Umm, okay. The paperwork is a sworn statement and contains the written justification.
Are you saying the written justification which formed the basis of the warrant application was pretextual, and that the actual motive for the raid was something else?
E2: Okay I’ve read the affidavit for the search of the newspaper. Seems like good probable cause. Here’s my TLDR:
An employee of the newspaper obtained a restaurant owner’s confidential income tax records. The affidavit lists the reasons one can certify they have a legal right to access the records; news publication isn’t one of them. Looks like the same list I have to certify as an attorney when searching personal records for investigations of legal rights and remedies. Indeed, the list comes from a federal statute, 18 U.S .C. § 2721.
The newspaper claims the records reveals police misconduct and emailed the record to police. The investigating officer agreed, and referred the matter for an internal affairs investigation. Not sure what the allegation is; that the chief (?) was stealing or embezzling money somehow with or through the restaurant (?).
The newspaper admits its employee accessed the record. None of the rights of access apply. The investigating officer concluded that the newspaper employee either impersonated the restauranteur and/or falsely certified as to a right of access, either of which are crimes. Identify theft and/or hacking (accessing a system without valid authorization).
Not sure what context I may be missing, but I’m questioning if this warrant is actually as offensive as I had previously believed.
Umm, okay. The paperwork is a sworn statement and contains the written justification.
Are you saying the written justification which formed the basis of the warrant application was pretextual, and that the actual motive for the raid was something else?
It itself IS NOT justification.
What is written on it? Why can you not say their justification for signing it?
Oh, I haven’t read the warrant application. I will if someone links it. I’m not sure it’s public yet. It will be.
E: They are and here they are: https://kansasreflector.com/2023/08/21/affidavits-bolstering-siege-on-marion-paper-read-like-bad-jokes-at-expense-of-the-first-amendment/
E2: Okay I’ve read the affidavit for the search of the newspaper. Seems like good probable cause. Here’s my TLDR:
An employee of the newspaper obtained a restaurant owner’s confidential income tax records. The affidavit lists the reasons one can certify they have a legal right to access the records; news publication isn’t one of them. Looks like the same list I have to certify as an attorney when searching personal records for investigations of legal rights and remedies. Indeed, the list comes from a federal statute, 18 U.S .C. § 2721.
The newspaper claims the records reveals police misconduct and emailed the record to police. The investigating officer agreed, and referred the matter for an internal affairs investigation. Not sure what the allegation is; that the chief (?) was stealing or embezzling money somehow with or through the restaurant (?).
The newspaper admits its employee accessed the record. None of the rights of access apply. The investigating officer concluded that the newspaper employee either impersonated the restauranteur and/or falsely certified as to a right of access, either of which are crimes. Identify theft and/or hacking (accessing a system without valid authorization).
Not sure what context I may be missing, but I’m questioning if this warrant is actually as offensive as I had previously believed.