The attorney hired by the city of Marion following the raids on a Kansas newsroom has blocked access to records that should be publicly available under state law.

The attorney hired by the city of Marion following the raids on a Kansas newsroom has blocked access to records that should be publicly available under state law.

The KSHB 41 News I-Team requested former police chief Gideon Cody’s text messages, among other public officials in Marion.

In an email on Oct. 31, Jennifer Hill, an attorney hired by the city following the raids denied the request by writing: “The City has no custody over personal cell phones and KORA provides no enforcement mechanism to obtain text messages from personal cell phones. As such, obtaining text messages from the personal property of the listed individuals would place an unreasonable burden on the City and, to the extent any such records even exist, the City is under no obligation to produce such records.”

  • @[email protected]
    19•1 year ago

    Not surprised the attorney is making these moves, it’d be malpractice not to make the argument. The city’s prosecutor (or county or state) should have opened a criminal investigation into everyone involved and obtained search warrants.

    • @SheeEttinEnglish
      7•1 year ago

      Yeah. If they want access to personal accounts, they’ll need to show that official business was being conducted, and I don’t see that the article actually says that it was. Going through the court is the appropriate action here.

    • TurtleJoe
      3•1 year ago

      I don’t see what the city prosecutor has to do with it. This is similar to a FOIA request, just based on Kansas law, which is pretty clear:

      The law states: “Public record” means any recorded informations, regardless of form, characteristics or locations, that is made, maintained or kept by or is in possession of: (A) Any public agency; or (B) any officer or employee of a public agency pursuant to the officer’s or employee’s official duties and that is related to the functions, activities, programs or operations of any public agency.

      This guy’s cell phone is clearly “kept in the possession of an officer or employee of a public agency.” The city is arguing that asking for the cell phone is an “undue burden” efficiency is ridiculous on its face.

      The reason that records acts like this are put in place is because the way you described it working would be a clear conflict of interest: the city prosecutor suing the city to turn over the records of an official, with an attorney hired by the city working to keep those records from being public.

      • @[email protected]
        1•1 year ago

        They’re separate thoughts that are inconveniently in the same paragraph.

        1. There’s nothing wrong with defense making this argument, any competent attorney would do the same.

        2. This case generally should be subject to prosecution because the raid is so blatantly corrupt.

        City prosecutors can absolutely sue city officials though in cases like this, they normally get a special prosecutor or someone from another jurisdiction (like the county or state) to avoid the conflict like you said. This records act has nothing to do with criminal prosecution, it’s about public disclosure. A prosecutor can just get a warrant. This is happening because the news organization is requesting the messages.

        That law doesn’t mean that every public officer’s phone is an open book, it means that anything a public officer does in their public capacity on a private device is still subject to normal public records disclosures. You don’t get the entire phone, you get the public records (the relevant messages).

        My guess, though I don’t know, is that the news organization has to somehow establish to some degree of confidence that there are public records on the personal phone, which I’m guessing they’ll be able to do.