All this for an egg-thrower? I can only imagine what the Christianburg PD does for a real crime ...

-----------------------------
"Christiansburg police 'shop' for suspect's identity"

Police got a warrant to obtain personal information from a shopper's Kroger card.

The Roanoke Times
June 22, 2006


CHRISTIANSBURG -- You probably don't think twice before pulling your Kroger Card out of your wallet or off your keychain to have it scanned as you're checking out at the supermarket.

After all, that little plastic card can be a money-saver.

But for one person, using his Kroger Card may land him in court.

Last week, Christiansburg police filed a search warrant against a Kroger store, seeking an assault suspect's personal information from his Kroger Card account.

The information was turned over. Christiansburg police officials were unavailable to comment on the case this week, or to say if anyone has been charged as a result of the warrant.

A peek at shopping habits apparently doesn't raise the same ire as, say, the federal Patriot Act's provisions about library records.

"Once that info has been given to the store ... no one's rights have been violated," said Kent Willis, executive director of the Virginia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. "The Constitution protects your personal right to privacy but it doesn't protect the info that is floating around about you."

Because police obtained a search warrant before getting the information from Kroger, there's nothing alarming about the case, Willis said.

Police obtained that warrant June 13, six days after getting reports of a male passenger throwing eggs out a car window.

According to the warrant, it first was reported that a male in a blue Chevy Cavalier threw eggs at a Papa John's restaurant. Later a call came in that a male passenger in a blue Chevy Cavalier threw eggs at a man who was walking his dog on Hickory Street. The eggs missed.

As police looked for the vehicle, one officer found an empty egg carton on nearby Chrisman Street. The carton had a Kroger label.

Another officer went by Kroger and learned that two males had bought two cartons of eggs from the store shortly before midnight.

One of them had used a Kroger card.

The next day, the officer went back to Kroger to retrieve a copy of the transaction, which included the customer's Kroger Card number.

The officer then filed a search warrant, seeking from Kroger the name, address, phone numbers "and any other identifying personal information" related to the person with that Kroger Card.

Police received a fax containing that personal information, the warrant says.

"We're very protective over all that info and don't give it out lightly ever," said Carl York, public relations manager for Kroger Mid-Atlantic.

Only regional offices, not individual stores, have access to Kroger Card users' information, he said. It takes a warrant or a subpoena to obtain it.

In the Roanoke Police Department, such searches are rare, if they ever happen, said spokeswoman Aisha Johnson.

But Blacksburg police spokesman Lt. Bruce Bradbery said he believes similar searches are routine.

"That's just good investigative techniques," he said. "It's not a privacy issue if they have a warrant."

There has been widespread opposition to a provision in the Patriot Act of 2001 that allows law enforcement to obtain library records with a warrant.

But what about the record of what you buy at Kroger or any of the many other stores -- like Food Lion, CVS, PetsMart, Safeway, Books-A-Million -- that issue loyalty cards? In some cases, that information could reveal more about you than what you read.

"I hate it because I really don't want them to know exactly what I purchase," Bob Schack of Pilot said as he walked into a Christiansburg Kroger to claim $20 in winnings from a lottery ticket.

Schack noted that when people go to most banks, grocery stores, schools, "or anywhere," they are watched by surveillance cameras.

"There's no privacy left in this country anymore," he said.

Tod Burke, a criminal justice professor at Radford University, said search warrants like the one used in this case aren't common, but "that doesn't necessarily make it bad."

In a way, said Burke, a former police officer, it's just good police work: the officer took citizens' complaints about the eggings seriously and wanted to do something about it.

"There may be a concern from the public," he said, "but no more than using a credit card."

While Burke compared use of a loyalty card with use of a credit card, Willis compared it with checking into a hotel.

In both cases, you're essentially handing over your information. While most people do have some expectation of privacy, police can obtain just about any information with a warrant.

Unloading bags of groceries into her truck in front of a Food Lion, Debbie Ferrell of Christiansburg said she didn't see anything wrong with police being able to obtain personal information from the cards. She also said she doesn't mind that her shopping information is gathered when she uses loyalty cards.

"I like the savings with them," she said. "That's just part of it, I guess."

I'd like to see this much effort for a search warrant for blood in DWI-refusal cases.

If egging is criminal mischief, then it is serious enough in Texas to warrant a mention in Section 9.42 of the Penal Code.

I would love to get a blood warrant program going on here. As a defense attorney, I used the failure to get the blood, even in DWI 1sts against the state a lot, and jurors were receptive to the argument.

Now, back with the State, I just reviewed a DWI with NO EVIDENCE. The guy had alcohol on his breath, but was following the traffic laws when he was struck from behind by a juvenile driver. He was irate when he was asked to perform any tests - in his mind he'd done nothing wrong, and waited for the police to get there. He refused FSTs, and was arrested because in the Trooper's mind the defendant lost his normal mental and physical use by not avoiding this collision? He refused a blow and interview.

IF I HAD A BLOOD DRAW, I MIGHT HAVE HAD A CASE

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rebecca Gibson:
Now, back with the State, I just reviewed a DWI with NO EVIDENCE. The guy had alcohol on his breath, but was following the traffic laws when he was struck from behind by a juvenile driver. He was irate when he was asked to perform any tests - in his mind he'd done nothing wrong, and waited for the police to get there. He refused FSTs, and was arrested because in the Trooper's mind the defendant lost his normal mental and physical use by not avoiding this collision? He refused a blow and interview.

IF I HAD A BLOOD DRAW, I MIGHT HAVE HAD A CASE

---

Get used to seeing a lot of those cases if the state ever institutes sobriety checkpoints without other corresponding changes!

I would vote for mandatory blood draws long before a sobriety checkpoint. And, isn't that a misnomer? More like a drunk checkpoint.