3 ms·
> This seems to clearly contradict your claim that the newspaper was using public records. The affidavit specifically alleged "identity theft". That is, at bes
by 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 agoSure, 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.