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.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by physicsmajor on Sunday August 28 2016, @02:12PM
The linked article says the people unjustly attacked in this case are just going to get their electronic devices back.
That's not enough. That's not even close to enough. There is a reason for punitive damages/action, namely to ensure the bad actor thinks at least twice next time. This case needs it. If all the sheriff has to do is return what he and his goons STOLE and then held unconstitutionally, they have absolutely no reason not to play this game again and again.
The sheriff / taxpayers should be on the hook for 1) attorney's fees, 2) damages to restore lost work, mental anguish as the courts finally reached the right decision, 3) punitive damages, and 4) both the judge who signed the warrant in the first place as well as the sheriff should be immediately removed without pensions and barred from ever holding public office.
That is the kind of precedent we need. That would be actual justice.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Hawkwind on Sunday August 28 2016, @03:22PM
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 28 2016, @03:30PM
The sheriff / taxpayers should be on the hook
Taxpayers? Why should the taxpayers be on hook. Is it part of the normal duties of a Sheriff to do what he did? Why should the taxpayers pay and protect him for doing such stuff?
A clear message should be sent that if you do shit that you're not supposed to do, YOU are the one that pays for it, not the taxpayers.
Now if he was going after a robber, made a mistake, raided the wrong place and got sued, then sure the taxpayers should pay for it. It's part of his duties and people make mistakes (well if he blew up the whole house, like what many US cops seem prone to do, then that's a level of mistake that's not acceptable).
But his actions were clearly to defend himself not the law nor the public.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 28 2016, @06:57PM
Taxpayers? Why should the taxpayers be on hook. Is it part of the normal duties of a Sheriff to do what he did? Why should the taxpayers pay and protect him for doing such stuff?
Because the taxpayers tolerate this sort of behavior, even if it's just through apathy. Most people make no attempt to advocate for or at least support real reforms for police, and copsuckers are numerous. I would like to see both taxpayers and the sheriff pay up, though I bet it will only be the former.
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Monday August 29 2016, @02:36PM
Looks like just the type of case that Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law [justice.gov] was meant for. Really put the screws to them.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 28 2016, @02:20PM
The sheriff isn't out of a job. He's not going to jail. He doesn't have to pay anything out of pocket. The department is punished financially, but the sheriff is free to violate people's rights in other ways.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Sunday August 28 2016, @02:34PM
as is common these days, I fear more from our 'authority figures' than I do from ANY criminal, armed or otherwise.
we have no balls in this country. we let our authority figures rule over us and keep us prisoners (in fear). we don't hold them accountable, there is no teeth to their 'punishments' and they laugh at us when they realize that they are, for the most part, untouchable.
bootlickers are to blame. they always take the side of the cops, judges, etc. this reinforced their god-mentality (thinking they are in a class by themselves; the 'few' and not the 'many' as its often called).
and the fact that cops can do what they want and are shielded from personal punishment and actual financial ruin just emboldens them even more.
look, if you commit a crime under color of law, it should be punished 10x as a normal citizen. if we ever grew balls enough to take back control of our country (and world, this is not just a US problem) then we'd have the government fearing us instead of the other way around.
we let authority figures keep their shields. that was a bad idea from the start. no balance of power, there, sok it HAS to be abused. given how humans act, it will have to be abused, and they didn't disappoint, either ;(
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 3, Interesting) by tathra on Sunday August 28 2016, @03:01PM
i agree. all public employees should be held to a higher standard than regular civilians. being a public employee means you're intentionally choosing a job which requires selflessness by design, to serve the constitution (remember that oath of office? violating it is a federal crime [cornell.edu]) and the public good. we are their bosses, not the other way around, why aren't we holding our employees (literally our employees, paid from our taxes) to a higher standard?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by TheGratefulNet on Sunday August 28 2016, @03:27PM
the system has gotton so big and the citizens SO POWERLESS that we have LOST CONTROL OF OUR GOVERNMENT.
now, if you read our history and our laws, we knew this would happen and we created laws so that citizens can keep the government in fear, in check, as it is said. we let that go, little by little, and now its impossible (100% impossible) to reel it back in with anything short of a full out war and revolution. not kidding - wish I was. but the power base is so strong and their addiction to their own power is so strong, it will NEVER be given up without a major fight. and since the polite man's way of doing things (courts, laws) are all in the favor of the elite, we can't expect remedy that way. at some point, things will boil and all hell will break loose. it has to happen. it will. the only question is: when.
we used to have the right to bear arms, mostly so that the government would think twice about trying to bully its citizens. I guess that ship has sailed and our 2nd ammendment is now a joke. we can't own anything we want and our firepower is basically pee shooters compared to organized governments. even the police force has planned for this and has been bulking up in order to defend the elites (oh, if those ignorant cops only knew that they were fools and being taken as fools by the elites that they really serve; I wonder how many of them really know what their role in society is? its not to stop bad guys; its to protect the ruling class PERIOD. full stop.)
read the lyrics to this old song. you'll see what I'm talking about:
http://www.metrolyrics.com/banks-of-marble-lyrics-iris-dement.html [metrolyrics.com]
[quote]
I've traveled 'round this country
from shore to shining shore
It really made me wonder
the things I heard and saw
I saw the weary farmer
plowing sod and loam
l heard the auction hammer
just a-knocking down his home
But the banks are made of marble
with a guard at every door
and the vaults are stuffed with silver
that the farmer sweated for.
