Did He Leave It Running?

June 13, 2006 7:44 AM

Unmarked police SUV stolen containing guns, body armor I especially like this part: "The green Ford Explorer was taken from a driveway in the 8500 block of William Cummins Court, said Officer Dwight Mitchell, a police spokesman. The officer was not identified because he works undercover." Searching Google Maps for "William Cummins Ct, Louisville, KY 40228" using the "hybrid" map+satellite view is especially pointful.
posted by davy (76 comments total)

Man, police SUVs are all over the news today.
posted by NationalKato at 7:47 AM on June 13, 2006

Here's the map result. What point am I missing here? It's a dead end? It's near a freeway?
posted by mathowie at 7:56 AM on June 13, 2006

Is it that the officer is undercover but the police statement pinpoints his house?
posted by horsewithnoname at 7:59 AM on June 13, 2006

Isn't this what we hate Karl Rove & co. for doing to Valerie Palme?
posted by jonmc at 8:00 AM on June 13, 2006

It would appear he or she can only be one of the three people living on William Cummins Court, right?
posted by The Bellman at 8:01 AM on June 13, 2006

There are only four houses on the street. Morons.

I love the "be on the lookout" but we won't tell you the license plate number thing too.
posted by CunningLinguist at 8:02 AM on June 13, 2006

Officer Mitchell made a monumental stupid move, true, but why are we compounding it by shouting it from the rooftops and why is needlessly putting an officer's life in danger so amusing? Like I said, this is what we decry in the Palme case, right?
posted by jonmc at 8:06 AM on June 13, 2006

one undercover cop needs a whole vanload of guns and body armour?
posted by cubby at 8:06 AM on June 13, 2006

localnewsfilter.
posted by empath at 8:10 AM on June 13, 2006

I liked it when this happened on "The Shield."
posted by Banky_Edwards at 8:11 AM on June 13, 2006

Why does a street with 4 houses have an 8500 block?
posted by smackfu at 8:12 AM on June 13, 2006

jonmc,

It's already been done though. You can be sure that the kind of people who might put the officer's life in danger won't be looking at metafilter and googlemaps. Why would they? After all, they live in Louisville and don't need the internet to look at an address and drive over there.
posted by atrazine at 8:12 AM on June 13, 2006

Bellman, one of the tiny handful of addresses on that court; are cops (and neighbors of cops) forbidden from having spouses and/or families? "Wow Sherlock, your dad's police SUV full of WMDs got stolen! Something runs in the family, huh?!?"

And jonmc, the Rove/Plame "references" don't fit: it was published in the newspaper and its site on the Internet, and the quoted source is an LMPD spokesman.
posted by davy at 8:15 AM on June 13, 2006

Why does a street with 4 houses have an 8500 block?
Because it's 85 blocks from some central point in the city where they start counting lot numbers.
posted by octothorpe at 8:15 AM on June 13, 2006

You can be sure that the kind of people who might put the officer's life in danger won't be looking at metafilter and googlemaps.

Right. Only the good guys read Metafilter.
posted by JekPorkins at 8:15 AM on June 13, 2006 [2 favorites]

It's already been done though. You can be sure that the kind of people who might put the officer's life in danger won't be looking at metafilter and googlemaps.

Who knows? All kinds of people use the internet. But, I'm not seriously accusing anyone here of trying to bring harm to the officer or his family, and it was the original officer's gaffe that put him in danger. But, I do find it a bit disturbing that we find this amusing in this case, but a grave injustice of the highest order in the Palme case. I think it stinks either way, for the record.
posted by jonmc at 8:16 AM on June 13, 2006

davy: "And jonmc, the Rove/Plame "references" don't fit: it was published in the newspaper and its site on the Internet, and the quoted source is an LMPD spokesman."

Published in the newspaper! I knew there was a difference between this and the Plame thing!
posted by Plutor at 8:20 AM on June 13, 2006

Right. Only the good guys read Metafilter.

