REGION: Online cop rating site gets mixed reviews

By COLLEEN MENSCHING - Staff Writer | Wednesday, April 16, 2008 3:53 PM PDT ∞

The home page of RateMyCop.com allows users to access forums, seach by area or search by name.

In February, RateMyCop.com joined the ranks of Web sites that allow anonymous evaluations of everyone from teachers to lawyers to ex-boyfriends, alarming some law enforcement officers in the process.

The site lists the names of thousands of officers nationwide and lets visitors anonymously post comments about them.

Law enforcement officials and other opponents said the site could ruin the reputations of some officers and even threaten their safety if their home addresses, telephone numbers and information about undercover assignments are posted in the comments.

"We actually have attorneys researching legal challenges for this site and researching some type of legislation to prevent the blanket release of names with no control or oversight," said Ron Cottingham, a lieutenant with the San Diego Sheriff's Department and president of the Peace Officers Research Association of California. The association lobbies on behalf of law enforcement organizations.

Web site operators said their goal is to increase police accountability in an open forum and that the details on the site ---- first names, last names and, in some cases, badge numbers ---- are public information.

"Once an officer puts on his or her uniform, that information is out there," said site spokeswoman Crys Spelman. "The information we post is already on their badge and their name tag. ... Each time they write a ticket, that information is on there."

Spelman said the site grew out of a conversation between Culver City-based founder Gino Sesto and a friend about recent encounters they had with police officers.

"They both realized they had very different experiences," she said. "They realized people might have an interest in sharing their experiences."

Under the federal Freedom of Information Act, Sesto and his partner began requesting rosters from departments across the nation. By their own count, there are more than 140,000 officers from more than 500 agencies in 47 states.

Departments won't rely on site

In North County, most cities contract with the Sheriff's Department for law enforcement. The site lists more than 2,000 sheriff's officers, although it does not organize them according to their station assignments.

Oceanside, Carlsbad and Escondido are the only North County cities that have municipal police departments, and, of those, only Oceanside has officers listed on RateMyCop.com.

Oceanside Capt. Reginald Grisby, who has received a favorable review on the site, said he learned about the site through fellow officers and from community members.

He said that while the names of officers and their departments and assignments are public information, he said accountability is "a two-way street" and that he doubts that anonymous comments about officers will prove valuable.

"People say that this is going to promote transparency," Grisby said. "I really don't think so."

Lynn Diamond, spokeswoman for the Carlsbad Police Department, said the city would continue to judge its policing based on anonymous surveys and not on anonymous ratings on any Web site.

Diamond said Carlsbad has been surveying crime victims for 17 years. For more than a decade, the city has surveyed people who have been ticketed for traffic violations, she said.

"We put a lot more faith and credibility in that data because we know the sources of that data," Diamond said.

The good, the bad and the silly

Comments about officers on RateMyCop.com tend to fall into one of three categories: disgruntled, favorable or silly.

One comment about a San Diego officer was both favorable and silly, for example, because it praised him for helping an elderly woman cross the street with her sheep.

After giving Oceanside officer Mark Fullen a five-star rating, one commenter wrote: "I could barely understand him through his thick tex-arcana accent. He made terrible redneck jokes and I thought he would ticket me if I didn't laugh. Also, he scared my baby and made her cry."

Fullen said he got a chuckle out of the comment, which he said was posted by an officer at another agency.

He said few people know he once worked for the Texarkana Police in Arkansas and that even fewer would be able to identify his accent "by a 44-square-mile region of the American South."

"I believe this site will become nothing more than another blog for individuals to post biased, unsolicited, unfounded and ignorant opinions without the benefit of substantiation ---- and a place for my colleagues to 'roast' their friends with inside jokes in a public forum," Fullen said.

Spelman used one Southern California officer's profile as an example of how the site spreads good news about officers. In March, the officer received six pages of favorable comments after being caught on tape keeping his cool with protesters at a Scientology event.

But Cottingham pointed to several negative comments about a Northern California police chief ---- including accusations that the chief engaged in pedophilia ---- as proof that the Web site's operators have not been regulating comments as promised.

New site not enough?

Many law enforcement professionals have said that departmental complaint reviews and internal investigations provide all the accountability the public needs.

David Blair-Loy, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego and Imperial Counties, said police shouldn't be trusted to police themselves.

Blair-Loy called the comment section of RateMyCop.com "classic First Amendment-protected speech."

"There's nothing that's more protected by the First Amendment than discussion about public employees and public officials doing their jobs," he said.

Blair-Loy said the site is "a step in the right direction," but that citizen comments can't make up for California laws that prohibit public access to police performance and disciplinary records.

"This is not a substitute for proper disclosure of government records concerning the performance of official duties by the police ... who are licensed to use deadly force and, even if they don't use deadly force, still have enormous authority under the law."

Contact staff writer Colleen Mensching at (760) 739-6675 or cmensching@nctimes.com.

Advertisement

14 comment(s)[-]Go to Top

Googlehead wrote on Apr 16, 2008 4:48 PM:My husband is a cop and he and buddies have put all kinds of goofy reviews on this site. No one can take this site seriously. Check some of the reviewers' names.

The sheep comment was good.

Lisa wrote on Apr 16, 2008 5:46 PM:It's a good site, it's good for the general public to be informed about the police that they deal with. It also has some good info from the cops in the forum part of the site.
I would rate a couple of police but that city does do not participate, leading me to believe they don't want to hear any negativity about their police, although mine would be positive ratings.
It is also a way for the public to let out steam or praise a police if they do not want to further deal with the department itself.

