The judge who signed off on a search warrant authorizing the raid of a newspaper office in Marion, Kansas, is facing a complaint about her decision and has been asked by a judicial body to respond, records shared with CNN by the complainant show.

  • SquishyPandaDev@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    134
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    She should have been removed immediately. Perfect example of everything wrong with the American justice system

    • theodewere@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      in the good ol’ days it would have been by an angry mob with pitchforks and hot tar… for authorizing the murder of an old woman by the cops…

    • FlowVoid@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      The justice system generally allows everyone a chance to defend themselves. People aren’t removed immediately for the same reason they aren’t executed immediately.

      • SquishyPandaDev@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’m talking about firing. Not imprisonment. And yes, if you fuck up big time, it’s completely fine to be fired on the spot. She issued a search warrant for a journalist, in complete violation of State and Federal law.

        • FlowVoid@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Her contract almost certainly requires due process before she is terminated under these circumstances.

          And while not all workers in the US get that protection, it would be better if they did.

            • FlowVoid@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              At will is simply the default, so it only applies to workers without an employment contract.

              She is a government official, and most certainly has a contract that specifies termination procedures.

              Keep in mind that at will cuts both ways, it allows workers to quit at any time without notice. The government really, really doesn’t want judges to peace out in the middle of a trial. So the contract provides penalties for both sides if termination procedures aren’t followed.

            • FlowVoid@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Whatever her contract specifies has to be consistent with the constitution, but her contract covers a lot more than that. It’s not like she can look through the constitution to find her PTO policy.

              • roguetrick@kbin.socialOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Elected offical’s compensation packages are codified, not contracted. This is a really bizarre rabbit hole you’ve went down.

                § 13: Compensation of justices and judges; certain limitation. The justices of the supreme court and judges of the district courts shall receive for their services such compensation as may be provided by law, which shall not be diminished during their terms of office, unless by general law applicable to all salaried officers of the state. Such justices or judges shall receive no fees or perquisites nor hold any other office of profit or trust under the authority of the state, or the United States except as may be provided by law, or practice law during their continuance in office.

                • FlowVoid@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  The constitution and state law must be in keeping with any employment contract. That doesn’t mean there is no employment contract.

                  Without an employment contract, there is no penalty if an employee suddenly decides to quit. If you are at will (no contract), giving notice to your employer is merely a courtesy.

                  The government does not want judges to suddenly quit in the middle of a trial, for the same reason that hospitals don’t want doctors to quit in the middle of a patient appointment. Those kinds of employees need contracts.

                  Among other things, the contract specifies termination procedures. This may include a requirement to give notice and also limit the opportunity for summary firing.

                  An example of an employment contract for a judge can be found here.

            • LegionEris [she/her]@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              after appropriate hearing.

              It may not be a contract persay, but it does seem to support the idea that some amount of due process is required. I’d agree that there should be some option to more rapidly suspend a judge, but the constitution you quote says she gets a hearing before dismissal.

              • roguetrick@kbin.socialOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I wasn’t really arguing that they couldn’t dismiss them, just that the dismissal of an elected official being mediated by employment law is… an interesting approach.

        • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          What state and federal laws? Not trolling, genuinely have been searching and asking for an explanation. The probable cause seems clear from having read the warrant. I think the paper owner even admitted it’s employee broke the records law.

      • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        and yet us commoners are frequently arrested and detained without cause. Yes, police can and do fuck up peoples’ lives and make them sit in jail for days just to have charges dropped in many cases. You could whine and say it’s rare, but once is too much vs the rules they’re SUPPOSED to operate under.

        Do not defend a two-faced “justice” system.

      • bobman@unilem.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        same reason they aren’t executed immediately.

        They… are executed immediately.

        See all the police killings of innocent people?

        The judicial system allows those with wealth to game it so they don’t have to play by the same rules as everyone else. Remember the affluenza kid who killed for people while driving recklessly? What about the other rich white male who literally raped a girl and got off because ‘it could damage his future.’

        Meanwhile, poor black folk get executed for no-knock search warrants when the cops go to the wrong place.

        Police know to be more lenient with people that have status (wealth.) That’s why we just got a recording with a pig laughing about a cop running over a pedestrian because she ‘was of low value.’

