Kansas authorities must destroy all electronic copies they made of a small newspaper’s files when police raided its office this month, a judge ordered Tuesday, nearly two weeks after computers and cellphones seized in the search were returned.
The Aug. 11 searches of the Marion County Record’s office and the homes of its publisher and a City Council member have been sharply criticized, putting Marion, a central Kansas town of about 1,900 people, at the center of a debate over the press protections offered by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Attorney Bernie Rhodes, who represents the newspaper, said a judge ordered authorities to hand over those electronic records and destroy any copies they have of them along with all photographs that officers took during the raids.
The local prosecutor and sheriff agreed investigators shouldn’t keep that evidence, but Rhodes insisted on a court order to document it. It won’t be clear what files were on the drive until Rhodes gets a copy.
I read your comment and thought, “Oh wow, I didn’t know they illegally acquired information.” So I decided to check out the article and the closest thing I found was, they didn’t…
From the article, “The raids came after a local restaurant owner accused the newspaper of illegally accessing information about her. A spokesman for the agency that maintains those records has said the newspaper’s online search that a reporter did was likely legal even though the reporter needed personal information about the restaurant owner that a tipster provided to look up her driving record.”
Can you please elaborate on what you are talking about. The accusation of illegality came from the person who the information is about, and I must emphasize, with no evidence. Where is the evidence of illegality?
A spokesperson for the agency said it was likely legal. I don’t see how.
The section at issue as cited in the warrant is 18 USC 2721. See sections (b)(1)-(14).
I frequently have to certify to that list of uses for certain research associated with law practice. I know the two options I’ve ever used. Looking through the list, I don’t see one that applies to journalist.
Also, the newspaper admitted to police it accessed the records improperly, and implied ones of its employees impersonated the subject of the records.
It wasn’t about a driving record. It was tax documents if memory serves, from the Department of Treasury.