Judge who signed off on raid of Kansas newspaper is facing a complaint about the decision

News@lemmy.world – 512 points – 1 years ago

Judge who signed off on raid of Kansas newspaper is facing a complaint about the decision | CNN

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.

You are viewing a single comment

View all comments Show the parent comment

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.

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.

Kansas is an at will state. They can fire her because Tuesday is a day of the week.

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.

I'm sorry but this is really funny. Her "contract" is the state constitution.

Other judges shall be subject to retirement for incapacity, and to discipline, suspension and removal for cause by the supreme court after appropriate hearing.

https://kslib.info/829/Article-3-Judicial

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This judge is not an elected official.

She was appointed but has to be voted for every 4 years.

No, she doesn't. She is a magistrate judge, and that's an appointed position.

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.

President and law is to issue a subpoena. Basically ask instead of demand. It's to insure newspapers first amendment rights.

Based on your dodgy command of English I'm going to give your statements on criminal procedure very little weight.

Okay

Sorry friend, but they're right, you're wrong and to dismiss them over a spelling error is arrogant and ignorant. The warrant was for someone at the paper allegedly illegally accessing someone's driving record (1). Kansas has a law that protects driver's records, but it has a carve out for journalists with a legitimate need to access that info (2). Even if that legitimate need doesn't exist, this is a civil cause of action and not a criminal proceeding (3), so a subpoena from the aggrieved party would be appropriate and a warrant for the police to raid both the office and a journalist's home is a massive overstep, obviously intended to punish someone before they've even been accused of a crime. The warrant has since been withdrawn by the county attorney, who directed that all seized materials be returned and all copies of seized data be destroyed (4).

It's a federal law and there is no carve out for journalists. I linked the statute elsewhere.

I don't know what you're talking about. The warrant was part of a criminal investigation by police, not any civil lawsuit.

And you didn't even read your own links.

CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT Under the Drivers' Privacy Protection Act of 1994, as amended (DPPA) (18 U.S.C. § 2721), personal information obtained by the Kansas Department of Revenue cannot be released unless the request for information falls within one of the exceptions within the Act. It is unlawful for personal information to be used for any purpose not permitted under the DPPA

The DPPA has no exception for journalists.

DPPA has no exception for journalists

is a very interesting way to interpret

In the analogous area of birth and death records, “reporters when investigating stories have a ‘legitimate research purpose’ … and are therefore to be allowed access to the vital records.” Campbell & Assoc. v. Sharma, No. 884-0076, at 22 St. Louis Cir. Ct. (Jan. 25, 1989).

Seems like I'm not the one who doesn't read my links

Wtf are you talking about? This case doesn't involve vital records (birth, death, marriage certificates).

Here's the statute buddy: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2721

Sections (b)(1)-(14) list the only rights of access.

What does a Missouri circuit court holding about vital records in 1989 have to do with anything? The case at issue was in Kansas, doesn't involve vital records (which are already open under FOIA).

You're obviously a poser.