Mayor David Mayfield said heās not āsure exactly what they did wrongā when the police department raided the Marion County Record office on August 11
The judgeās ruling goes against the First and Fourth Amendments (free speech, illegal search and seizure), and established case law regarding these amendments.
You donāt have to cite the cases, but what case law?
Thereās no special Fourth Amendment right for journalists. The Fourth Protects warrantless search and seizure. The police here had a warrant. If the warrant affidavit didnāt support the probable cause, how? The crime alleged seems clear to me.
There is no First Amendment case law that allows journalists to commit crimes.
I donāt think they are in the right, or in the wrong. I donāt know enough about it because nobody seems to be able to explain it.
I know āthe police chief(?) may have misrepresentedā blah blah blah, isnāt a reason. The police chief did not write the warrant application. What fact in the warrant was misrepresented?
Yeah well, I didnāt know what you were trying to say.
Okay, a nexus issue, thatās something, still not a misrepresentation, itās a scope and nexus issue. I have to think about that one and maybe another look at the warrants. Thatās on the judge, as your quote says, it āessentially threw Judge Viar under the bus.ā
Okay, a nexus issue, thatās something, still not a misrepresentation, itās a scope and nexus issue.
Thatās just splitting hairs.
I know āthe police chief(?) may have misrepresentedā blah blah blah, isnāt a reason.
Never mind the āmay haveā; he actually did misrepresent the facts:
The police chief claimed the reporter (Phyllis Zorn) could only obtain the driverās record by impersonating the āvictimā or lying about the reasons the record was being sought.
Zorn said an unidentified source gave her a copy of the driverās record, which she then verified on a state public records database. This directly contradicts the police chiefās accusations.
The newspaper said it didnāt run the story because they felt their sourceās motives were questionable. Then after the raid, they did because it was relevant to the raid.
According to the newspaperās attorney, Bernie Rhodes:
state law says motor vehicle records are the subject of the open records law, except records related to someoneās physical or mental condition, expunged records and driverās license photos.
āWhat Zorn did is perfectly legal under both Kansas and U.S. law.ā
If you read carefully, the newspaperās argument is that the law intends to make driving records records publicly available, so the paper was allowed to access the records.
Thatās true if they are released to the paper under FOIA. These records contained personal information on private individuals, so they were not foiable, and were publicly available only if one of the 14 rights of access from that federal statute applies. And indeed there was no FOIA request. So, the journalist either impersonated the subject of the record, or falsely certified to one of the rights of access enumerated in the statute.
You keep moving the goalposts. First itās a misrepresentation made the warrant invalid, then itās that the warrant was too broad, now itās that the conduct alleged in the warrant is true but was not actually criminal. Hmm.
The judge allowed the warrant based on the information she got from the police chief, which is questionable and will have to be sorted out in court, period.
According to the newspaperās attorney, who of course says it was legal!
And this memo he issued for āinterested media outletsā outlines the how and why.
If youāre an attorney and feel so strongly about this, perhaps you can represent the (now former) police chief, pro bono.
Once again, the police chief did not write the warrant affidavit. The judge didnāt do anything based the police chief. The officer that applied for the warrant did though, he referred the chief to internal affairs after the driving record somehow implicated him in a crime. If he committed a crime, charge him.
The memo doesnāt explain any reasoning or recite any facts. It merely quotes some statutes and then highlights some language. Each time, it conveniently stops the highlighting right before the list of reasons why many driving records are not public record except for cause, defined under the statute. The reporter still doesnāt meet any of the valid rights of access.
For example, the lawyer highlighted the right of access that applies to statistical research. The reporter was not doing statistical research, so why is it highlighted? Seems the only reason is to try and confuse people.
The lawyer is saying that because many driving records are disclosable for cause, all of them are. Or, that because the statuteās purpose is to make certain driving records public, the reporter was free to submit false information to obtain the records. They are shit arguments.
As I said before, if you think the judge and police chief are in the right here, fine; you have a right to your opinion.
I remain unconvinced.
Unless youāre the judge in the upcoming cases, who cares?
Edit: About the next comment ā straw man my ass. I restated, word for word, exactly what I had stated eight posts above.
Also, more recent audio from body camera footage shows the police chief was searching for information about himself during the raid, which may have been his motivation for the raid in the first place.
If only the bloods and crips were pro-worker instead of pro-wealthy class.
Newsom, a Democrat, says he supports workers and often benefits from campaign contributions from labor unions. But he said he vetoed this bill because the fund the state uses to pay unemployment benefits will be nearly $20 billion in debt by the end of the year.
Beyond the debt, the Newsom administration has said the fund is not collecting enough money to pay all of the benefits owed. The money comes from a tax businesses must pay on each worker. But that tax only applies to the first $7,000 of workersā wages, a figure that has not changed since 1984 and is the lowest amount allowed under federal law.
Thatās a really weird take for someone who looks to be trying to run in the ā28 race. Why this stance over all the others youāve taken? This would have been a grand slam policy along with the others heās approved this minth
Some people seem to think that Democrats need to actually do things to keep the unions loyal, like American politics is about trading favors and negotiating alliances. In reality all the Democrats need to do is point at the Republican boogeyman and the unions fall in line.
I agree. The dems need to show more to the unions. But if they do that then they lose the donations from the bigger corporations. No matter what itās a lose lose game for the workers
He also vetoed a few other progressive bills. Heās gone from a āpolitically uninspiring, but at least heās got fightā to āno, thanksā with this active hippy punching shit. He didnāt even need to do anything, passively signing bills that were voted on by his legislature wouldnāt blow back on him at all, but heās actively signaling hostility to progressives because he wants to curry favor with people that oppose them.
Making crabs even more appealing is that theyāre native to Florida, just in relatively low numbers. (āEverything eats them,ā Spadaro said.) Adding them to the reef is unlikely to have any grave unintended consequences for the ecosystem, Spadaro said, especially considering that there are few other herbivores.
Nah, it just results in the children of conservatives killing loads and loads of leftists before they take themselves out to not face any consequences.
I donāt know any leftists that are any less well armed, and staunchly pro gun ownership than at least the moderate right. Socialism and an armed populace go hand in hand. Weāre pro-choice AF though.
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.