RG wrote on Apr 16, 2008 6:47 PM:I've looked at the Rate My Cop site and found it to be worthless. The important thing about this article however, are excerpts from the following two opposing views:

1)"Many law enforcement professionals have said that departmental complaint reviews and internal investigations provide all the accountability the public needs."
They are saying we, the public, don't need to know when there are rogue cops still out on the streets??? Keep the bad ones secret???

2)"David Blair-Loy, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego and Imperial Counties, said police shouldn't be trusted to police themselves--and--California laws prohibit public access to police performance and disciplinary records".

I certainly don't always agree with the ACLU, but Blair-Loy is right about not trusting the police to police themselves and that California law ensures secrecy.

JohBoy wrote on Apr 16, 2008 6:58 PM:If cops hate it there must be something good about it! The Supreme Court has ruled that you can not stop abortion rights advocates from publicizing addresses of doctors. So why should this site be stopped from revealing a name.

Accountability wrote on Apr 16, 2008 9:24 PM:Police officers are in a position of public trust. They should be accountable for behavior on and off the job. We are supposed to trust them, that's why they are allowed to carry guns. A position of authority like that demands accountability to the public that hires them. Beware of those that do not think police should be scrutinized closely, your civil rights are at stake when it comes down to brass tacks.

esteban wrote on Apr 17, 2008 7:45 AM:So you people are going to form an opinion about a cop because some low life criminal posted that his arresting officer was a jerk? You people are helpless!

Site hard to navigate wrote on Apr 17, 2008 7:52 AM:Ha I tried to rate the OPD cops and the Vista sheriff's and their captains but it is impossible to rate. There are no icons or instructions, even after I register over and over it goes no where. Heck I tried to register complaints with OPD and their internal investigation is a JOKE!!! The sheriff's have this Citizens Law Enforcement Review Board "CLRB" that is just as worthless. Really it is like putting criminals in charge of crime control.

To Site hard to navigate wrote on Apr 17, 2008 9:54 AM:If your not sharp enough to navigate a website, maybe your opinion isn't educated enough to matter. Just keep blogging here and I'm sure your type will help with whatever problems you have.

RG wrote on Apr 17, 2008 10:07 AM:I think poor esteban made a Freudian slip when he said "you people are helpless". He probably meant to say hopeless. Yes, we are HELPLESS when bad cops are provided protection by their own and by California law. Thanks for admitting it!

To Jonboy wrote on Apr 17, 2008 11:07 AM:Let's see....a doctors name compared to a cops name and address....doctors that perform abortions do so at their own will. People who have abortitons do so at their own will. A cop who arrests criminals yes do their job at their own will however, criminals....are just that criminals. They do go for revenge against the person who put them in jail. My family doesn't not derserve to live in fear because some crack head thinks thier live is in a higher standard than my husband. This site will do nothing but put lives at risk....what a pitty people support such a site.

Stirrin' it up! wrote on Apr 19, 2008 3:38 PM:I can't wait to post false information on that site! My mission is to fill every officer with 100 pages of false information.
What a stupid idea. Be REAL if you don't like how an officer treated you or you did like his/her professionalism. Have the backbone to tell them in person. Your protected by the first amendment. If you even know what that is you anti-police bigots!
To the COP haters! Please don't call the police for help. Handle the problem yourself.

Johnny wrote on Apr 19, 2008 6:48 PM:Oh yeah "stirrin' it up," tell the cop you didn't like his/her attitude, so you can get an "attitude adjustment" and get thrown into the slammer. Yeah that's brilliant.
Cops and their egos will not allow you to talk to them in that manner, even if you are being polite, so you'll have to come up with a better plan than that.

To Johnny wrote on Apr 20, 2008 12:50 PM:Johnny,
Obviously you dont your Constitutional Rights nor the law. There is no provision in the law that prevents you from speaking your mind to a cop in any fashion even if it is rude. As for an being on the receiving end of an "attitude adjustment" and gettin locked up for expressing your 1st Amendement right? Remember Freedon of Expression??? Any attorney would love to defend you for your Civil Rights Violation law suit. You could name it after you!

Hatch wrote on Apr 23, 2008 5:44 AM:Mr. Contreras has it wrong.
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark CANNOT BE CONSIDERED SETTLED LAW. The Court made up their own interpretation of the 14th Amendment AND deliberately ignored the expressed written intent of the authors.
The issue of birthright and citizenship was first addressed in a series of cases heard before the US Supreme Court and decided in 1873. They are now known as the Slaughter-House Cases, (83 U.S.) 36 (1873), (argued 3–5 Feb. 1873, decided 14 Apr. 1873 by vote of 5 to 4; Miller for the Court, Field, Bradley, Chase, Swayne in dissent.) They not only interpreted the 14th Amendment correctly, they did so by reading the words of their authors.
The Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins (1884) who correctly determined that "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States required "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance." Both Jacob Howard and Lyman Trumbull, authors of the 14th Amendment affirmed this.
Lyman Trumbull, one of the authors, presented an insurmountable barrier of his own to misinterpretation by declaring: "The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
There is a process in which a person changes his/her allegiance. One is not so simply discarded and replaced by another. Illegal alien women that scurry across the border just in time to drop a baby is not exactly going through the right motions. The US has had a process for many years. Even to consider changing this at this very point in time would be fruitless. There is not enough political will to effect the change.
In other words, illegal aliens that are citizens of another country and therefore subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof and have babies in the United States are not giving birth to American Citizens.
HR1940 NEEDS to be passed. If challenged, there can be no doubt that the Supreme Court will get it right once again and reverse the perverse ruling in Wong Kim Ark.

First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, email addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.

Submit Comment[-]

(optional)
   

Advertisement

Videos