Posted on 02/14/2011 9:34:23 AM PST by Responsibility2nd
KERRVILLE –—Yvonne Parker said she was upset by a call from a fellow police officer last summer about possible infidelity by Kenneth, her husband of 25 years. Kenneth denies the allegation.
She said the adultery alert was sounded by Officer Shannon Conklin of the 198th district attorney's office, who stopped Kenneth Parker and a female companion for a traffic infraction on Interstate 10 in Kerr County on Aug. 28.
“He said the only thing that he had over my husband right now is adultery,” recalled Yvonne, who plans to divorce Kenneth Parker over concerns raised by the call.
The incident, which has Kenneth Parker mulling a civil rights lawsuit, raises questions about the permissible bounds of police searches and whether Conklin overstepped his authority in sharing his suspicions of cheating.
“If I was dating the girl, what business is it of his?” asked Kenneth Parker, 57, who runs a wrecker service in Los Angeles. “I haven't broken any law.”
He complained last fall to District Attorney Amos Barton, who defended Conklin's actions. “The investigator did a fine job verifying that Parker's wife was not the victim of violent crime,” he said Thursday.
Conklin was one of two officers Barton hired to interdict smugglers and assist other agencies in the five-county district after defeating local lawyer Richard Ellison in the 2008 election for district attorney.
However, St. Mary's University Law School Professor Gerald Reamey labeled Conklin's suspicion that Yvonne Parker may have been in danger “mere speculation,” and said alerting her to possible cheating was “outside the scope” of law enforcement.
The woman traveling with Parker identified him as her boyfriend, according to Conklin's report, and Parker described her as a friend.
Noting that I-10 is a known smuggling corridor, Conklin said he suspected illegal activity because Kenneth Parker and the woman displayed “unusual nervousness (and) presented conflicting stories of the reason for the trip, travel destinations and the nature of their relationship.”
Despite consenting to a search, Kenneth Parker claims his privacy rights were violated when Conklin looked in Parker's cell phone to get his wife's number, which he'd earlier declined to provide.
But Mike Quinn, public safety director for the Alamo Area Regional Law Enforcement Academy, said once an officer gets consent, “It's open to anything and everything that's there,” unless and until consent is revoked.
Barton said phones “often contain evidence of crimes,” and that searching them “is an important and valuable investigative approach.”
The law on phone searches is evolving, said Reamey. “Some courts allow cell phones to be viewed quite freely, while others are much more restrictive.”
If Conklin said he was after contraband, as the report says, looking in the phone “would not be supported by the consent given,” Reamey said.
Conklin's report said he inspected “items which may contradict” Parker's account, and checked the phone for numerous missed calls, “which are very common indicators of illegal activity.”
No citations were issued by Conklin, who concluded that he couldn't rule out criminal activity by Parker and his passenger, “but was able to determine that at minimum they may have been committing adultery.”
Before Conklin's call, Yvonne Parker said, she thought Kenneth was alone driving back from a family function in Louisiana.
Kenneth Parker says he filed a complaint with the state bar against Barton over the incident, as did Ellison, who plans to represent Parker.
“It's outrageous,” said Ellison. “They stopped two people who complied with all their requests and, because they're not married, he thinks they're committing adultery and that the wife is in danger?”
Barton declined to comment on the bar complaints.
Conklin couldn't be reached for comment.
Well, on the one hand, the cop certainly acted beyond the call of duty.
On the second hand, once the perp voluntarily gave him his wife’s phone number to check, he was evidently acting within the law.
On the third hand, it looks very much like he was cheating on his wife and up to no good.
Don’t cheat on your wife, and you needn’t fear getting caught.
Folks, as someone who works in the privacy field, I ALWAYS recommend placing a password on your phone. This is to establish the expectation of privacy and then ONLY WITH THE ADVICE OF YOUR LEGAL COUNSEL, ever consent to the search of your phone. Always require a search warrant to access your phone.
Do the same for your phones that you let your children use. On your splash screen, state that the phone is your property and not your child’s property. Instruct your children that they are NEVER to give out the phone’s password and you as the owner of the phone are the only one who is able to give out the password.
