516
submitted 11 months ago by roguetrick@kbin.social to c/news@lemmy.world

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's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Osa-Eris-Xero512@kbin.social 40 points 11 months 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.social 15 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months 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 5 points 11 months 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If the warrant was withdrawn, doesn't that imply that the police who executed the withdrawn warrant were illegally searching and seizing?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 12 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months 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.

[-] JustZ@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months 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.

[-] Chickenstalker@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

> elect judges

This is the source of your problems.

[-] ikidd@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

I thought nobody could find the affidavit. Did that show up?

[-] roguetrick@kbin.social 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

It finally did yeah. Seemed to have been filed a bit late. Chief of police wrote it himself. He's also the one who assaulted one of the reporters personally, turns out. He'll have no qualified immunity.

[-] DarthBueller@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Wait, cops assaulting people without cause is not an official act? /s

[-] JustZ@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

It was filed with the application for the warrant. The judge wouldn't have granted the warrant without one.

[-] CmdrShepard@lemmy.one 1 points 11 months ago

“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.

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

[-] JustZ@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

Nope it's been public for a couple weeks.

this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2023
516 points (98.7% liked)

News

22488 readers
4052 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS