A small newspaper and a police department in Kansas are at the center of a dispute over freedom of speech after police raided the office of the local newspaper and the home of its owner and publisher.
honestly, looking at the list of things that were taken- including personal devices and an amazon device used to stay in contact with aging parents- it’s amazing the judge didn’t send the warrant back for being overbroad.
I find it inconceivable that the journalists didn’t know to keep their devices segregated between personal contacts and work contacts- precisely to shield your personal device from these kinds of raids.
it’s also dubious as to what they expect to find on the amazon device… even if it was recording them… that data’s generally not stored on the device itself.
To be fair to the journalist(s), it could be a budgetary issue. It’s a small town, and their 98-year-old mother was living with them.
Was.
The stress of the search killed her.
Meyer also blames the home raid for stressing his 98-year-old mother enough to cause her death on Saturday. Joan Meyer was the newspaper’s co-owner.
Oh… Fun Fact. I’m from KCMO where the Chief served for 24 years. Look up our gun violence rate (maybe you can’t, I tried, and it looks like news agencies just stopped counting due to the frequency - the last one was just on Saturday) and our homicide rate.
To be fair to the journalist(s), it could be a budgetary issue. It’s a small town, and their 98-year-old mother was living with them.
Sure, I suppose I could see that. But… it is difficult to imagine the cops would know they use personal devices for work like that. They almost literally took everything that could hold data, receive communications and maybe nark. if those devices were covered under the warrant (which must specifically state what’s to be seized- new things they want to seize requires a new warrant) then the warrant was probably over-broad and itself subject to scrutiny.
Keep in mind, that they need to enumerate specific items- and specifically where they are to be found. “Any devices found at xyz premises” is much too broad. And they have to show a reason why they believe that it contains evidence of wrong doing.
side note… it’s difficult to imagine that the story on the restaurant owner couldn’t have been obtained without using confidential data. Arrest records and convictions are public. and all it would take is camping out on a public street to prove she was still driving.
it’s amazing the judge didn’t send the warrant back for being overbroad.
When you apply for a search warrant, you’re supposed to swear out a probable cause affidavit first, laying out the evidence you have that you need you search this place. The probable cause affidavit goes to the judge, who either approves, denies, or requests more information for the search warrant. Interesting thing is that no one seems to be able to find a copy of affidavit for this search warrant.
Honestly, the whole thing comes off as incredibly punitive: the restaurant owner is pissed because the DUI might sink her chances of getting a very lucrative liquor license. The guy who owns the hotel the restaurant is in, and who can raise the rent once the liquor license goes through, just happens to be the DA’s brother. And the paper was investigating the police chief due to several allegations of alleged sexual assault at his old job - and the contact information for the people who made those allegations just happens to be on one of the computers the police chief confiscated in his raid. But I’m sure there’s nothing to see here. Kermit sips tea
honestly, looking at the list of things that were taken- including personal devices and an amazon device used to stay in contact with aging parents- it’s amazing the judge didn’t send the warrant back for being overbroad.
I find it inconceivable that the journalists didn’t know to keep their devices segregated between personal contacts and work contacts- precisely to shield your personal device from these kinds of raids.
it’s also dubious as to what they expect to find on the amazon device… even if it was recording them… that data’s generally not stored on the device itself.
To be fair to the journalist(s), it could be a budgetary issue. It’s a small town, and their 98-year-old mother was living with them.
Was.
The stress of the search killed her.
Oh… Fun Fact. I’m from KCMO where the Chief served for 24 years. Look up our gun violence rate (maybe you can’t, I tried, and it looks like news agencies just stopped counting due to the frequency - the last one was just on Saturday) and our homicide rate.
And Missouri just voted to mandate that KCMO gives KCPD 25% of our municipal budget… While not even having full control of the force. Nothing like Civil War relics fucking us over in the 21st century.
KCPD has only solved 32 murders this year (as of June 28). As we’re on pace for to make a new record for annual homicides
And, of course, Missouri has some of the loosest gun laws in the nation. And the State bans the city from passing firearm regulation.
So… yeah, 24 years of service to a PD that is known to be corrupt. And misogynistic. And Racist. Very Racist.
Sure, I suppose I could see that. But… it is difficult to imagine the cops would know they use personal devices for work like that. They almost literally took everything that could hold data, receive communications and maybe nark. if those devices were covered under the warrant (which must specifically state what’s to be seized- new things they want to seize requires a new warrant) then the warrant was probably over-broad and itself subject to scrutiny.
Keep in mind, that they need to enumerate specific items- and specifically where they are to be found. “Any devices found at xyz premises” is much too broad. And they have to show a reason why they believe that it contains evidence of wrong doing.
side note… it’s difficult to imagine that the story on the restaurant owner couldn’t have been obtained without using confidential data. Arrest records and convictions are public. and all it would take is camping out on a public street to prove she was still driving.
When you apply for a search warrant, you’re supposed to swear out a probable cause affidavit first, laying out the evidence you have that you need you search this place. The probable cause affidavit goes to the judge, who either approves, denies, or requests more information for the search warrant. Interesting thing is that no one seems to be able to find a copy of affidavit for this search warrant.
Honestly, the whole thing comes off as incredibly punitive: the restaurant owner is pissed because the DUI might sink her chances of getting a very lucrative liquor license. The guy who owns the hotel the restaurant is in, and who can raise the rent once the liquor license goes through, just happens to be the DA’s brother. And the paper was investigating the police chief due to several allegations of alleged sexual assault at his old job - and the contact information for the people who made those allegations just happens to be on one of the computers the police chief confiscated in his raid. But I’m sure there’s nothing to see here. Kermit sips tea
yup. and the more that comes out about all this…
… the more it looks like straight up corruption. Waiting to find out the judge is in on it somewhere.