

How A Police Officer Threatened A Yelp Reviewer - jbenz
http://www.popehat.com/2013/07/24/two-guys-a-cop-and-a-pizza-place-how-a-police-officer-threatened-a-yelp-reviewer/

======
lettergram
There were only 3 reviews on Yelp, of which 2 were removed.. Doesn't really
seem like harassment to me, nor does it really seem like the parlor owner did
anything particularly awful (although looking at the photos it was disgusting
in the restaurant).

Basically I feel like the police needn't be involved and that officer probably
should have read the Yelp posts prior to calling, I highly doubt this would
ever go to trial.

From Yelp
[http://www.yelp.com/filtered_reviews/ELUSdeDHbZLMVcl4K5qLkw?...](http://www.yelp.com/filtered_reviews/ELUSdeDHbZLMVcl4K5qLkw?fsid=S-iCwDly9XMCz8mhhLLonA):

A month or so ago, I was finally given a job at a local pizzeria named "The
Wild Tomato" in Harrisburg. I was given duties mainly related to cleaning and
sanitation. The first concern I had was the fact that they were storing trash
cans in their walk-in fridge, where uncovered food and sauces were often
stored despite health regulations. I learned to ignore this for the sake of
employment. I have photos/video of this.

Shortly within the month, I discovered a bag near the outside trash dumpster
that contained multiple empty bags that had contained synthetic marijuana, a
multitude of hypodermic needles, and receipts for deliveries and time-clock
slips, all with the same employee's name listed (one of the drivers). Again, I
have photos.

Upon notifying Paul, the owner, he threw away the receipts with the employee's
information and told me that it was "no longer my problem". At the time, I
assumed that this meant he would take corrective action on his own. However,
the employee in question was never reprimanded and continues working at the
shop.

Recently, I found another empty vial of synthetic marijuana, this time inside
the building in the employee area, among the cleaning supplies.

When I brought it to the attention of Paul, he stated that he did not care
about what his employee's did, or if they brought it into the workplace or
not, as long as they did not physically use them during work. He told me he
could not control what his workers put into their bodies, and asked me if I
wanted him to drug test everyone. I mentioned the previous incident with the
needles and how I could have gotten stuck by one, causing a liability. He
responded "Well then you better stay home, you go outside you could get shot,
you could get hit by a car, the real world's dangerous." He also stated that
an empty container with a commercial label on it, advertised with drug images
but "not for human consumption" could have had anything in it. He said "If I
get a vial and put a label that says cocaine on it does that mean it had
cocaine in it?". He dismissed any safety concerns I might have had, implying
that I was at fault for "having a problem" with narcotics on the premises.

~~~
xanderstrike
I would be interested to read the ones that supposedly violate the content
guidelines or terms of service. Not to defend the cop or owner, but I'll bet
this is the most level-headed and polite of the three.

Also, what is someone doing with synthetic marijuana AND hypodermic needles?
That part just seems odd.

In any case, I think they both should have left well enough alone. Joseph
wanted to change the way the place operated, Paul was having none of it, and
that should have been that. Why people feel the need to escalate minor
disputes like this to the police is beyond me.

~~~
yebyen
They used to shoot up pot, but they had to stop because the seeds kept
clogging up the needles.

------
bronbron
Maybe it's just me but this seems like... fluff, a little bit. There are a lot
of instances of police abusing their power, but this is really on the low-end
of that (i.e. I don't really consider this news).

This just sounds like one of those situations where everyone involved is being
kinda shitty.

~~~
emingo
IMHO The interesting part of this story is NOT the 'level of wrongness' in
police abuse. It's the policing of internet reviews!

On the surface this is a trivial story, but in reality, this is totally
bananas! A local cop policing the internet through means of coercion? Sounds
sufficiently interesting to me!

~~~
notahacker
Did you listen to the phone call? It's _possible_ that she was subtly
threatening an innocent autistic man for the thrill of power that comes from
shutting them up. It's more likely that after receiving a complaint from some
angry citizen about "this crazy autistic guy online that keeps posting stuff
on the internet about me even though it gets deleted" she decided to try to
satisfy both parties by defusing the whole thing. _Especially_ if she
sympathized with the autistic guy after reading the post and suspected (i) he
probably wasn't doing much harm and definitely wasn't intending to but (ii)
probably wouldn't stand a chance in a courtroom if the angry citizen that kept
badgering her followed through with his legal threats.

It actually scans better if you assume the policewoman was exceeding her
authority and legal knowledge in an attempt to _prevent_ the needless harm of
a disabled citizen being sued into oblivion by some over-litiguous asshole.
And I'm generally in favour of police exercising that sort of discretion.

------
Domenic_S
The real story is Yelp's filtering algo. Notice how all the 1 star reviews are
filtered out, including this guy's?

After about the 3rd time of going to a 5-yelp-star place and it being
terrible, then digging in to see all the negative reviews were filtered, I had
enough. It's why I don't use Yelp anymore.

~~~
foobarbazqux
Isn't the longstanding scandal that Yelp will filter negative reviews if you
pay them, making it a kind of protection racket?

~~~
tomrod
Wish I'd been first to market. Protection racket with brand following? Yes
please!

------
freditup
A police officer is essentially a community worker and I believe should have
that mentality of serving the community. I don't really believe what the
officer did was malicious or even all that inappropriate. I think the police
officer is probably wrong in the views she is expressing, but I don't think
it's wrong for her to call him in this situation or even help the restaurant
owner and the former employee work out an issue.

~~~
gpcz
I can understand the police officer acting as a conflict-resolution mediator,
but unless the officer passed the bar exam I don't think it's appropriate for
him to give what could be misinterpreted as legal advice on civil law.

------
wavesum
Umm what is the threat here? I think the police woman is just trying to help.
Informing that what he is doing might be illegal and it's probably not a good
idea.

Trying to explain to this young man that even if he doesn't like his former
employer, harassment in the internet is not right way to take it forward, but
going to health officials instead. I call that service.

I frankly see no reason for all this butthurt.

~~~
ncallaway
> "Informing that what he is doing might be illegal"

His actions were not illegal.

> "harassment in the internet is not right way to take it forward"

His actions weren't harassment, but a very clear expression of his 1A rights.

> "but going to health officials instead"

If a customer suspected health codes were being violated, I would prefer the
marketplace be informed as well as health officials. Similarly, if someone
gets sick after eating at a restaurant, I would prefer them to tell _me_ , not
health code officials.

> "I frankly see no reason for all this butthurt."

I definitely see a reason for it, though I might agree that the reaction in
this instance is much larger than it needs to be. Securing pro-bono counsel
for the guy is definitely a reasonable response, though. And it might be hard
to secure pro-bono counsel without raising the case further into the public
eye.

~~~
Zimahl
His actions don't appear to be illegal, but do the police have the right to
not investigate something that was reported as illegal? I mean, if harassment
is claimed by someone should the police just shrug their shoulders? No, they
should probably investigate and determine if a crime actually happened. In the
meantime, telling someone what could happen if they were doing what was
claimed is not what I'd call 'threatening'.

I guess don't really see the problem with the phone call from the police
either. It's just a subtle 'I don't want to have to come back out here'
warning that they give every day to prevent things from getting to the point
that they have to intervene. It does seem like a bored police department, but
I didn't hear any threats in the phone call. This article jumps the gun a
little bit by inferring collusion between the police and the pizza restaurant.

~~~
ncallaway
> "do the police have the right to not investigate something that was reported
> as illegal?"

Yes, they certainly do. There are often more reports than there are resources
for the police to respond to. Additionally, if I report something that is
obviously frivolous or not illegal, they don't have to investigate. For
example: I report to your local PD that you have harassed me with this comment
online. It's obviously baseless and frivolous, and they shouldn't spend any
time "warning you that it _might_ be illegal".

