Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday August 28 2016, @01:45PM   Printer-friendly
from the wheels-of-justice dept.

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/26/sheriffs-raid-to-find-blogger-who-criticized-him-was-unconstitutional-court-rules/

An appellate court in Baton Rouge ruled Thursday that a raid on a police officer's house in search of the blogger who had accused the sheriff of corruption was unconstitutional. The Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeals argued that Sheriff Jerry Larpenter's investigation into the blog ExposeDAT had flawed rationale: the alleged defamation was not actually a crime as applied to a public official.

The unanimous ruling from the three-judge panel comes after police officer Wayne Anderson and his wife Jennifer Anderson were denied assistance in local and federal court. "I love it when justice is tangible," Jerri Smitko, one of the Andersons' laywers, told The Intercept. "With that piece of paper it says that what they did was unconstitutional — that's a great feeling because you're holding it in your hand and it's vindication for people that they intended to oppress," she added.

The raid was sparked by the sheriff's investigation into who was behind the anonymous blog that accused local officials, including him, of corruption and fraud. Through a blog and a Facebook page called "John Turner," ExposeDAT used public records to show conflicts of interest. The sheriff sought warrants when Tony Alford, a local business owner, filed a criminal complaint about the blog. On August 2, Larpenter and his deputies raided the Andersons' house after they traced the IP address of the John Turner Facebook page through a warrant to AT&T. The information AT&T provided, according to an affidavit, gave the sheriff an address and a name: Wayne Anderson. The court found that the raid on the Andersons' house was unjustified.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by requerdanos on Sunday August 28 2016, @02:36PM

    by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 28 2016, @02:36PM (#394214) Journal

    Reading one of the TFAs ("unanimous") indicates that the family was knowingly targeted illegally:

    - The sheriff who came after them knew that the law he was twisting to come after them didn't make "blogs criticizing public officials" a crime, and when confronted about it, argued that legal scholars were ignorant and he, the sheriff, was the correct arbiter of the law. (The appeals court unanimously upheld the correct view, which wasn't the one the sheriff was corruptly claiming).

    - The judge who signed the warrant sanctioning the armed invasion of a family's home also knew but blew it off (saying the sheriff should at least be able to "have a look-see" at the family's computers by means of stealing them at gunpoint).

    - Apparently the Judge not only knew it to be an illegal witch hunt, but claimed that even though he knew it, he technically didn't know it because the sheriff's illegal application for a warrant didn't itself say that it was illegal, so he couldn't know it despite knowing it. That's just insulting.

    SO, the family's computer and cell phones were stolen in an illegal raid.

    Man, let that sink in. Not only was their stuff stolen but they can never trust those devices again, even if they got them back, knowing that they were stolen by and in the sole custody of lawless government officials who are overtly going after them illegally to suppress their lawful speech.

    It shouldn't be just one blog--though I'm grateful for it--but rather all of us that "criticize" the jack-booted thug sheriff, judge, insurance agent, and anyone else involved in this conspiracy or any like it.

    If I, personally, decided to go after someone, and illegally put together an armed team to force their way into their house and steal their computers and harass them, just as this sheriff and judge did, then I would probably be facing a long jail sentence. These people, in public office, should be held to a HIGHER standard:

    - They should serve much *longer* jail terms than some random private citizen would.

    - Additionally, there should be substantial compensation, both actual (replace the computers and cell phones because the stolen ones are now compromised) and punitive.

    The jail terms and punitive damage should be huge, in order to discourage other corrupt government officials from going after you or me, and to encourage erring on the side of respecting legally guaranteed freedoms, and not erring on the side of doing whatever criminal attacks any random government official thinks he or she can get away with to protect his or her personal empire of corruption. The sheriff and judge here clearly focused on the latter, which should bother everyone, not just the specific victims.

    I don't think that's what's going to happen; they won't face a day in jail and may or may not even be held liable for damages. But I did want to point out (what should be) the obvious: A reasonable person should be bothered by these abuses and those responsible should be *held* responsible.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=3, Informative=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Monday August 29 2016, @02:46PM

    by Kromagv0 (1825) on Monday August 29 2016, @02:46PM (#394728) Homepage

    You are right they should be but it seems that far too often Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law [justice.gov] cases are not pursued when they should be. Depending on how the raid was carried out the sheriff could be facing some real PMITA prison time which would be a good example for others.

    --
    T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone