this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2023

546 points (98.8% liked)

News

37060 readers

2480 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

546

The police chief who led a raid of a small Kansas newspaper has been suspended (apnews.com)

submitted 2 years ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

38 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

all 42 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 93 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Mayor needs to go next along with judge who signed the fucking unconstitutional warrant.

[+] JustZ@lemmy.world -14 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] slurpeesoforion@startrek.website 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You could like, read the article. No need to be obtuse.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

Read it, and the warrants.

[+] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Why don't you break it down? Simple question.

[–] Otkaz@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

News organizations are typically issued seapenas for specific information because just raiding them and going through everything can reveal sources for unrelated stories. News organizations should have the ability to protect confidential sources if needed. Reason people are saying unconstitutional is because first amendment protects speech and freedom of press.

At least that's how I understand it but I am not a lawyer.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I'm looking for something hyper specific, legal. Thanks for taking a whack.

I think the usual case involves information from a confidential source, the publication of which by the press is absolutely protected by the First Amendment.

In this case, it was a newspaper reporter who directly was accused of breaking the law to obtain confidential information from the government. The reporter either falsely impersonated the subject of the records or falsely certified as to her reason for accessing them, either violates state and federal law notably the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which is what the search warrant cited.

The press's remedy for obtaining public records is through FOIA, which is itself a requirement of the First Amendment, on the basis that speech is infringed when the government doesn't make its workings known to the public.

The search warrant made sense to me, and seemed that, if true, the only reasonable conclusion is that the reporter broke the law.

[–] downpunxx@kbin.social 77 points 2 years ago (1 children)

suspended? lol, this is the united states of godamn fucking america here, dude interfered directly with gestapo tactics against freedom of the press, he should be fired, and brought up on criminal charges, right fucking meow

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 43 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yup. This is the US. Which is why he’ll be back at work inside of a month

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

If we're really lucky he'll be turned to resign.

...and take a pay raise at a bigger department the next county over.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 61 points 2 years ago (1 children)

He declined to discuss his decision further and did not say whether Cody was still being paid.

So yes, he was being rewarded with paid vacation.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I wish my work would suspend me with pay.

[–] jimbolauski@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

All you got to do is get a job in the public sector that has unions, then do something remarkably stupid and you're on easy street.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

Hmm maybe. Can't I get the same deal working on Wall Street but with more money?

[–] spider@lemmy.nz 36 points 2 years ago (1 children)

He's apparently a slow learner:

Mayor David Mayfield said he's not 'sure exactly what they did wrong' when the police department raided the Marion County Record office on August 11

Full story

[+] JustZ@lemmy.world -7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'm not sure either, can you lay it out in a few sentences or a short paragraph?

[–] macaroni1556@lemmy.ca 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

Are you asking in good faith? It doesn't seem like it.

Thr article and the ones linked about the warrant lay it all out.

[–] spider@lemmy.nz 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Are you asking in good faith? It doesn't seem like it.

Nailed it.

Th[e] article and the ones linked about the warrant lay it all out.

Unfortunately, some would rather argue and waste others' time. See below for details.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Good faith. I don't get the outrage here.

The article above lays out nothing about the law. Just a throwaway sentence with a link to a prior story, that quoted two legal experts who disagreed about what law the search and seizure violated.

There's a vague allusion to potential federal criminal civil rights charges, as well as civil liability.

That's true if the police did something wrong. I just can't seem to pinpoint what it is the police are alleged to have done wrong here.

What statute, what recognized constitutional right?

[–] spider@lemmy.nz 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The judge's ruling goes against the First and Fourth Amendments (free speech, illegal search and seizure), and established case law regarding these amendments.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You don't have to cite the cases, but what case law?

There's no special Fourth Amendment right for journalists. The Fourth Protects warrantless search and seizure. The police here had a warrant. If the warrant affidavit didn't support the probable cause, how? The crime alleged seems clear to me.

[–] spider@lemmy.nz 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

You don't have to cite the cases, but what case law?

You can find that yourself.

There's no special Fourth Amendment right for journalists.

Read closely, I never wrote that.

The police here had a warrant.

Which shouldn't have been issued; the judge erred, and the prosecutor dropped charges against the newspaper.

Just because the judge approved it doesn't make it legal.

If the warrant affidavit didn't support the probable cause, how?

The police chief may have misrepresented the reasons for the warrant; the pending lawsuit(s) should resolve this.

If you think the judge and police chief are in the right here, fine; you have a right to your opinion.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

You have no argument then?

There is no First Amendment case law that allows journalists to commit crimes.