> "they should probably investigate and determine if a crime actually
> happened"

Sure, when the police report is made by the harassed party, they should ask
the form that the harassment took place as. When the response is "reviews on
Yelp", the police should be smart enough to know that it isn't harassment. It
_could_ still be libel or defamation, but neither of those are criminal
activities, and shouldn't be pursued by the police. There is no need for any
investigation that goes beyond the report and maybe looking at the source of
the reviews.

> "I guess don't really see the problem with the phone call from the police
> either"

First of all, I think the officer had good and understandable intentions. I
don't think she was overtly threatening or malicious. She _was_ just trying to
diffuse a situation. Unfortunately, she was doing so by strongly urging a
citizen to stop expressing their rights under 1A.

From one POV it's a helpful police officer trying to defuse a situation; from
another POV it's an official agent of the government telling the citizen that
they should stop doing an activity that they have every right to. An officer
of the law telling you what you're doing is borderline criminal _when it 's
not_ is going to have a significant chilling effect on speech.

I think this is expressed in quotes from the officer such as:

* "is there any reason you posted those photos?"

* "If there is a violation and you want to show it to someone ... If they feel like there's no violation then you should probably drop it"

* "You put your opinion out there once, twice, I'm not sure what you're hoping to gain"

* "You're borderline criminal / civil harassment there" (this isn't true. It could be a violation of Yelp's TOS, or it could be defamation, but it wouldn't be harassment. Unless they prosecute the violation of Yelp's TOS under the CFAA there is _no_ criminal behavior implied in his actions)

Again, I don't think the officer's intent was bad. I also don't think this was
as big a deal as the article made it out to be. However, like I said, it seems
perfectly reasonable to secure pro-bono counsel for the guy. An article that
tries to make a splash might be a necessary thing for getting pro-bono
counsel.

------
ctdonath
A case worth following. Any chance of a persistent link to details as they
emerge?

~~~
coldpie
I don't think Mr White does that, but his blog is well worth following in
general. Here's his RSS feed:
[http://feeds.feedburner.com/Popehat?format=xml](http://feeds.feedburner.com/Popehat?format=xml)

------
jamespo
not exactly Rodney King is it

------
crusso
I feel sorry for the owners of the Pizza parlor. Sounds like they were trying
to do a good thing by working with a state agency and hiring a special needs
individual, even if it didn't work out.

I really don't like seeing the police try to get involved, though.

As another user said, this whole thing doesn't rise to the level of serious
police abuse of power, put on front page of HN, though.

~~~
dfxm12
Why do you feel sorry for someone who is in a position of power & is using
that to abuse a former employee?

Do you think one negative Yelp review is going to ruin the owners' lives or
livelihood, and that is a more serious concern than following the health code?
If the place had been up to code, or the employee's concerns had been allayed,
this whole situation could have been avoided, and that's the better way to
deal with the situation, compared to police intimidation and hang up calls.

~~~
crusso
_position of power_

As I said, the law enforcement involvement is wrong, but I don't blame the
parlor owner for trying to do SOMETHING.

Not everyone owns a business, especially one that takes the hard work and
makes as little money as something like a typical pizza parlor (there's a
reason why they're notorious for not lasting long).

So imagine you hire someone to do some work for you, say just odd jobs around
your house like fixing faucets, repairing some shutters. You go out of your
way to hire someone who could use a break. For some reason it doesn't work
out, say he ends up breaking more shutters than he fixes -- so you let him
know that you no longer want him to do odd jobs for you.

Now the guy gets pissed and makes it his mission to start messing with you.
He's calling your boss/employer, he's driving by your house and telling your
neighbors what an a-hole you are, and all around trying to make your life hell
because you didn't like the work he was doing for you. It begins to impact
your job, maybe costs you a raise or promotion because it's viewed that you're
now part of the problem.

So you do nothing?

~~~
dfxm12
This is not a good analogy given what happened according to the article.