[/quote]
hint: the guards (cops) exist to protect the weath and 'safety' of the ruling elite. PERIOD. cut thru the fake bs and you'll see this. and you should feel betrayed by this knowledge if its new to you. 'protect and serve' is a tv show tagline from the 60's, but it never was real. it was always a lie when it referred to regular people.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday August 28 2016, @07:12PM
It's been in process since before the civil war. This strongly indicates that it is a systematic problem. The system was designed to work with strong state governments and a weak federal government, but rapid transportation and communication made that unworkable.
The proper action would have been to repeatedly amend the constitution, but the amendments that were able to get approved didn't address the underlying problems, and so we have troops on foreign soil in undeclared wars, a ridiculous interpretation of the interstate commerce clause, and man other farcical legal presumptions. Often this is because there *is* no national consensus. Consider the 2nd amendment. There is absolutely NO justification there for the government to decide what constitutes a "well regulated militia". Clearly most of the founders would consider that most people would own firearms and be organized to use them, but nowhere does it imply a role for the government in that. One could argue that it should be the job of the state government, but not the federal. However with a dense rapidly moving, and mostly urban, population is seems probable that regulation is, indeed, needed. This implies not that the current amendment should be new-speaked into meaning something that it doesn't say, but rather that there should be an amendment dealing with it. However there is no national consensus, so no such amendment would have a chance of passage. This is clearly something that should be left to the state governments, or if there is no state consensus, then to the county and city governments. Once a larger consensus can be attained, THEN is the time for laws with wider coverage, and only when there is a national consensus should there be even an attempt at a federal amendment.
Perhaps is should be easier to make amendment, but the laws need to be intelligible, so there should be a requirement that most high school graduates should agree on what any law means in order for it to be valid. (Sampling is valid, but be sure to use large enough random samples and to cover the entire demographic.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Monday August 29 2016, @12:27AM
In the case of police in the US, it's because for decades the majority of white people were more afraid of black people than they were of police, and willing to tolerate and even support police abuse of black people if it meant they could feel safer from black people, and the legislators wrote the laws accordingly. That's less true than it was even 20 years ago, but it's still true enough that there isn't the political will to change the laws that were written to favor police over citizens (with the unwritten understanding that the police are supposed to only take advantage of that when dealing with racial minorities).
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Funny) by FatPhil on Monday August 29 2016, @08:52AM
Not quite true, you just have tiny balls. Shall we call them "ball-ettes"? You alas don't know how to use them correctly.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday August 28 2016, @04:45PM
And the judge, who signed the warrant? Who knew that the search was unconstitutional? There should be an investigation into possible corruption.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 28 2016, @05:48PM
Good point. I'd have to see the paper work on the warrant to decide on that, but you raise a very good point.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 28 2016, @09:36PM
A sheriff is usually an elected position. If the electorate is convinced he/she sucks, they will be voted out. But one stupid mistake may not enough to persuade.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by requerdanos on Sunday August 28 2016, @02:36PM
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.
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Monday August 29 2016, @02:46PM
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
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 28 2016, @02:53PM
In the land of the free, and home of the brave :)
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 28 2016, @05:50PM
We ain't free and we ain't brave...
We ain't free because corporations and the USG tell us what to think, what to buy, how much to buy and when to do all of this. Anything outside of the norm is flagged by automated systems and passed on to Uncle Sam because 'this one may be a terrorist'. We are all treated not-yet-convicted terrorists.
We are also not brave. Bravery means doing something despite the prospect of serious harm. I don't call flying drones over Pakistan from a container somewhere in VA very brave. Similarly, launching an ICBM from a sub is not brave.
Invading countries where the locals can only defend themselves with knock-off AK-47s (and still we lose), is not brave.
We keep lying to ourselves about both of these but we are too dumb to realize that we haven't displayed either of these in a long time.
We're a country of delusional idiots who are dumb enough to be rallied behind a flag or a simple a battle-cry with the attention-span of a canary.
And to top it all off, none of us would see anything wrong with flogging off our own mothers for a bag of sleazy porn (French or otherwise) because when there's money to be made, well... morality takes a back-seat.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 28 2016, @07:23PM
I think officers need to serve jail time when they knowingly violate the rights of a citizen:
§ ?: Aggravated Deprivation of Rights
An individual commits the crime of aggravated deprivation of rights when he or she, under color of law, rule, ordinance, regulation, executive order, warrant application, etc. acts to illegally deprive an individual of his or her civil rights, when he or she knew or should have known that such actions would illegally deprive such individual of his or her civil rights. The defenses of qualified immunity, respondent superiour immunity, and sovereign immunity shall not be available in a prosecution under this section.
This crime is punjshable as a felony, and on conviction thereof, an individual shall be subject to immediate disqualification of eligibility to hold any office in law enforcement for 10 years, if applicable immediate removal from such office, and shall be impirsoned for not less than 6 months, nor more than 5 years.
§ ?: Simple Deprivation of Rights
An individual commits the crime of simple deprivation of rights when he or she, under color of law, rule, ordinance, regulation, executive order, warrant application, etc. acts to illegally deprive an individual of his or her civil rights. The defenses of qualified immunity, respondent superiour immunity, and sovereign immunity shall not be available in a prosecution under this section.
This crime is punishable as a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof, an individual shall be fined not less than $500 nor more than $5,000, and shall be ordered to complete additional training on civil rights.
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Sunday August 28 2016, @10:36PM
one of the accused exposed themselves as being a corrupt sheriff (via unconstitutional raid), so it seems like it may be worth investigating the other people listed.