514
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2023
514 points (98.7% liked)
News
21693 readers
4232 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
She should have been removed immediately. Perfect example of everything wrong with the American justice system
in the good ol' days it would have been by an angry mob with pitchforks and hot tar.. for authorizing the murder of an old woman by the cops..
We are civilized now boy... Fuck ur rights
---the most violent people you know
didn't get your meds today i guess
Weak reading skillz
The social contract is unraveling.
We'll get back to those days soon enough.
No it wouldn't, quit your bullshit
People in the past have stood up to the cops for much less. They would stand up to them evicting people from their houses and all kinds of stuff. Now they literally get away with murder with almost nothing being done to them.
The justice system generally allows everyone a chance to defend themselves. People aren't removed immediately for the same reason they aren't executed immediately.
I'm talking about firing. Not imprisonment. And yes, if you fuck up big time, it's completely fine to be fired on the spot. She issued a search warrant for a journalist, in complete violation of State and Federal law.
Her contract almost certainly requires due process before she is terminated under these circumstances.
And while not all workers in the US get that protection, it would be better if they did.
Kansas is an at will state. They can fire her because Tuesday is a day of the week.
At will is simply the default, so it only applies to workers without an employment contract.
She is a government official, and most certainly has a contract that specifies termination procedures.
Keep in mind that at will cuts both ways, it allows workers to quit at any time without notice. The government really, really doesn't want judges to peace out in the middle of a trial. So the contract provides penalties for both sides if termination procedures aren't followed.
I'm sorry but this is really funny. Her "contract" is the state constitution.
https://kslib.info/829/Article-3-Judicial
Whatever her contract specifies has to be consistent with the constitution, but her contract covers a lot more than that. It's not like she can look through the constitution to find her PTO policy.
Elected offical's compensation packages are codified, not contracted. This is a really bizarre rabbit hole you've went down.
The constitution and state law must be in keeping with any employment contract. That doesn't mean there is no employment contract.
Without an employment contract, there is no penalty if an employee suddenly decides to quit. If you are at will (no contract), giving notice to your employer is merely a courtesy.
The government does not want judges to suddenly quit in the middle of a trial, for the same reason that hospitals don't want doctors to quit in the middle of a patient appointment. Those kinds of employees need contracts.
Among other things, the contract specifies termination procedures. This may include a requirement to give notice and also limit the opportunity for summary firing.
An example of an employment contract for a judge can be found here.
It may not be a contract persay, but it does seem to support the idea that some amount of due process is required. I'd agree that there should be some option to more rapidly suspend a judge, but the constitution you quote says she gets a hearing before dismissal.
I wasn't really arguing that they couldn't dismiss them, just that the dismissal of an elected official being mediated by employment law is... an interesting approach.
This judge is not an elected official.
She was appointed but has to be voted for every 4 years.
No, she doesn't. She is a magistrate judge, and that's an appointed position.
What state and federal laws? Not trolling, genuinely have been searching and asking for an explanation. The probable cause seems clear from having read the warrant. I think the paper owner even admitted it's employee broke the records law.
President and law is to issue a subpoena. Basically ask instead of demand. It's to insure newspapers first amendment rights.
Based on your dodgy command of English I'm going to give your statements on criminal procedure very little weight.
Okay
Sorry friend, but they're right, you're wrong and to dismiss them over a spelling error is arrogant and ignorant. The warrant was for someone at the paper allegedly illegally accessing someone's driving record (1). Kansas has a law that protects driver's records, but it has a carve out for journalists with a legitimate need to access that info (2). Even if that legitimate need doesn't exist, this is a civil cause of action and not a criminal proceeding (3), so a subpoena from the aggrieved party would be appropriate and a warrant for the police to raid both the office and a journalist's home is a massive overstep, obviously intended to punish someone before they've even been accused of a crime. The warrant has since been withdrawn by the county attorney, who directed that all seized materials be returned and all copies of seized data be destroyed (4).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2023/08/26/marion-county-newspaper-police-raid-what-really-happened/
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://kansasreflector.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Law-re-Drivers-Records.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj77__bmqiBAxUdEVkFHQicAYYQFnoECBgQBQ&usg=AOvVaw1Bz9NbY8Am9kfCqt5zgeS-
https://www.kansas.gov/mvr/#:~:text=It%20is%20unlawful%20for%20personal,of%20the%20personal%20information%20released.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/08/16/judge-withdraws-warrant-marion-country-record-raid-kansas/70597424007/
It's a federal law and there is no carve out for journalists. I linked the statute elsewhere.
I don't know what you're talking about. The warrant was part of a criminal investigation by police, not any civil lawsuit.
And you didn't even read your own links.
The DPPA has no exception for journalists.
is a very interesting way to interpret
Seems like I'm not the one who doesn't read my links
Wtf are you talking about? This case doesn't involve vital records (birth, death, marriage certificates).
Here's the statute buddy: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2721
Sections (b)(1)-(14) list the only rights of access.
What does a Missouri circuit court holding about vital records in 1989 have to do with anything? The case at issue was in Kansas, doesn't involve vital records (which are already open under FOIA).
You're obviously a poser.
and yet us commoners are frequently arrested and detained without cause. Yes, police can and do fuck up peoples' lives and make them sit in jail for days just to have charges dropped in many cases. You could whine and say it's rare, but once is too much vs the rules they're SUPPOSED to operate under.
Do not defend a two-faced "justice" system.
If some people are treated unjustly, the solution is not to treat everyone unjustly.
But thats the issue, there is no issue to fix the unjustness.
They... are executed immediately.
See all the police killings of innocent people?
The judicial system allows those with wealth to game it so they don't have to play by the same rules as everyone else. Remember the affluenza kid who killed for people while driving recklessly? What about the other rich white male who literally raped a girl and got off because 'it could damage his future.'
Meanwhile, poor black folk get executed for no-knock search warrants when the cops go to the wrong place.
Police know to be more lenient with people that have status (wealth.) That's why we just got a recording with a pig laughing about a cop running over a pedestrian because she 'was of low value.'
If you don't notice how the justice system doesn't serve you, you're not paying attention.
I've been loosely following this story and I read the warrant applications. You seem certain this is outrageous. Could you explain why?
What was wrong with the warrant? The police seem to have had good probable cause. I'm a huge advocate for free press, but I've yet to hear a legal argument for what is so objectionable, here.
The probable cause statement wasn't even filed until after the warrant was issued and raid occurred.
https://thehill.com/media/4155087-publisher-newspaper-raided-police-says-timing-probable-cause-affidavit-suspicious/
Oh snap, I hadn't seen that detail reported yet.
Elsewhere I see:
That's very suspect.
The top prosecutor, who ordered the seized materials be returned, said themselves that “insufficient evidence exists to establish a legally sufficient nexus between this alleged crime and the places searched and the items seized.” There was never probable cause, no evidence that this alleged illegal access ever happened. There never should have been a warrant in the first place.
On what grounds? What was wrong with the warrant? Did you read it? I realize it's all been tossed after the shit hit the fan.
Not sure what you're asking when you say "on what grounds".
The warrant was issued without any evidence supporting it, which I thought I made clear in my comment.
I did read it, it's linked within the article OP posted that we're replying too, or maybe it's a couple clicks away.
The fact that shit hit the fan seems like a red flag to me that things were wrong from the get go. Cops get away with misconduct every day, for it to make national news means they probably acted indefensibly inappropriately.
You're saying the warrant was issued without supporting evidence because the affidavit was filed after the warrant was served?
I don't know what the recording requirements in that court are. It may be that affidavits are submitted sealed and then not filed until after the warrant is served. That doesn't seem out of the scope of ordinary to me.
I'm not sure it's filing means the judge didn't see it.
I've yet to see reasonable cause. Mind sharing your own thought process so we can all know where the other is coming from?
Sure. The warrant application states that the newspaper employee accessed some private government record via online portal, and then shared that record with police and the public. In order to access the record, the newspaper employee must have either impersonated the person whom the record was about (it think it was about a town counselor if memory serves), or else falsely certify that the employee had a valid legal reason to access the information. It's the same certification I have make as a lawyer when doing a private background check, have to choose one of like fourteen legit reasons for requesting the info; comes from a federal privacy statute. The difference being I have a legit reason to certify when I'm doing a search, and I'm not accessing records directly from the government.
So either the newspaper employee committed identity thef or accessed a closed, government computer system under false pretenses, also known as hacking (unauthorized access).
Those were the two probable crimes set forth in the warrant. There is no journalist exception for crimes.
As I understand, the newspaper owner admitted that their employee falsely certified as to her right of access, but refused to give a statement or provide records.
The same officer who applied for the warrant is also the officer who initially received the document on behalf of the police. He recognized that it implicated the police chief in financial crimes, and referred it to internal affairs.
The only wrongdoing I could see is the appearance of conflict of interest, in that the department or prosecutor should have referred the matter to state law enforcement or law enforcement in a different county.
I don't like police raiding reporters in any sense, and that's what prompted me to read the warrant application, but after reading it I understand why the police, prosecutor, and judge all signed off on it. It seems legit.
I think journalism would be a valid reason when discussing public corruption. IANAL, may be wrong.
There are 14 clearly defined rights of access. None of them apply to journalists.
I agree journalism is important and rooting out public corruption is a good cause. They should have requested the records by FOIA. Some records are exempt from FOIA and I have hunch these were such records. Congress passed the law setting out those fourteen reasons a person could have a valid legal right to the data, and fishing expeditions by well meaning journalists isn't one of them, for good reason!
Don't forget, the document was the proof of the corruption, before that, sounds like, it was allegation and conjecture motivated by a small town grudge.
I don't know, assume the affidavit is true and the actions of the newspaper employee were illegal, is the raid objectionable for any legal reason?
The whole thing stinks.
Thanks for the details, genuinely. I've not fired up PACER myself here, as much as me a private non-lawyer citizen could really follow along there.
Personally, I side with the newspaper morally in this matter. I'm much more of a "if raiding a newspaper over peacefully attempting to uncover corruption in local governments because they lied to do so is legal than the laws need to change" kinda guy.
I know that's pivoting. I also don't have any good ideas on how to improve the laws. Personally, I don't see any way of making a law that doesn't become either a target of or a tool for abuse of power, and this really feels a lot like people in power using the law to help a friend in a way that most citizens would not have access to.
I don't disagree.
They should have issued a subpoena, like every other case. Also the judge ordered the return of seized items from the search. Not a good sign of confidence in their legality.
A subpoena is a demand to appear issued by a lawyer. A witness has to be subpoenaed to something. You subpoena testimony, usually by deposition, to a hearing or to a grand jury. A subpoena duces tecum is a subpoena to show up and testify and bring documents, too.
Government subpoenas are usually in connection with civil enforcement. In the criminal context, they are to compel a witness to a grand jury or to testify at a pretrial deposition or at trial after the suspect as been charged, or in the case of secret proceedings, when a grand jury has convened.
Police use warrants not subpoenas.