The police chief who led a highly criticized raid of a small Kansas newspaper has been suspended. Marion Mayor Dave Mayfield on Saturday confirmed to The Associated Press that he suspended Chief Gideon Cody this week.

The police chief who led a highly criticized raid of a small Kansas newspaper has been suspended, the mayor confirmed to The Associated Press on Saturday.

Marion Mayor Dave Mayfield in a text said he suspended Chief Gideon Cody on Thursday. He declined to discuss his decision further and did not say whether Cody was still being paid.

Voice messages and emails from the AP seeking comment from Cody’s lawyers were not immediately returned Saturday.

The Aug. 11 searches of the Marion County Record’s office and the homes of its publisher and a City Council member have been sharply criticized, putting Marion at the center of a debate over the press protections offered by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

  • @[email protected]
    1•1 year ago

    You keep moving the goalposts.

    Bullshit.

    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 newspaper’s attorney, who of course says it was legal!

    And this memo he issued for “interested media outlets” outlines the how and why.

    If you’re an attorney and feel so strongly about this, perhaps you can represent the (now former) police chief, pro bono.

    • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】
      0•1 year ago

      Once again, the police chief did not write the warrant affidavit. The judge didn’t 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 doesn’t 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 doesn’t 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 statute’s purpose is to make certain driving records public, the reporter was free to submit false information to obtain the records. They are shit arguments.

      I remain unconvinced.

      Nah, I don’t represent cops or scabs.

      • @[email protected]
        1•1 year ago

        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 you’re the judge in the upcoming cases, who cares?

        Edit: About the next comment – 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.