- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
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.”
You must log in or register to comment.
Kari Newell, the business owner whose driving record Cody used as a premise to launch a raid on the newspaper and two homes, told the I-Team Cody directed her to delete text messages.
“He just said to me that he felt it would be beneficial if I deleted those text messages to just kind of remove the element of any connection between him and I that could be deemed inappropriate,” Newell said.
yeah. that’s not… suspicious at all. nope. Fuck these guys, though.
As long as these sleazy fucks were using actual text messages, it’s fully possible their phone carriers have them.
Go look at the police subs at that other place - they don’t wonder. They don’t give two shits.
They have decided anyone who doesn’t like cops is at least one of these:
- A child or young adult with no life experience nor critical thinking skills
- Someone who doesn’t like having rules enforced
- A criminal
Their thinking goes no deeper.
another day another corrupt pig pen trying to intimidate and control what they don’t like, which is usually the truth and corroborating facts
Scum. And the chief openly tried to delete the evidence, and get the other person in the messages to delete theirs also.
One goose step closer to fascism.
Zeno’s goose stepping: always getting closer to fascism, but never admitting we’ve arrived.
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.
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.
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.
They’re separate thoughts that are inconveniently in the same paragraph.
-
There’s nothing wrong with defense making this argument, any competent attorney would do the same.
-
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.
-
I’m not trying to reveal too much about myself here, but the mechanism in my area is the same as the mechanism for any government-owned devices.
The device is copied by a digital forensics expert. If the device is also the subject of a discovery request, it is retained until two years after litigation has completed.
The copied data is analyzed by a FOIA coordinator that gives all the relevant information to the person who initiated the FOIA request.
I advise people to never conduct work on personal devices because the policy we work under explicitly states that personal devices will be subject to legal holds and FOIA if used for official business.
Isn’t this the city that spied on its students?