Well, let's bet on more locals in Louisville reading their local newspaper than metafilter.
posted by atrazine at 8:21 AM on June 13, 2006

But jonmc, it was joining the police force that put his/her life in danger, and the major gaffe here (if there is one) belongs to Louisville Metro Police Department spokemodel Officer Dwight Mitchell. (By the way, for some reason the C-J doesn't give a reporter's byline for this one.)
posted by davy at 8:22 AM on June 13, 2006

Like I said, davy, it was the officer who gave the address to the press who ultimately put the SUV owner in danger, and he should be (at the very least) censured for it. But I don't see that we should make this into entertainment.
posted by jonmc at 8:23 AM on June 13, 2006

Why does this post and thread annoy me so much?
posted by Pacheco at 8:25 AM on June 13, 2006

Pointful?
posted by timsteil at 8:26 AM on June 13, 2006

That's why...
posted by Pacheco at 8:26 AM on June 13, 2006

Um, jonmc, it was the Louisville Courier-Journal who made it into entertainment. This thread is tantamount to discussing David Letterman's last Top Ten List or yesterday's baseball scores.
posted by davy at 8:28 AM on June 13, 2006

davy, I realize that. I'm just a mite...disappointed that we're chuckling at something we should find offensive. I'm not making any accusations, just expressing my feelings about the whole fiasco.
posted by jonmc at 8:32 AM on June 13, 2006

Ah ya' bunch a do-gooders - quit giving the poster a hard time. Don't blame him that the newspaper was stupid enough to basically give the address away.

Sure, he posted it here... but don't you think all the people in that town have already read the article in the paper?

No one cares if you read it here... (unless, of course - you stole the car. If that's the case, then... oops.)
posted by matty at 8:32 AM on June 13, 2006

(By the way, for some reason the C-J doesn't give a reporter's byline for this one.)

Because it's a one-source police brief and, as a rule, Gannett papers don't put bylines on one-source police briefs.
posted by Alexandros at 8:33 AM on June 13, 2006

Don't blame him that the newspaper was stupid enough to basically give the address away.

I hope you're being sarcastic.
posted by Alexandros at 8:34 AM on June 13, 2006

jon-You seem to have bought the conservative talking points on this one. The problem with the Plame leak was not in the leak epr se, although that was troubling, but in the 1) breaking of a federal statute regarding revealing the identity of covert intelligent agents and, more to the point, 2) doing it for political gain, which was, 3) based on a lie anyway. Equating the two in anything but the most superficial way lends credence to the notion that the Plame leak was a not so big deal that was the normal course of business for these things. (Even though you seem to want to argue the opposite, in other words, that both are horrible, the equating of the two is what ends up excusing the Plame issue.)
posted by OmieWise at 8:38 AM on June 13, 2006

Right. Only the good guys read Metafilter.

I pity the poor terrorist who's looking for soft targets by trolling through MetaFilter... shit, I can't even find anything really funny to link to. There goes my dreams of writing a sequel to "Spies Like Us."
posted by GuyZero at 8:40 AM on June 13, 2006

disappointed that we're chuckling at something we should find offensive.

I thought we were chuckling at the incompetence of the police's PR department?

Is there something wrong with that that I'm somehow missing?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 8:43 AM on June 13, 2006

OmieWise: I don't know what you mean by 'talking points,' but I just find it troubling when anyone's put in danger whether because of deliberate underhandedness or simple stupidity, and, no offense, but saying that my comparison (not equivalence) to the Palme matter somehow excuses Palme makes no sense. I'm just interested in the difference in our responses is all.
posted by jonmc at 8:43 AM on June 13, 2006

I think johnmc's got a point. the Mefi post could easily have said, e.g., "but the newspaper published the address, and there are only four houses near there!". This would allow the Courier-Journal to retract the information if it wanted to. It would have made a better FPP anyway, I think: witness the several posts' worth of confusion after the FPP. As posted, this FPP has a bit too much needless nudge-nudge-wink-wink.

Also, we don't know that the address mentioned in the article is the undercover officer's home address.

Also also, it's "Plame" not "Palme".
posted by hattifattener at 8:44 AM on June 13, 2006

disappointed that we're chuckling at something we should find offensive.

I thought we were chuckling at the incompetence of the police's PR department?

I find the incompetence of the Police PR Department offensive, as should that officer and his family.
posted by jonmc at 8:44 AM on June 13, 2006

hattfattener: right, sorry. not enough caffeine yet.
posted by jonmc at 8:45 AM on June 13, 2006

I greet this with a exasperated sigh and an eye-roll, not with laughter. I haven't seen anyone laugh about it on the thread yet, just a few statements of exasperation. Can someone do some horrible jokes or photoshop a large "undercover cop lives here" sign on the map so jonmc's complaints can have merit?
posted by mikeh at 8:49 AM on June 13, 2006

Can someone please explain to me what seems to be assumed throughout this thread: How does the release of an address necessarily reveal the identity of the undercover officer? If he's any good, the people he's investigating don't have a clue about where he lives.