The officer was ‘right on’ to call and make know the stop of her husband. Good job!
No money to arrest, so think up something to do.
The cop who's cheating on his wife (no question in my mind) was a total A$$ to the officer who made the stop. Probably didn't ID himself, didn't answer questions, was rude. The cop who made the stop wasn't gonna write the guy a ticket but thought blowing up this guy to the wife was a decent way to get back at this guy. Now the story is public, so he had to come up with a story of why he called the wife.
“Noting that I-10 is a known smuggling corridor...”
Maybe they were playing “smuggle the salami.”
I’ll be here all week. Don’t forget to tip the waitstaff.
This is the first I’ve ever heard about adultery reports. It must be part of Big Sis’s see and tell program. So, if you see a cop having an affair, consider it your public duty to inform his or her spouse. That should, at one time or another, include 75 or a greater percentage of cops, especially the uniform guys who have their bevy of groupies.
I’d say it was the adultery that wrecked his marriage, not the report.
In fairness, it sounds like the cop was investigating if the guy was a smuggler, since he was acting more than usually nervous after commiting a traffic infraction. He called the guy’s home and the fact of another woman in the car came to the wife’s attention either by the cop, or by the wife questioning her husband later; but not necessarily as a result of the officer trying to snitch on him for cheating.
Next thing you know, the guy’s lawyer has “reframed” the entire incident to make it look like the cop was trying to prosecute a Christian sin, which is sensational and would prejudice any liberal in the courtroom.
I don’t think its a cop’s business. Infidelity is a sin, its wrong but its not a crime.
That’s a matter between a husband and wife and God.
Everyone needs to take a class in arrest search and seizure. it will open your eyes. You do not have to answer any question of an officer, you must identify yourself. If he asks you... “ Do you know how fast you were going?” This is a trick question. Do not answer it. There are many things officers do to make you implicate yourself. They do this intentionally knowing that you should know your rights. They will always set up so that you will indict yourself and they can repeat your testimony in court.
Greatest technique I have ever heard is this. This one girl picked up the business card of the president of the ACLU and said, “ Im sorry officer but my uncle is the president of the ACLU and he said I should never give you any information and wants me to call him immediately when pulled over”
Everyone needs to take a class in arrest search and seizure. it will open your eyes. You do not have to answer any question of an officer, you must identify yourself. If he asks you... “ Do you know how fast you were going?” This is a trick question. Do not answer it. There are many things officers do to make you implicate yourself. They do this intentionally knowing that you should know your rights. They will always set up so that you will indict yourself and they can repeat your testimony in court.
Greatest technique I have ever heard is this. This one girl picked up the business card of the president of the ACLU and said, “ Im sorry officer but my uncle is the president of the ACLU and he said I should never give you any information and wants me to call him immediately when pulled over”
Who? I'm going to reread the story. Maybe you should too.
The call of duty means serving and protecting, not exposing infidelity. The officer went over the line in my opinion. We see too much of this today. Uncle Leo needs to be constantly reminded that he serves us but only to protect us.
Off topic: Speaking of traffic stops and infidelity, some states have these redlight and speed traffic enforcement photo cameras that now take detailed photos of the driver and passenger which will then be mailed directly to the home. Many times the individuals are not even aware that the photos were taken and the ticket just shows up in the mail. Make no mistake big brother is watching over us, and they now have Incorporated after their name. These traffic cameras are about profit sharing by big business and government at our expense.
Greatest technique I have ever heard is this. This one girl picked up the business card of the president of the ACLU and said, “ Im sorry officer but my uncle is the president of the ACLU and he said I should never give you any information and wants me to call him immediately when pulled over”
__________________________________________________________
Really? Seems to me that a “shoot the dog” cop would take this as a challenge and double up on the tickets just for spite.
Officer Parker was stopped while riding in a car with his mistress. He was stopped by Officer Conklin. Conklin then called Parker’s wife, Yvonne. Am I missing something?
Then it becomes one officer looking out for another officer. Sorry for the confusion.
This story, as written, is incredibly hard to follow.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.