        If you don’t notice how the justice system doesn’t serve you, you’re not paying attention.

    • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’ve been loosely following this story and I read the warrant applications. You seem certain this is outrageous. Could you explain why?

      What was wrong with the warrant? The police seem to have had good probable cause. I’m a huge advocate for free press, but I’ve yet to hear a legal argument for what is so objectionable, here.

      • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        The probable cause statement wasn’t even filed until after the warrant was issued and raid occurred.

        https://thehill.com/media/4155087-publisher-newspaper-raided-police-says-timing-probable-cause-affidavit-suspicious/

        “We finally were able to obtain the probable cause affidavit that was supposed to support the search warrant. It was filed three days after the searches were conducted, which is a little suspicious,” Meyer said in a CNN interview Wednesday.

        • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Oh snap, I hadn’t seen that detail reported yet.

          Elsewhere I see:

          The affidavits authorizing the searches and seizures at the paper and the publisher’s house were signed by Magistrate Judge Laura Viar, and while her signature was dated Aug. 11, the court did not receive the affidavits until Monday, Aug. 14 — three days after the search was conducted.

          That’s very suspect.

      • Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        The top prosecutor, who ordered the seized materials be returned, said themselves that “insufficient evidence exists to establish a legally sufficient nexus between this alleged crime and the places searched and the items seized.” There was never probable cause, no evidence that this alleged illegal access ever happened. There never should have been a warrant in the first place.

          • Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not sure what you’re asking when you say “on what grounds”.

            The warrant was issued without any evidence supporting it, which I thought I made clear in my comment.

            I did read it, it’s linked within the article OP posted that we’re replying too, or maybe it’s a couple clicks away.

            The fact that shit hit the fan seems like a red flag to me that things were wrong from the get go. Cops get away with misconduct every day, for it to make national news means they probably acted indefensibly inappropriately.

            • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              You’re saying the warrant was issued without supporting evidence because the affidavit was filed after the warrant was served?

              I don’t know what the recording requirements in that court are. It may be that affidavits are submitted sealed and then not filed until after the warrant is served. That doesn’t seem out of the scope of ordinary to me.

              I’m not sure it’s filing means the judge didn’t see it.

      • ggppjj@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve yet to see reasonable cause. Mind sharing your own thought process so we can all know where the other is coming from?

        • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Sure. The warrant application states that the newspaper employee accessed some private government record via online portal, and then shared that record with police and the public. In order to access the record, the newspaper employee must have either impersonated the person whom the record was about (it think it was about a town counselor if memory serves), or else falsely certify that the employee had a valid legal reason to access the information. It’s the same certification I have make as a lawyer when doing a private background check, have to choose one of like fourteen legit reasons for requesting the info; comes from a federal privacy statute. The difference being I have a legit reason to certify when I’m doing a search, and I’m not accessing records directly from the government.

          So either the newspaper employee committed identity thef or accessed a closed, government computer system under false pretenses, also known as hacking (unauthorized access).

          Those were the two probable crimes set forth in the warrant. There is no journalist exception for crimes.

          As I understand, the newspaper owner admitted that their employee falsely certified as to her right of access, but refused to give a statement or provide records.

          The same officer who applied for the warrant is also the officer who initially received the document on behalf of the police. He recognized that it implicated the police chief in financial crimes, and referred it to internal affairs.

          The only wrongdoing I could see is the appearance of conflict of interest, in that the department or prosecutor should have referred the matter to state law enforcement or law enforcement in a different county.

          I don’t like police raiding reporters in any sense, and that’s what prompted me to read the warrant application, but after reading it I understand why the police, prosecutor, and judge all signed off on it. It seems legit.

          • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            or else falsely certify that the employee had a valid legal reason to access the information.

            I think journalism would be a valid reason when discussing public corruption. IANAL, may be wrong.

            • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              There are 14 clearly defined rights of access. None of them apply to journalists.

              I agree journalism is important and rooting out public corruption is a good cause. They should have requested the records by FOIA. Some records are exempt from FOIA and I have hunch these were such records. Congress passed the law setting out those fourteen reasons a person could have a valid legal right to the data, and fishing expeditions by well meaning journalists isn’t one of them, for good reason!

              Don’t forget, the document was the proof of the corruption, before that, sounds like, it was allegation and conjecture motivated by a small town grudge.

              I don’t know, assume the affidavit is true and the actions of the newspaper employee were illegal, is the raid objectionable for any legal reason?

              The whole thing stinks.

              • ggppjj@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Thanks for the details, genuinely. I’ve not fired up PACER myself here, as much as me a private non-lawyer citizen could really follow along there.

                Personally, I side with the newspaper morally in this matter. I’m much more of a “if raiding a newspaper over peacefully attempting to uncover corruption in local governments because they lied to do so is legal than the laws need to change” kinda guy.

                I know that’s pivoting. I also don’t have any good ideas on how to improve the laws. Personally, I don’t see any way of making a law that doesn’t become either a target of or a tool for abuse of power, and this really feels a lot like people in power using the law to help a friend in a way that most citizens would not have access to.

      • SquishyPandaDev@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        They should have issued a subpoena, like every other case. Also the judge ordered the return of seized items from the search. Not a good sign of confidence in their legality.

        • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          A subpoena is a demand to appear issued by a lawyer. A witness has to be subpoenaed to something. You subpoena testimony, usually by deposition, to a hearing or to a grand jury. A subpoena duces tecum is a subpoena to show up and testify and bring documents, too.

          Government subpoenas are usually in connection with civil enforcement. In the criminal context, they are to compel a witness to a grand jury or to testify at a pretrial deposition or at trial after the suspect as been charged, or in the case of secret proceedings, when a grand jury has convened.

          Police use warrants not subpoenas.

  • roguetrick@kbin.socialOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    69
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Few days old but I didn’t see this on search. It likely won’t go anywhere but I found the dig on the judge’s mental capacity to be hilarious.

    The complaint requests the Kansas Commission on Judicial Conduct to review “Viar’s mental capacity in her decision to seemingly circumvent federal and state law” when she signed off on the search warrant for the newspaper office

    • Osa-Eris-Xero512@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t know about going nowhere. The higher courts generally get pretty grumpy about lower courts going mask-off like this.

      • roguetrick@kbin.socialOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Nothing for them to quash at this point since the county attorney withdrew the warrant. I don’t really forsee her getting impeached or being declared without capacity and she has qualified immunity for civil damages. Hope she doesn’t get reelected.

        Edit: unless she’s shown to have signed off without the affidavit. That could get her into trouble. I don’t think they can prove that though.

        • sharpiemarker@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          If the warrant was withdrawn, doesn’t that imply that the police who executed the withdrawn warrant were illegally searching and seizing?

          • admiralteal@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The penalty for searching without a warrant is that evidence acquired is inadmissible. Sometimes. Sometimes not even that. Typically, that’s fucking it. So it doesn’t really matter that the search was illegal once the property is returned. Mostly, the penalties for the police are just political ones.

            If there are some provable damages, the person who’s civil rights were damaged might be able to sue, though with qualified immunity even that is a very, very uphill battle. SCOTUS rules against plaintiffs in cases like that routinely because the SCOTUS is very, very pro-police. They routinely rule that making things harder for the police & prosecutors is too high a price to pay for protecting civil rights. See, for example, Van Buren vs US or Arizona v. Gant.

          • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            No. It means the prosecutors won’t be further pursuing the case. The warrant is legal process, returnable to the judge who signed it. If a party unilaterally wants to end a legal process it began, the procedure is to file a withdrawal.

  • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Good. The whole point of judicial review is to not be a rubber stamp and to protect the rights of accused. They failed in both ways here.

    • Eezyville@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Rubber stamping search warrants is how it’s done though. If every case becomes high profile then things might change but I have no faith.

      • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        High profile stories like these at least send a warning to other judges that they take a risk when they blanket approve things without due diligence.

        I’d hope this is a sign for things to change, but I don’t know how likely.

  • girlfreddy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Doing the stupid, then lying about it when they get caught, seems to be the way big fish in small ponds operate.

    The town’s civic leadership is going to look vastly different a year from now.