4 ms·

Linked in the original the article: > The search warrant, signed by Marion County District Court Magistrate Judge Laura Viar, appears to violate federal law* t

Linked in the original the article: > The search warrant, signed by Marion County District Court Magistrate Judge Laura Viar, appears to violate federal law* that provides protections against searching and seizing materials from journalists. The law requires law enforcement to subpoena materials instead. Viar didn’t respond to a request to comment for this story or explain why she would authorize a potentially illegal raid. * https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000aa https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000aa

tedunangst 3y ago
Does that law apply to non-federal employees?
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  How else would you read "a government officer or employee"?
  - Zandikar 3y ago
    Well, there's federal, state/territory, county/parish, city/district/municipal ... Not all government is federal government.
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      Federal law binds all of these, unless either stated otherwise or as forbidden by the Constitution.
      - Zandikar 3y ago
        In theory, yes. In practice, no. Just look at marijuana and abortion laws for two different prime examples of how supposed federal law superseding "lower" law can play out in ways that circumvent the nature of that power structure. The reality is law is reactionary. Just because a law exists doesn't mean there is actually anything tangible preventing you from performing an action, and if the courts are acting in ways counter to federal law AND/OR federal law isn't asserting/executing authority that it has to supercede local law, then it's implicitly allowing it to continue and perhaps even setting precedent or groundwork to dismantle that particular paradigm. Remember, this is America. States Rights advocates aren't just numerous, but hold significant power in state and federal legislature and courts. While the Federal law should reign supreme, the reality on the ground is that even when it does, it's often playing catch up, so there's still a gulf between how things work in theory, and in reality, if for nothing else just due to the slow operation of federal government and law.
        ceejayoz 3y ago
        > Just look at marijuana and abortion laws for two different prime examples of how supposed federal law superseding "lower" law can play out in ways that circumvent the nature of that power structure. Neither of these are good examples. Marijuana is because the Feds choose not to act; the DEA could raid every dispensary tomorrow if they wanted. Abortion never got meaningfully protected at the Federal level. The Dems had sort of a chance at it, but chose the ACA to spend that political capital on instead.
- wtallis 3y ago
  Yes. See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000aa-6 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000aa-6 > (a) Right of action > A person aggrieved by a search for or seizure of materials in violation of this chapter shall have a civil cause of action for damages for such search or seizure— > (1) against the United States, against a State which has waived its sovereign immunity under the Constitution to a claim for damages resulting from a violation of this chapter, or against any other governmental unit, all of which shall be liable for violations of this chapter by their officers or employees while acting within the scope or under color of their office or employment; and [...] And https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000aa-7 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000aa-7 > (c) “Any other governmental unit”, as used in this chapter, includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any territory or possession of the United States, and any local government, unit of local government, or any unit of State government.
backendanon 3y ago
> appears to violate federal law It can appear as a can of tomatoes being consumed by Andy Warhol himself. It doesn't change the fact there are no shield laws in Kansas or the US for journalists.
- fasterik 3y ago
  From the linked Cornell article: >...it shall be unlawful for a government officer or employee, in connection with the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense, to search for or seize any work product materials possessed by a person reasonably believed to have a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, broadcast, or other similar form of public communication ... followed by a bunch of caveats about cases in which it is acceptable to seize documents. I'm not a lawyer, but that sounds to me like a federal law protecting journalists. Whether or not it was violated in this case remains to be seen.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    You cut off the first and most important caveat. Police can search and size if they think the journalist committed a crime, just not for 3rd party investigations. >this provision shall not impair or affect the ability of any government officer or employee, pursuant to otherwise applicable law, to search for or seize such materials, if— (1)there is probable cause to believe that the person possessing such materials has committed or is committing the criminal offense to which the materials relate This is obviously relevant as the police allege the journalist committed a crime, specifically identify theft.
    - fnordpiglet 3y ago
      Yea I believe that’s the case here upon reading the statute closer. However given the newspaper had publicly said the documents were received from a source I am surprised a judge allowed a warrant. I am curious what evidence was presented and how it could have been more compelling than the public disclosure of a source.
s1artibartfast 3y ago
So journalists can't be searched with a warrant for murder or rape? This is an incomplete summary of the laws
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

tedunangst 3y ago

Does that law apply to non-federal employees?

