Kansas authorities must destroy all electronic copies they made of a small newspaper’s files when police raided its office this month, a judge ordered Tuesday, nearly two weeks after computers and cellphones seized in the search were returned.
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, a central Kansas town of about 1,900 people, at the center of a debate over the press protections offered by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Attorney Bernie Rhodes, who represents the newspaper, said a judge ordered authorities to hand over those electronic records and destroy any copies they have of them along with all photographs that officers took during the raids.
The local prosecutor and sheriff agreed investigators shouldn’t keep that evidence, but Rhodes insisted on a court order to document it. It won’t be clear what files were on the drive until Rhodes gets a copy.
The damage is done. This was extra-legal actions on their part any how. What makes these people think these dirty cops (and the judge) aren’t going to go extra legal again?
It’s not clear what additional steps authorities might take. Neither city officials nor the Kansas Bureau of Investigation, which is looking into reporters’ actions, are saying much.
City Council members refused to discuss the raids at their meeting last week, and the mayor didn’t answer text message questions Tuesday about whether the raids will be on the next agenda. A spokeswoman for the KBI said it’s impossible to predict how long that agency’s investigation will take.(Emphasis mine)
In other words…. The investigation will last long enough for the news cycle to end, so there’s fewer eyes when they take no action.
100% of the time, fast investigations are worthless. Shit takes time to do properly.
It’s been 2 weeks. In any case kbi apparently investigating the reporters, not the cops. (I noticed that going back and reading it again.)
It doesn’t take 2 weeks to see that the reporters didn’t do anything wrong, that the warrant was uncalled for and seizure’s inappropriate, or to see that people are abusing their power to protect their friends, or that the efforts were pretty blatant retaliation.
Did you read the search warrant application? I did.
There’s definitely probable cause for the newspaper search.
The only reason I can see to be upset about this search and seizure is that the local PD or prosecutor should have referred the case out to state authorities due to the nature of the documents (proving the local police chief was engaged in some kind of tax fraud involving a local restaurant; the newspaper shared it with the town council and police internal affairs), which the newspaper managed to obtain, apparently by violating the consumer fraud and abuse act, identity theft, or both. There’s no crime exception for journalists, even if they do it to uncover government corruption.
There’s definitely probable cause for the newspaper search.
Did you read the Privacy Protection Act, I did. let me quote the relevant section here for you:
(a) Work product materialsNotwithstanding any other law, it shall be unlawful for a government officer or employee, in connection with the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense, to search for or seize any work product materials possessed by a person reasonably believed to have a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, broadcast, or other similar form of public communication, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce; but this provision shall not impair or affect the ability of any government officer or employee, pursuant to otherwise applicable law, to search for or seize such materials, if—
(1) there is probable cause to believe that the person possessing such materials has committed or is committing the criminal offense to which the materials relate: Provided, however, That a government officer or employee may not search for or seize such materials under the provisions of this paragraph if the offense to which the materials relate consists of the receipt, possession, communication, or withholding of such materials or the information contained therein (but such a search or seizure may be conducted under the provisions of this paragraph if the offense consists of the receipt, possession, or communication of information relating to the national defense, classified information, or restricted data under the provisions of section 793, 794, 797, or 798 of title 18, or section 2274, 2275, or 2277 of this title, or section 783 of title 50, or if the offense involves the production, possession, receipt, mailing, sale, distribution, shipment, or transportation of child pornography, the sexual exploitation of children, or the sale or purchase of children under section 2251, 2251A, 2252, or 2252A of title 18); or
(2) there is reason to believe that the immediate seizure of such materials is necessary to prevent the death of, or serious bodily injury to, a human being.
Neither condition was met. the journalists themselves did nothing wrong. they received the information. They broke no laws to do so. The standard way of dealing with that is, instead, to get a subpoena for the specific files. they did not do that. nobody was at risk of death or serious bodily injury as a result of not getting the files- and it’s patently ludicrious to suggest that the newspaper would delete their files when they could just as easily appeal such a subpoena- considering that pretty much everybody involved on the sheriff side had a bone to pick with the paper (who was investigating the sheriff for corruption) and could in no way be impartial investigators.
That section does not seem relevant. That’s for government seizures of attorney work product.See:
Work product materials are defined as materials (other than things criminally possessed or used as a means of committing a crime, see, e.g., U.S. v. Hunter, 13 F. Supp. 2d 574, 582 (D. Vt. 1998)
The section of law cited in the warrant is 18 USC 2721 and context makes clear it’s talking about the newspaper employee’s false certification as to one of the enumerated reasons in section (b)(1)-(14).
Which one of those do you contend applies to newspapers?
This is also not a case of journalists reporting information received unwittingly from a third party who obtained it illegally. That would not be a crime as far as the newspaper is concerned.
Rather, this is a case of a newspaper employee falsely certifying a government form to illegally access records firsthand.
Also, the newspaper admits to police it falsely certified it’s request for information.
Long and drawn out ones that die with a sputter encourage people to keep doing horrible shit too.
“Never argue with anyone who buys the ink by the barrel.”
And they can totally be trusted as they’ve shown themselves good faith followers of the Law. /s
I don’t understand the outrage over this case. I read the warrant affidavit for the newspaper search and seizure.
There is no journalist exception for committing cybercrime or identity theft.
At best, these were unethical journalists who lied to government sources to obtain confidential records.
Can someone articulate the outrage?
Is it that the local PD should have referred the case state or federal law enforcement?
I read your comment and thought, “Oh wow, I didn’t know they illegally acquired information.” So I decided to check out the article and the closest thing I found was, they didn’t…
From the article, “The raids came after a local restaurant owner accused the newspaper of illegally accessing information about her. A spokesman for the agency that maintains those records has said the newspaper’s online search that a reporter did was likely legal even though the reporter needed personal information about the restaurant owner that a tipster provided to look up her driving record.”
Can you please elaborate on what you are talking about. The accusation of illegality came from the person who the information is about, and I must emphasize, with no evidence. Where is the evidence of illegality?
A spokesperson for the agency said it was likely legal. I don’t see how.
The section at issue as cited in the warrant is 18 USC 2721. See sections (b)(1)-(14).
I frequently have to certify to that list of uses for certain research associated with law practice. I know the two options I’ve ever used. Looking through the list, I don’t see one that applies to journalist.
Also, the newspaper admitted to police it accessed the records improperly, and implied ones of its employees impersonated the subject of the records.
It wasn’t about a driving record. It was tax documents if memory serves, from the Department of Treasury.