I don't think they are in the right, or in the wrong. I don't know enough about it because nobody seems to be able to explain it.

I know "the police chief(?) may have misrepresented" blah blah blah, isn't a reason. The police chief did not write the warrant application. What fact in the warrant was misrepresented?

[–] spider@lemmy.nz 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

There is no First Amendment case law that allows journalists to commit crimes.

And here we go again. I never said there was, so stop the straw man bullshit.

What fact in the warrant was misrepresented?

On Wednesday, following widespread condemnation of the raid, Joel Ensey, the Marion County attorney, essentially threw Judge Viar under the bus. Mr. Ensey issued a statement saying that "insufficient evidence exists to establish a legally sufficient nexus between this alleged crime and the places searched and the items seized." He asked the court to issue an order releasing the seized materials.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yeah well, I didn't know what you were trying to say.

Okay, a nexus issue, that's something, still not a misrepresentation, it's a scope and nexus issue. I have to think about that one and maybe another look at the warrants. That's on the judge, as your quote says, it "essentially threw Judge Viar under the bus."

[–] spider@lemmy.nz 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Okay, a nexus issue, that's something, still not a misrepresentation, it's a scope and nexus issue.

That's just splitting hairs.

I know "the police chief(?) may have misrepresented" blah blah blah, isn't a reason.

Never mind the "may have"; he actually did misrepresent the facts:

The police chief claimed the reporter (Phyllis Zorn) could only obtain the driver's record by impersonating the "victim" or lying about the reasons the record was being sought.

Zorn said an unidentified source gave her a copy of the driver's record, which she then verified on a state public records database. This directly contradicts the police chief's accusations.

The newspaper said it didn't run the story because they felt their source's motives were questionable. Then after the raid, they did because it was relevant to the raid.

According to the newspaper's attorney, Bernie Rhodes:

state law says motor vehicle records are the subject of the open records law, except records related to someone's physical or mental condition, expunged records and driver's license photos.

"What Zorn did is perfectly legal under both Kansas and U.S. law."

Source

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

The chief still didn't write the affidavit.

According to the newspaper's attorney, who of course says it was legal! Nobody is more biased on this question. Good try though.

I read the stature and there are 14 reasons that can allow someone to look up public driving records. The journalist didn't meet any of them.

They are listed here in subsection b items 1 to 14. Which one do you think the paper fell under?

It's the same list that I have to check off as an attorney when I use a public record databases such as LexisNexis. Here they are:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2721

If you read carefully, the newspaper's argument is that the law intends to make driving records records publicly available, so the paper was allowed to access the records.

That's true if they are released to the paper under FOIA. These records contained personal information on private individuals, so they were not foiable, and were publicly available only if one of the 14 rights of access from that federal statute applies. And indeed there was no FOIA request. So, the journalist either impersonated the subject of the record, or falsely certified to one of the rights of access enumerated in the statute.

You keep moving the goalposts. First it's a misrepresentation made the warrant invalid, then it's that the warrant was too broad, now it's that the conduct alleged in the warrant is true but was not actually criminal. Hmm.

[–] spider@lemmy.nz 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] spider@lemmy.nz 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Now whose putting up a straw man?

[–] QHC@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Honest question, what structures or authorities exist outside of the city level to investigate something like this? Is it all down to what the mayor decides, or can the Kansas governor or state patrol launch an investigation? What about federal agencies like the FBI?

I could be misremembering, but from the original story it sounded like the mayor was likely tied up in the motivation for the original raid. Not surprising for a small town, really. Once you get down to a few hundred people, there's only so many businesses and families to go around.

[–] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 21 points 2 years ago

The US Dept of Justice Civil Rights Division, since violations of the First Amendment are alleged

https://www.justice.gov/crt/law-enforcement-misconduct#:~:text=The%20Department%20of%20Justice%20(%22The,violations%20by%20law%20enforcement%20officers.

[–] athos77@kbin.social 9 points 2 years ago

The Kansas Bureau of Investigation is supposedly investigating the situation, but there have been conflicting reports of what they consider to be within the scope of their investigation.

[–] Maeve@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago

Eh, small town, metro, I’m more likely to be surprised at little to no corruption, well heeled.

[–] Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago

Kinda feels like supension in schools. Suspended for a few days until they bring you back

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 18 points 2 years ago

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.

I'm not aware of any "debate". Everyone seems to be on the same page that this was an egregious abuse of power and a clear violation of Constitutional rights.

[–] YeetPics@mander.xyz 9 points 2 years ago

"Suspended" on a short rope from a long distance above?

[–] FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago

lmao, good for him