ceejayoz 3y ago
How else would you read "a government officer or employee"?
- Zandikar 3y ago
  Well, there's federal, state/territory, county/parish, city/district/municipal ... Not all government is federal government.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    Federal law binds all of these, unless either stated otherwise or as forbidden by the Constitution.
    - Zandikar 3y ago
      In theory, yes. In practice, no. Just look at marijuana and abortion laws for two different prime examples of how supposed federal law superseding "lower" law can play out in ways that circumvent the nature of that power structure. The reality is law is reactionary. Just because a law exists doesn't mean there is actually anything tangible preventing you from performing an action, and if the courts are acting in ways counter to federal law AND/OR federal law isn't asserting/executing authority that it has to supercede local law, then it's implicitly allowing it to continue and perhaps even setting precedent or groundwork to dismantle that particular paradigm. Remember, this is America. States Rights advocates aren't just numerous, but hold significant power in state and federal legislature and courts. While the Federal law should reign supreme, the reality on the ground is that even when it does, it's often playing catch up, so there's still a gulf between how things work in theory, and in reality, if for nothing else just due to the slow operation of federal government and law.
      - ceejayoz 3y ago
        > Just look at marijuana and abortion laws for two different prime examples of how supposed federal law superseding "lower" law can play out in ways that circumvent the nature of that power structure. Neither of these are good examples. Marijuana is because the Feds choose not to act; the DEA could raid every dispensary tomorrow if they wanted. Abortion never got meaningfully protected at the Federal level. The Dems had sort of a chance at it, but chose the ACA to spend that political capital on instead.
wtallis 3y ago
Yes. See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000aa-6 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000aa-6 > (a) Right of action > A person aggrieved by a search for or seizure of materials in violation of this chapter shall have a civil cause of action for damages for such search or seizure— > (1) against the United States, against a State which has waived its sovereign immunity under the Constitution to a claim for damages resulting from a violation of this chapter, or against any other governmental unit, all of which shall be liable for violations of this chapter by their officers or employees while acting within the scope or under color of their office or employment; and [...] And https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000aa-7 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000aa-7 > (c) “Any other governmental unit”, as used in this chapter, includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any territory or possession of the United States, and any local government, unit of local government, or any unit of State government.

backendanon 3y ago

> appears to violate federal law It can appear as a can of tomatoes being consumed by Andy Warhol himself. It doesn't change the fact there are no shield laws in Kansas or the US for journalists.

fasterik 3y ago
From the linked Cornell article: >...it shall be unlawful for a government officer or employee, in connection with the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense, to search for or seize any work product materials possessed by a person reasonably believed to have a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, broadcast, or other similar form of public communication ... followed by a bunch of caveats about cases in which it is acceptable to seize documents. I'm not a lawyer, but that sounds to me like a federal law protecting journalists. Whether or not it was violated in this case remains to be seen.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  You cut off the first and most important caveat. Police can search and size if they think the journalist committed a crime, just not for 3rd party investigations. >this provision shall not impair or affect the ability of any government officer or employee, pursuant to otherwise applicable law, to search for or seize such materials, if— (1)there is probable cause to believe that the person possessing such materials has committed or is committing the criminal offense to which the materials relate This is obviously relevant as the police allege the journalist committed a crime, specifically identify theft.
  - fnordpiglet 3y ago
    Yea I believe that’s the case here upon reading the statute closer. However given the newspaper had publicly said the documents were received from a source I am surprised a judge allowed a warrant. I am curious what evidence was presented and how it could have been more compelling than the public disclosure of a source.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

So journalists can't be searched with a warrant for murder or rape? This is an incomplete summary of the laws

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]