Police network abused

Investigative Reporters and Editors, Inc. The IRE Journal, Mar/Apr 2002 by Elrick, M L

Information used for private gains, vendettas

Police throughout Michigan have been using a law enforcement database to stalk women, threaten motorists and settle scores.

In a two-part series last summer, the Free Press detailed how abusers subverted the Law Enforcement Information Network (LEIN) and used it as a personal search engine for home addresses. for driving records and for criminal files of love interests, colleagues, bosses or rivals. One practice was reportedly so common it became known simply as "running a plate for a date."

In addition, we profiled individual cases to show how the state's mechanism for disciplining abusers provided unequal justice for victims and violators alike. Specifically, what cost one cop his job could result in a reprimand in another jurisdiction.

I received more than 100 calls and e-mails, several providing leads for follow-ups. There was not one complaint. Civil libertarians and conspiracy-minded privacy advocates alike hailed the series. It was posted on numerous Web sites and was the third most popular story in the five-year history of the Free Press' Web site.

And, state lawmakers, who were considering tightening rules on LEIN use before our series ran, were expected to resume deliberations. Among those who will vote on the legislation is a state representative whose husband was a victim of an alleged LEIN abuse we wrote about. (We think the legislation has a pretty good shot.)

Misusing the system

Our story began when we received an anonymous tip about a police captain whom we believed tracked down a female driver through information from the secretary of state's office, which issues driver's licenses and car plates. This officer called the woman and berated her on her answering machine for driving carelessly.

And while we had the captain's name and wanted to publish it, we could not get his supervisor to confirm the name, only to acknowledge that he had disciplined one of his commanders. Still, we went with what we had, and filed FOI requests for reports from police who were investigating in the victim's hometown at that time, hoping for more information.

Still, our tipster urged us to dig deeper, and suggested we check to see if the captain was reported to the state agency that oversees LEIN. By following that lead, we learned that state officials were indeed reviewing the case.

On a whim, I asked how many other complaints were under investigation. The answer: about a dozen.

But officials wouldn't say more without an FOI request. That attitude, coupled with several callers who said they, too, had been abused by police who accessed their records, prompted me to FOI every alleged LEIN abuse dating back five years.

My excitement at receiving a bulky response faded somewhat when I learned it contained little more than meeting minutes from an obscure state board that reviews LEIN violations. Still, although there were many redactions, it didn't take long to see that there were dozens of allegations of police throughout Michigan misusing the system.

The meeting minutes contained virtually nothing on victims, but the cases were unique enough that we were able to pursue police reports or get police officials to identify LEIN abusers. In a fair number of cases, police reports included some information that helped us track down victims.

Once we located victims, either through information in reports, by Autotrak or www.switchboard.com, we had to convince them to talk. Most, feeling betrayed by police, were reluctant. Some hung up after I identified myself and explained why I was calling. But many cooperated after I said we were trying to expose any wrongdoing.

The meeting minute notes, while short on details, were helpful in other ways. Although the amount and quality of information changed over the years, it became clear that regulators were struggling with how to handle LEIN violators.

And, midway through the five years I reviewed, the law regarding LEIN violations changed.

This was exciting for two reasons: Some watershed case may have prompted the change, and if lawmakers held hearings on the proposed change, they likely listened to testimony from victims or experts.

Since legislative committees often require those who testify to sign in, this could provide us with a trove of potential sources and anecdotes beyond the scraps the state provided. If nothing else, I figured the bill's sponsor would have something to say on the subject.

Unfortunately, it turned out the change was slipped into another bill during legislative negotiations and never received a hearing. But the state senator who wrote the change provided several salient observations for one of our stories.

Building a database

One of my favorite IRE conference tips came from a panelist who recommended: "Kill the experts." Still, I wanted some authoritative voices discussing what a problem LEIN abuse was. Yet the professors and researchers I contacted repeatedly told me we were the first to examine the problem. Fortunately, state officials who oversee LEIN tolerated rambling questions as I tried to figure out how the system worked. This was complicated because, over the five years we were looking into, the oversight changed.