The green Ford Explorer is a more likely hint...I'm assuming he doesn't use that in the field.
posted by Pacheco at 8:51 AM on June 13, 2006

jon, it's not the same thing. Not remotely. Plame's name was leaked with malice and malfeasance aforethought, this guys non-name was leaked as part of a general news report about a general threat to the community and police idiocy. It does make sense to suggest that they aren't the same, and to suggest that the equivalence understates the seriousness of the Plame affair.
posted by OmieWise at 8:51 AM on June 13, 2006

I liked it when this happened on "The Shield." A great episode, the first thing I thought of too.
posted by Scoo at 8:52 AM on June 13, 2006

I think the SUV was stolen by zombies from Penn Run Memorial Park.
posted by Faint of Butt at 8:54 AM on June 13, 2006

Omie: I never said it was 'the same thing,' and I think that putting a law enforcement officers life in danger is serious. The Plame affair is more serious, but only because of who did it and why. (and you know me well enough to know that I am expressly not trying to diminish the Plame affair, I have as much antipathy to Bush, Rove and the rest of the Keystone Kabinet as anyone here.)
posted by jonmc at 8:54 AM on June 13, 2006

I have as much antipathy to Bush, Rove and the rest of the Keystone Kabinet as anyone here.

Priceless mefi groupthink.
posted by Pacheco at 8:57 AM on June 13, 2006

It was stupid, and possibly dangerous, to reveal that much information. The police spokesperson is 100% at fault.

The newspaper merely reported what info the police gave them. The poster merely linked to said newspaper report. I don't see how anyone is at any fault for any of this, except, the police spokesperson. Well, and the car thief.

I mean, come on, the "look for this vehicle with secret tags" shows the shocking, embarrassing lack of ability of this department.

I assume next they will place an ad in the paper that says "No undercover cop named Larry lives at 8524 Williams Cumming Ct. His wife Linda also does not exist, nor does she work at Carmack Insurance, and their children, which they don't have, do not attend Bridgeway Elementary."
posted by Ynoxas at 9:08 AM on June 13, 2006

Pacheco : "Priceless mefi groupthink."

Back before the internet, we had fancy word for when some people thought the same thing that other people thought: "agreement". I understand you young whippersnappers now just call it "conformity" or "groupthink". By the way, I was thinkin' that I'd eat some food to day, and so were some of the other folks in the old folks home here with me. So don't let me catch you eatin' or nothin', Mr. Individualist.
posted by Bugbread at 9:10 AM on June 13, 2006 [1 favorite]

This happened in Albuquerque in November. In that case the officer had left the truck running. I don't think it's all that uncommon.
posted by hyperizer at 9:41 AM on June 13, 2006

bugbread: ?
posted by Pacheco at 9:46 AM on June 13, 2006

W'htas lal tihs abuot Vlaiere Palme?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:56 AM on June 13, 2006

Concerning 'Rove v. Plame', was it an official CIA spokesperson who "outed" Plame?

And concerning the address, see the first full sentence of the C-J article, i.e. "Louisville Metro Police are searching for an unmarked police sport utility vehicle stolen from the driveway of an undercover officer Sunday night." Note the part reading "from the driveway of an...", okay John?

And Pacheco, around here the cops DO use a lot of "undercover" vehicles, such as SUVs, pickups and Camaros, that are hard to tell from "normal" vehicles and usually have off-the-shelf non-governmental license plates. But when they pull up and doublepark at some "crime scene" the vehicles' creative added-on blue-white-&-red flashing light displays give them away; that's when one can notice that they've usually left the vehicles' doors unlocked, the engines running, and the heavy weapons, briefcases and mobile computers inside in plain view. And around here they try to get grants for such "anti-terrorism" projects as protecting our precious Second Street (cross-river) bridge.

(I don't know how best to describe the added-on flashing-light displays except to say that normally they're hard to spot, but when in use they're impossible to miss.)
posted by davy at 9:58 AM on June 13, 2006

Priceless mefi groupthink.

