RSS
Twitter
Just Using Google Not Enough In County Search For Man Who Owed Taxes
from the don't-forget-the-other-ways dept
Two years ago we wrote about a case where a judge ruled that someone who was required to do a full search to reach someone should have known to try a Google search. In that case, the original person hadn't bothered to look online, and concluded that the other person was unfindable -- while a simple Google search proved that to be untrue. A new case, however, presents a slightly different situation: what if you only did a Google search? That's what folks from Northampton County did in trying to track down a guy who owed back taxes. They were unable to find him via Google, even though a phone book lookup would have found his correct phone number. A court has now ruled that just using Google isn't sufficient. So, for those of you keeping score (or being required by law to track down some missing people), this means that (a) you should use Google in your search, but (b) you shouldn't rely on only Google.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
... Gov employees?
hey... aren't these government employees...
meaning, they should have access to stuff better than Google?
whatever.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I wonder if they tried Googling that little Kansas girl who was just taken from a Target parking lot?
If they didn't: THOSE BASTARDS!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: ... Gov employees?
Not necessarily, because 1) Google is really good and 2) it's the government you're talking about.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
This just goes to show... that if you are a little girl from Kansas, you should not be hanging around Target parking lots by yourself.
But seriously now, I think that the "little girl" you were referring to was actually 18 years old (Teenager?) and she wasn't taken, Kelsey Smith was forced into her car.
http://www.FindKelsey.com
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
Well, OK so 18 isn't exactly what most people would consider little, but I do.... :)
Thanks for the URL that you posted there.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Its incredible how the world is changing by the power of the internet!
Mark Bowness
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: The Internet?
The Internet? Is that thing still around?!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Internet???
I thought with all his free time Al Gore would have invented something better by now... hahahahaha
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
government
"hey... aren't these government employees...
meaning, they should have access to stuff better than Google?"
Maybe... but it would take 4 minutes per query and return 10% of the requested information... none of which would be useful.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
As usual with the justice system...
Damned if you do - Damned if you don't.
Unless, of course, you're rich - like Paris Hilton, then it doesn't matter, as you can buy justice.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Its not as stupid as people are trying to make it sound. The court is simply saying that if your claiming you tried to find a person and couldn't, that you had better have at least tried all the basic free methods out there, old AND new (google AND the phone book.) The courts in washington even make you put in ad in the local paper, for a few weeks. God forbid you actually make an effort to find someone before you confiscate his property.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
True story: I ended up getting served with a federal subpoena because somebody googled a name similar to mine and since I lived in the state the trial was taking place in and the person they really wanted to testify lived several states away I was given the subpoena by a rather testy process server.
The lawyer who subpoenaed me was extremey obnoxious when I called and asked why I was being called to testify and when he told me who his client was (it was the Logan Young bribery trial) I said I'd never heard of him and had no idea what I could possibly testify about. He threatened me with perjury and told me he would present the book I'd written into evidence. When I asked him what book he was talking about he said "Bragging Rights," a book about the Alabama-Auburn sports rivalry.
When I pointed out that I hadn't written the book (but am frequently angrily asked if I did) he got even more obnoxious until I told him that if he was trying to subpoena me he had my name wrong and I would refuse to appear because he had mis-identified me.
It turned out that the agency he used to serve subpoenas had just googled the author's name and I was the first hit they got and they assumed that I was the right guy. The next day I got a sheepish call from the process server who said "I've had thousands of people tell me I made a mistake when I served them, and you're the first time I actually did." I told him if he'd looked in the phone book he could have figured out I wasn't who he was looking for and saved himself a trip all the way out to my house.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
...Captain Obvious strikes again!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Paris Hilton
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
That is a hillarious story!
I can't imagine mistakes being made like this very often. County Sheriff's departments have a database with EVERY person that has ever resided in that county and their current residence, along with family information, court and public records, and just about anything you could want to know about a person that is in any way public.
They also have photographs that are updated frequently of every address in that county, so when they type in the address they can describe what the residence looks like to the responding officer.
This is the same system dispatchers for 911 use (So fire and medical have these capabilities too).
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment