298
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2024
298 points (99.7% liked)
News
23265 readers
3556 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 right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
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.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
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 or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. 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.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Is that the newspaper that got their papers stolen or were raided or something the day they were going to run a story on the local sheriff, or is this a whole other bizarre confrontation between cops and print media?
[edit: repeated mentions of sheriff should read police chief]
The editor of the paper is an old-school journalist (and actually taught journalism). He took over the paper when his mom wanted to retire. Because he had integrity, he was sitting on two stories. The first was that the recently-hired sheriff had left his old job moments before getting fired for sexual harassment; he'd been pursuing the story since before the sheriff was chosen but felt he didn't have enough corroboration to print. He did, however, repeatedly try to warn the commissioners they should do some more research on the sheriff before hiring him. (Spoilerr: they didn't.)
The second story was that a local restaurant owner, who was applying for a lucrative liquor license, had been convicted of DUI in ?2008, had never reapplied for her driver's license after, and had been illegally driving without a license for the last ?15 years. Oh, and if you have a DUI in Kansas, you're not supposed to be able to get a liquor license. He was holding off on that story because he thought he was likely provided the information out of spite (likely the soon-to-be ex-husband). He did report it to the local police for a reason I can't recall and am not going to bother looking up. Also, the ex-husband had also supplied the same information to the deputy mayor.
Note that the restaurant owner and the sheriff were aware of the stories, and that they were on hold.
There's bad relations between the restaurant owner and the newspaper guy: the restaurant owner keeps trying to ... ?undermine ?provoke him? Something like that: a local politician holds a meet and greet at her restaurant and she refuses to let the reporters in, then gets pissy when they interview the guy on the sidewalk, etc. She accuses them of leaking the DUI story to sabotage her chances with the liquor license, except it later turns out it was the deputy mayor, and all she was doing was asking if it was legal for them to give a liquor license to someone with a DUI.
This is where it gets a little cloudy, with both the sheriff and the restaurant owner trying to blame each other: sheriff says she came to him and wanted to lodge a complaint; restaurant owner says he heard it through the grapevine and came to her and asked her to file a complaint. Anyway. A complaint was filed. The sheriff then ignored federal law which says if you want access to newspaper records, in pretty much every case you do it through a subpoena. He fills out an application for a search warrant.
Having filled out the application (which is supposed to have all the supporting evidence attached), the sheriff was supposed to take it to the County Attorney for review, and then to the county judge for further review and a signature. In a sweeping case of the good ol' boys network, it seems like the sheriff just skipped the County Attorney entirely, though that may have been with the County Attorney's approval - the County Attorney was the restaurant owner's brother in law. More good ol' boys networking also meant that the county judge didn't bother reviewing the non-existent "evidence" attached to the search warrant application and just signed off on it.
So the sheriff got an illegal search warrant and conducted an illegal raid on the newspaper. But they targeted the entire paper, not just the reporter who was working on the restaurant story. They specifically took the personal phone from the reporter working on the sheriff's story (injuring her hand in the process), as well as searching her desk and going through the notes and files on the sheriff's story. They then seized all the computers, network storage, and electronic devices they could get their hands on. At the same time, they were also raiding the house of the deputy mayor and the newspaper owner (who had moved in to help take care of his mom).
The story blew up, the mom died, etc. Here's the aftermath, as far as I'm aware: the county board let the sheriff stay in office another two months before they were finally pressured into ~~bribing him~~ buying out his contract. The sheriff has taken his big buyout and disappeared. The restaurant owner, despite it not being legal, got her liquor license and is annoyed that traffic to her restaurant declined after the story broke. The judge who signed the warrant got a slap on the wrist. As far as I can tell, the County Attorney has not gotten any kind of rebuke.
The deputy mayor was ousted from office in the election a few months after the raid. The reporter working on the sheriff's story, who was injured when her phone was taken, has PTSD and has retired from journalism. The reporter working on the restaurant owner's story is still there but somewhat demoralized. The newspaper owner got a circulation boost and lost his mom, neither of which he wanted. And his mom is still dead.
[Cont in next comment, almost done!]
[ cont from previous comment]
The Kansas Bureau of Intelligence, which was supposed to be investigating the incident, had repeatedly said they're not investigating as much as it was originally said they were; I haven't been able to find out if the initial reports of a robust investigation were exaggerated, or if they're actually scaling back the investigation. It's probably some combination of both. They supposedly handed off some part of it to the ?Colorado Bureau of Investigation, but that's been pretty much radio silence since day one.
The county has been resisting efforts to get evidence and is very likely destroying it. It's questionable if the county's insurance will pay out, given that procedures weren't followed to get the warrant, and that the county currently appear to be obstructing justice and likely destroying evidence. Which means that the local taxpayers may be on the hook for the bill - and they're certainly on the hook for paying all the lawyers to defend the lawsuit. Giveb that there are less than 12,000 people living in Marion County, it's likely to be a financially difficult time there. The newspaper owner doesn't want to bankrupt or damage the city or county, but too many people involved are getting off easy (some have apparently been eased out by being promoted, I don't have details on that); and he's afraid of the precedent it'll set it he just lets it go, especially with the combined rise in both authoritarianism and hostility toward the press.
[edit: repeated mentions of sheriff should read police chief. I noticed after I posted, and when I tried to search and replace, I went over the character limit. I can't be arsed to move the text around, so everywhere it says sheriff, please know that I'm talking about the police chief.]
deleted by creator
You're more than welcome!
Humorously enough, they weren't going to run the story on the sheriff. He was hired as sheriff after getting enough complaints to get him fired in the big city. There sheriff knew they had investigated it though and was sure to dig up their sources on it during the raid.
Story sure got ran after the raid though.
What I find interesting is that this is a federal filing, I'm going to see if I can find the filing to b figure out why.
There's some rule or something that says you generally can't raid a newspaper; if the government wants information from a paper, it needs to get a subpoena and go through the courts. I believe there's a very limited exception if there's reason to believe the paper is destroying evidence, but that's unlikely to hold up here given that the newspaper itself has previously informed the police chief about the information being passed to them.
I'm not sure if that's what they're going with here, but that's where I'd start.
Let me know what you find, but I'm guessing it will be necessary in order to sidestep sovereign immunity.
Mostly it seems to be because they're making a federal civil rights complaint. Gross negligence and civil rights complaints tend to defeat immunity, though I don't know if that'll be successful against the city itself.
If they can prove malice on the city's part, immunity goes out the window. And they may be able to do that.
Gotcha. Looked through some of the complaint. It's a doozy.
That's the one!