How is that groupthink, or even an indication of general agreement? jonmc said he has as much antipathy as anyone here. Which means he shares a level of antipathy with the most anti-Bush among us, not that we all share that antipathy. Or am I engaging in groupthink by understanding English as she is wrote?

Anyway, that was a great episode of The Shield, yes.
posted by jack_mo at 10:01 AM on June 13, 2006

What a pointless post.

* Given the visible construction there are probably more than four houses on that block now.
* There wasn't any green SUV parked in any driveway that I could see.
* The cop probably wasn't undercover to his neighbors, they just knew he was a cop.
* They'll probably get a different color SUV next time.
* I really hope that the SUV was stolen randomly, and not because somebody followed him home. In that case, he would have to move.

SUVs get stolen, and leaving it running is only one risk factor. The experienced professional can start a car without the keys in under a minute with the right tools.
posted by dhartung at 10:03 AM on June 13, 2006

And concerning the address, see the first full sentence of the C-J article, i.e. "Louisville Metro Police are searching for an unmarked police sport utility vehicle stolen from the driveway of an undercover officer Sunday night." Note the part reading "from the driveway of an...", okay John?

If I'm Joe Crackdealer and I happen to read the address of an undercover cop in the newspaper, how do I all of a sudden know that the guy I'm about to buy a kilo from is actually a narc? Certainly, the undercover cop is not inviting the people he's investigating over to his house where he sleeps at the end of the day.
posted by Pacheco at 10:06 AM on June 13, 2006

Metafilter: What a pointless post.
posted by davy at 10:07 AM on June 13, 2006

Hey Pacheco, cops are not supposed to sell illegal drugs, at least not around here. About the subject of this thread, you're missing so much that I don't know where to start explaining anything.
posted by davy at 10:11 AM on June 13, 2006

wow...
posted by Pacheco at 10:12 AM on June 13, 2006

I don’t understand why the police park satellites in geosynchrous orbit above undercover officer’s houses when any hacker could just hack into NASA’s SATCOM, download the coding and get the global positioning coordinates on the cop’s house?

...or am I missing the concept here and reading too much into this?
posted by Smedleyman at 10:59 AM on June 13, 2006

I don't know how it is in other municipalities but in mine, once a police report is filed (in this case for a stolen car) it is accessible to the public as part of the public record, and can be requested by phone or fax, arriving via mail shortly thereafter. Very little specific info is needed for the request, for example, "Please send me all car theft incident reports in the North/South/East and West precincts on X date. Here's my $5.00 per precinct. Thank you." So giving away the block info - at least where I live - wouldn't be any sort of security issue.
posted by onegreeneye at 11:02 AM on June 13, 2006

I swear I haven't been in town for a year!

The car has been found about four miles away with some items missing.

There are a lot more homes on that street now. That's a nice neighborhood. His house was probably $236,000 or more. They average about five bedrooms and 3 baths with attached 2 car garages.

If that was his main family home every neighbor knows he's a cop. If that's his undercover place they are now amazed and he is no longer undercover. Metro Louisville police usually lease a place in the undercover cops name. Believe it or not, dealers have been known to read the paper and even check real estate listings when getting to know new players.

onegreeneye: Louisville used to have a weekly paper dedicated to printing those reports.
posted by ?! at 11:05 AM on June 13, 2006

In my experience, police vans only contain body armour, not guns. You get the shotgun from the cruiser.
posted by Meatbomb at 11:21 AM on June 13, 2006

5 years ago or so there was a guy in Washington state publishing police home addresses on the internet, with a map link to their homes. It was a great big deal at the time but now I can't find it in the Seattle Times archive, dangit. He used public access to info law enforcement agencies disclosed themselves regarding salaries, which happened to also include SS#'s and addresses. Online property sale records, deeds, mortgage agreements, etc. are scanned almost immediately upon filing in my county and expose all sorts of "I sure thought that info wasn't public" stuff. Similarly, our muni court recently made available online the public dockets for traffic/parking matters, but didnt remove the addresses and phone numbers thus exposing the home and phone info of domestic violence victims in hiding, judges, prosecutors, etc. It took more than a month of complaints before the error was corrected. Technology in the hands of public servants can be a scary thing.
posted by onegreeneye at 11:22 AM on June 13, 2006

ask.com’s map has a more recent view of the street.
posted by hilker at 11:25 AM on June 13, 2006

Meatbomb: Vans perhaps, but not so for cars!

