you work.

[Ronin13]

The only time a LEO has ever asked for my employer information was when I stated I was currently employed by the Department of the Army, and he wanted verification, all during a traffic stop/REDDI Report. They later contacted my BN and notified my command that I had been proactive in calling in a suspected drunk driver (later arrested for DUI) and thought that was a very good thing I did... so totally different situation...

[Melvin]

Still pretty vague. Let's guess. You have sex with the boss's teenaged daughter in the back of a vehicle and were contacted by LEO who later told dad about catching you and daughter in the vehicle. Close?

Actually 2 kids having a quickie.(I am not one of the kids) Neither related to employer. Like I said employer has a holier than thou attitude, but admitted to talking with LEO at length. Damn sure employer didn't seek the conversation. Isn't a busy body just thinks sex is for procreation between married folk.

[HBARleatherneck]

delete

[Clint45]

Is there any confidentiality guidelines in CO that prevent an LEO who has made contact with you but there were no violations, then going and discussing the subject of that contact with your employer
when it has nothing to do with the employer, but results in you losing your job?


Actually 2 kids having a quickie.(I am not one of the kids) Neither related to employer. Like I said employer has a holier than thou attitude, but admitted to talking with LEO at length. Damn sure employer didn't seek the conversation. Isn't a busy body just thinks sex is for procreation between married folk.

And I'm assuming this occurred on the employer's premises, perhaps in the parking lot?

[JM Ver. 2.0]

Sex is bad, mmkay.

[Melvin]

And I'm assuming this occurred on the employer's premises, perhaps in the parking lot?

Miles from it. Employer would never had known this event ever occurred but for the gossip monger.

The two things had about as much connection as a kangaroo turd in the Aussie desert and a glass of vodka in Finland. I believe it was spitefulness on the part of LEO who knew the employer and knew the reaction the news would get.

[OneGuy67]

Were you the terminated employee or was the male involved in the quickie?

[Monky]

You do not have to give a reason to terminate employment in the state.

- sent by the free-range electronic weasel attached to my hip.

[sniper_tim]

ANYTHING YOU SAY, CAN AND WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU.

^ This! Don't disclose anything to a law enforcement officer you are not legally required to (which is only your ID as I recall).

cheers,
Tim

[Melvin]

^ This! Don't disclose anything to a law enforcement officer you are not legally required to (which is only your ID as I recall).

cheers,
Tim

Imagine you're an 18 year old kid who just caught with his pants down. I am sure you would be telling the a--hole anything to avoid being written up at best. And the a--hole in the uniform knows this and is getting his jollies by using the uniform to intimidate and get you to volunteer stuff out of fear. If you think that doesn't happen every minute across this country you probably also think there are great deals on beach front property in Nebraska.

[BREATHER]

What Law Enforcement Officer has to deal HIPA. Anything to do with a convict is public record. A felon losses and should not have confidential rights...

[OneGuy67]

We have to deal with HIPAA all the time. Victims get injured and we can't get a doc to talk to us about their injuries due to their misunderstanding of HIPAA. Some charges are dependent upon the severity of the injury. I carry forms which specifically state the law and I fill out what I am asking for and how it isn't protected information under the law and still get pushback from the docs. In some cases, they won't even confirm if a victim is in their hospital.

[cstone]

Imagine you're an 18 year old kid who just caught with his pants down. I am sure you would be telling the a--hole anything to avoid being written up at best. And the a--hole in the uniform knows this and is getting his jollies by using the uniform to intimidate and get you to volunteer stuff out of fear. If you think that doesn't happen every minute across this country you probably also think there are great deals on beach front property in Nebraska.

Pants down on public property? Criminal violation, albeit minor, if you fail to cooperate, you will likely get your ride to the station and a summons and release. Yes, that will go on your record, so don't pull your pants down in public.

On private property? Depends on what the relationship of the property owner is with local LE. Perhaps the local business has expressed permission and a desire that local LE monitor and protect the property from illegal usage, such as teenagers getting a quickie. See above.

Most cops do not have time to run around and get their jollies by intimidating teenagers. Some cops thrive on intimidating citizens. We call those "bad cops" and you should report their behavior to their superiors, elected officials and the news media.

I'm still not able to determine what was the relationship with the cop to the business owner who fired your friend. If they bowl together on the same league and the incident came up during a game, your friend is pretty much out of luck. If the business owner lived two jurisdictions away and the cop went out of his way to pass along the information, and your friend can prove all of that, he might get some attention to the matter.

Was the job really worth it to your friend? It sounds like your friend doesn't really respect his employer (and maybe he has a right to disrespect the employer). As it was pointed out above, the business owner didn't really need a reason to fire your friend. Is it possible there was another, unstated, reason your friend could have been fired?

[spqrzilla]

Actually 2 kids having a quickie.(I am not one of the kids) Neither related to employer. Like I said employer has a holier than thou attitude, but admitted to talking with LEO at length. Damn sure employer didn't seek the conversation. Isn't a busy body just thinks sex is for procreation between married folk.
The employer has violated Colorado law. Colorado provides that termination based on off duty conduct unrelated to the job is illegal.

[wreave]

CRS 24-34-402.5 (2004) (http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=)

Makes it illegal for an employer to terminate an employee because that employee engaged in any lawful activity off the employer's premises during nonworking hours unless the restriction
1) relates to a bona fide occupational requirement or is reasonably and rationally related to the employment activities and responsibilities of a particular employee or a particular group of employees; or
2) is necessary to avoid, or avoid the appearance of, a conflict of interest with any of the employee's responsibilities to the employer.

------------

Short answer: wrongful termination.

Long answer: for a job that an 18-year old would have, is it worth fighting?

[sniper_tim]

Imagine you're an 18 year old kid who just caught with his pants down. I am sure you would be telling the a--hole anything to avoid being written up at best. And the a--hole in the uniform knows this and is getting his jollies by using the uniform to intimidate and get you to volunteer stuff out of fear. If you think that doesn't happen every minute across this country you probably also think there are great deals on beach front property in Nebraska.

Sign your ticket, tell the police officer to have a nice evening. If you think he was "intimidating" you, file a formal complaint and fight the ticket in court. Arguing with a police officer is quite pointless, similar to arguing with a lib-tard, won't achieve anything except get yourself in a deeper hole.

cheers,
Tim

[Monky]

The employer has violated Colorado law. Colorado provides that termination based on off duty conduct unrelated to the job is illegal.

Wrong. His employment was terminated 'at will' of his employer. No reason given, nor is there a requirement beyond you're fired. We are an 'at will' state. No reason need be given to quit or be terminated

- sent by the free-range electronic weasel attached to my hip.

[OneGuy67]

Wrong. His employment was terminated 'at will' of his employer. No reason given, nor is there a requirement beyond you're fired. We are an 'at will' state. No reason need be given to quit or be terminated

- sent by the free-range electronic weasel attached to my hip.

Not necessarily true. If he terminated him without giving a reason, then you are correct. However, if he terminated him and told him it was due to his shennanigans while not at work, then he was wrongfully terminated. It may ssoind like splitting hairs, but there is an important legal issue in it.