516
submitted 10 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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] SquishyPandaDev@yiffit.net 132 points 10 months ago

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

[-] theodewere@kbin.social 35 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months 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..

[-] sadreality@kbin.social 16 points 10 months ago

We are civilized now boy... Fuck ur rights

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] FlowVoid@midwest.social 11 points 10 months 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 29 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months 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 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months 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.

[-] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago

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

[-] FlowVoid@midwest.social 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months 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.

[-] roguetrick@kbin.social 6 points 10 months ago

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

[-] FlowVoid@midwest.social 4 points 10 months 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.social 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months 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 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months 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.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[-] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 26 points 10 months 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.

[-] FlowVoid@midwest.social 6 points 10 months ago

If some people are treated unjustly, the solution is not to treat everyone unjustly.

[-] conquer4@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

But thats the issue, there is no issue to fix the unjustness.

[-] bobman@unilem.org 9 points 10 months 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.

load more comments (15 replies)
[-] roguetrick@kbin.social 68 points 10 months 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 40 points 10 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 10 months ago* (last edited 10 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 10 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 10 months ago* (last edited 10 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 10 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 10 months ago

> elect judges

This is the source of your problems.

[-] ikidd@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

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

[-] roguetrick@kbin.social 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 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 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

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

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] SulaymanF@lemmy.world 43 points 10 months 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 4 points 10 months 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 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months 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.

[-] DigitalFrank@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago

She should be facing impeachment ad disbarment.

[-] KillAllPoorPeople@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

She should be facing murder charges.

[-] girlfreddy@sh.itjust.works 10 points 10 months 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.

[-] Iamdanno@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 10 months ago

I wouldn't bet on that. Apathy and inertia are hard things to overcome.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] SpunkyBarnes@geddit.social 4 points 10 months ago
[-] blazera@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago

The wheels of justice turn slowly. And then stall and die.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2023
516 points (98.7% liked)

News

21850 readers
5111 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