"Weapon is stolen from police chief's car

By Seattle Times staff


A thief apparently broke into Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske's work vehicle and stole his 9-mm Glock semiautomatic service pistol.

The theft happened sometime between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Dec. 26, when Kerlikowske's black Crown Victoria was parked on Sixth Avenue near Olive Way, police spokeswoman Debra Brown said yesterday. She said the weapon wasn't in plain view.

It didn't appear that anything else was taken, but Brown couldn't say how the thief got into the locked vehicle.

Though Seattle police officers are required to carry their weapons while in city limits, it's not uncommon — or against policy — to lock a gun in a car, Brown said.

"It's embarrassing ... to the chief, as it would be for any officer, to have his gun stolen," she said. "Obviously, the weapon has already fallen into the wrong hands."

Copyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Company"
posted by onegreeneye at 11:26 AM on June 13, 2006

ask.com’s map has a more recent view of the street.

Aha! Proof there's actually around 25 houses on the street.
posted by smackfu at 11:47 AM on June 13, 2006

If this was his house, wasn't the idiot the cop whose vehicle was stolen? Is it smart to leave a police vehicle containing who knows how many guns of various types, plus various other stuff useful to bad guys, all parked out in the driveway while you're inside snoozing or watching TV? With no effective alarm or lock? Not even a loud dog? Did he go out with his undercover buddies to have a few undercover beers while his undercover Explorer home sat in the drive?
posted by pracowity at 11:51 AM on June 13, 2006

If I'm Joe Crackdealer and I happen to read the address of an undercover cop in the newspaper, how do I all of a sudden know that the guy I'm about to buy a kilo from is actually a narc? Certainly, the undercover cop is not inviting the people he's investigating over to his house where he sleeps at the end of the day

Stop watching so much fucking television...
posted by SweetJesus at 11:55 AM on June 13, 2006

OK
posted by Pacheco at 12:09 PM on June 13, 2006

Stop watching so much fucking television...

You don't think that crack dealers really buy their kilos from undercover narcs then?

If the success of the War on Drugs is anything to go buy, you may well be right.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 12:14 PM on June 13, 2006

His house was probably $236,000 or more. They average about five bedrooms and 3 baths with attached 2 car garages.

Wow, I wish you could get a five bed/three bath house with a two car garage in the UK for £130,000.

I live in a fairly inexpensive part of the UK, but that wouldn't buy you a three bedroomed terrace.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 12:18 PM on June 13, 2006

jonmc: I don't think there's really anything funny here, it's just that the idea of walking up to a parked van and driving off with a load of body armor and guns appeals to the kleptomaniac/violent anarchist in us all. Some guy actually did it, though, and that's pretty awesome/funny.
posted by Ryvar at 12:19 PM on June 13, 2006

driving off with a load of body armor and guns appeals to the kleptomaniac/violent anarchist in us all.
Uhhhhh... yeah [backing slowly away].
posted by Flashman at 1:47 PM on June 13, 2006

19 assets died as a result of the Plame leak.

19 families now equate helping the USA with the death of their mother, father, or child.

On topic, doesn't this van join a large amount of dynamite and a large amount of cyanide in missing land?

That'd be a hell of a terrorist attack.

Thank Jeebus that Bush the Father is a strong and noble leader, even when you have to squint really hard to see it that way.
posted by modernerd at 1:58 PM on June 13, 2006

Modernerd: I don't suppose you could link up that "19 assets" assertion? I ask seriously, this comes up all the time and I've never seen anything to back it up.
posted by Banky_Edwards at 2:41 PM on June 13, 2006

timsteil: "Pointful?"

Ditto.
posted by kenko at 2:49 PM on June 13, 2006

PeterMcDermott: Can you do your job from Louisville, KY? Do you like a city that is 98% Suburbia (YMMV) ? If so, I can recommend a few realtors.

The area of town where the cop lives was a prime joyriding hotbed when I was a kid #%$ years ago.
posted by ?! at 4:14 PM on June 13, 2006

What the hell does "pointful" mean?
posted by aerify at 12:19 AM on June 14, 2006

Valerie Plame being revealed possibly put me in risk of getting nuked or poisoned by crazie religious nuts.


The cop is trying to keep me from buying weed on the streets of Louiville.


screw him.
posted by Megafly at 4:03 PM on June 14, 2006

Impressive...
posted by willlangford at 10:18 PM on June 14, 2006