3 ms·

The complaint seems to be: > On Friday August 4, 2023 at or around 1851 hours I received an email from Eric Meyer. In. the email he states that he received a c

The complaint seems to be: > On Friday August 4, 2023 at or around 1851 hours I received an email from Eric Meyer. In. the email he states that he received a copy of someone's private Department of Revenue Records... I then contacted Marion City Administrator, Brogan Jones, and told him that an internal investigation should be conducted. Brogan stated he was aware of the Department of Revenue Record (DOR record) because City Council member~ Ruth Herbel, sent him a screenshot via email of the DOR record belonging to Kari Newell. > My investigation revealed the letter was not stolen from her mailbox, rather it was downloaded directly from the Department of Revenue. The Department of Revenue advised the individuals who downloaded the information were Phyllis Zorn and "Kari Newell"... Downloading the document involved either impersonating the victim or lying about the reasons why the record was being sought. (p5 of the affidavit). This seems to clearly contradict your claim that the newspaper was using public records. I have no idea if a search and seizure warrant is a proportionate response to a private record being accessed like this, but whoever downloaded the document pretty clearly breached the law. Around here its common to think "if it's available by clicking through pages on the internet it's public" but that's not how the legal system tends to see things. In this case breaking a "pinkie promise that I have a legal reason to request this record" might be enough to give air cover for the search. To be clear I'm not supporting this raid, it's a bad look and it's not obvious that it's reasonable to assume there would be evidence of a crime on those computers, but it does seem there is another side to the story here, and it's not as simple as the narrative that's been spun by the defendants. Checkpointing the rest of my investigation; IANAL, here's what I found on the specific violation that someone committed: The penalties for violating the DPPA are outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 2724. They include: > Criminal Penalties: A person who knowingly violates the DPPA can be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. > Civil Penalties: The Attorney General may bring a civil action in a U.S. district court against any person or entity that violates the DPPA. The court may award: > Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages in the amount of $2,500; Punitive damages upon proof of willful or reckless disregard of the law; Reasonable attorneys' fees and other litigation costs; and Such other preliminary and equitable relief as the court determines to be appropriate. Private Right of Action: An individual driver may bring a civil action in a U.S. district court against a person or entity that violates the DPPA with respect to that driver's information. The court may award the same types of damages as in a civil action brought by the Attorney General. Now again, you could argue that the Kansas DMV was negligent here, and the ToS that was clicked through was invalid? I'm not sure what precedent would say on that one. Interested in others' thoughts, if anyone has more experience here.

jmyeet 3y ago
> This seems to clearly contradict your claim that the newspaper was using public records. The affidavit specifically alleged "identity theft". That is, at best, a stretch. Under Kansas law it seems "obtaining personal information" might qualify but if they already had the record and were verifying it, what have they obtained? What's done with it matters too. It's one story if someone gets your PII for material gain (eg taking out a loan in your name) vs publishing that vs passing the information on to the police. Also remember that the license record may not have been obtained illegally either. We don't know the true source. You go on to mention DPPA. I'm not sure a County Sheriff is in any kind of position to investigate a Federal crime.
- theptip 3y ago
  Sure, as I said in my post I agree the rest is up for debate, and again I'm not supporting the raid. But the specific claim about the document being a public record seems prima facie false, and nothing you mentioning here is supporting that claim. I do appreciate the deeper analysis on why the warrant doesn't hold up. It doesn't seem to me that you need to make any claim about the document being public in order to make it clear that the warrant was dubious; I think you could just retract that specific claim and then your argument would be on very strong ground.

jmyeet 3y ago

> This seems to clearly contradict your claim that the newspaper was using public records. The affidavit specifically alleged "identity theft". That is, at best, a stretch. Under Kansas law it seems "obtaining personal information" might qualify but if they already had the record and were verifying it, what have they obtained? What's done with it matters too. It's one story if someone gets your PII for material gain (eg taking out a loan in your name) vs publishing that vs passing the information on to the police. Also remember that the license record may not have been obtained illegally either. We don't know the true source. You go on to mention DPPA. I'm not sure a County Sheriff is in any kind of position to investigate a Federal crime.

theptip 3y ago
Sure, as I said in my post I agree the rest is up for debate, and again I'm not supporting the raid. But the specific claim about the document being a public record seems prima facie false, and nothing you mentioning here is supporting that claim. I do appreciate the deeper analysis on why the warrant doesn't hold up. It doesn't seem to me that you need to make any claim about the document being public in order to make it clear that the warrant was dubious; I think you could just retract that specific claim and then your argument would be on very strong ground.