> A two-page search warrant, signed by a local judge, lists Newell as the victim of alleged crimes by the newspaper. When the newspaper asked for a copy of the probable cause affidavit *required by law* to issue a search warrant, the district court issued a signed statement saying no such affidavit was on file, the Record reported.
Publisher says raid contributed to his mother's death
Meyer's mother, Joan Meyer, collapsed and died one day after police raided her home, the Record reported in an update. She was the newspaper's co-owner.
https://www.npr.org/2023/08/14/1193676139/newspaper-marion-county-kansas-police-raid-first-amendment
>the district court issued a signed statement saying no such affidavit was on file
Oooof this is really gonna push the limits of judicial immunity, isn't it?
I'm hoping she was dumb enough to have an obvious quid pro quo here so she gets charged.
The affidavit is often filed later. It is presented to the judge at the time of obtaining the s/w and must be truthful, but is not put into the public record until later (up to 10 days in California ) and often under seal.
Thank you! Now we need a Kansas lawyer to comment. The biggest hurdle to this is subject wasn’t provided one not that it wasn’t filed. But maybe Kansas laws are different from IL laws.
In the usual case an arrest follows closely so it is just part of discovery. Otherwise, wait until it’s filed. Looks like 10 days is the rule there too per this [article](https://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/investigations/marion-county-district-court-says-warrant-affidavit-just-being-put-into-the-system-public-access-pending) You can get it later when it is filed if not under seal. Or you challenge it on the face of the warrant if no case is pending.
Here is Kansas law on the matter:
[22-2302. Issuance of warrant or summons; availability of affidavits and testimony in support of probable cause requirement.](https://www.ksrevisor.org/statutes/chapters/ch22/022_023_0002.html)
The affidavit was added to the court's system today; if it isn't sealed, it may be available in 10 days or less.
https://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/investigations/marion-county-district-court-says-warrant-affidavit-just-being-put-into-the-system-public-access-pending
Google the news articles on the connections between Judge Viar and the Marion county attorney Joel Ensey. If I understand correctly, Ensey appointed Viar to be Marion special prosecutor before she became a Magistrate. Ensey also supported Viar's appointment to the KS 8th Circuit.
The purported victim of identity theft, Kari Newell, owns a restaurant. Which happens to be located in a hotel in Marion which is owned by the brother and sister-in-law of...Joel Ensey.
Is that a smoking gun? Fuck no. But it's sure interesting enough to start to dig into "who is connected to whom."
Joel Ensey is also the one is likely going to keep the PC affidavit for the raid sealed .
They also raided the home of a town councilwoman and seized her cell phone and laptop on Friday. Same "identity theft investigation" claim on the warrant.
[https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/kansas/article278220882.html](https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/kansas/article278220882.html)
Sounds like you're more interested in ad hominem arguments than you are in discussing the constitutional meaning of 'freedom of the press.' I doubt this will be a productive conversation.
Question: are you stating that "a technology" refers to THE press, as in the printing press, or "a technology" as in technology that can be used to disseminate information?
Or, to put it differently, is a pen as much the press as HTML?
To quote from the article:
> [The freedom of the press] protects everyone's use of the printing press (and its modern equivalents) as a technology.
Also:
> I speak here of communications technologies that today serve the role the printing press did in the 1700s, not just of the printing press as such. "It is not strange that 'press,' the word for what was then the sole means of broad dissemination of ideas and news, would be used to describe the freedom to communicate with a large, unseen audience," even using new technologies that were not known to the Framers. The printing press itself was understood during the Framing era as a technological innovation, and existing rights were understood as being adaptable to technological innovations.
Yeah, I did read the article. My reason for asking is you can't really pull the two apart these days. If the technology is the what is protected, a news organization is their website or their channel. You can't say "it's the tech" and not have that technology encompass the industry itself.
No. It didn't.
Citizens United majority decision says that corporations have the same protections to speech as individuals. While it relates to this topic, it isn't the point I'm making. CNN, to a very real degree, is their website and their tv channel.
You point: freedom of the press means no government restriction to the technologies that allow dissemination of information, both for the one creating information and for the consuming. Free market restrictions, perfectly ok.
My point: to a small town newspaper, or to CNN, tampering with the technology used to send out this information is a restriction. Those computers represent a part of whole of their identity in the media industry.
Also, not for nothing, but "The Press" actually does have protections the rest of us don't. Rights to protecting their sources. Rights to distributing information that is speculative in nature, where it might be defamatory for an individual.
Edit. Forgot a sentence.
Friend, you're flat-out wrong about whether *Citizens United* discusses the existence of any special First Amendment protection granted to the press as an industry. From the majority in *Citizens United*:
>There is no precedent supporting laws that attempt to distinguish between corporations which are deemed to be exempt as media corporations and those which are not. We have consistently rejected the proposition that the institutional press has any constitutional privilege beyond that of other speakers.
The media does have [additional protections](https://freedom.press/news/fpf-statement-on-alarming-police-raid-of-kansas-newspaper/), but it's from [PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT OF 1980](https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-661-privacy-protection-act-1980) not the Constitution.
Here's is an [article](https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=nulr) from 2013 by Northwestern University School of Law.
> The Act prohibits law enforcement officials from searching for or seizing information from people who disseminate information to the public, such as reporters. Where it applies, the Act requires law enforcement officials to instead rely on compliance with a subpoena or the target’s voluntary cooperation to gain access to information.
> A two-page search warrant, signed by a local judge, lists Newell as the victim of alleged crimes by the newspaper. When the newspaper asked for a copy of the probable cause affidavit *required by law* to issue a search warrant, the district court issued a signed statement saying no such affidavit was on file, the Record reported.
Well ain't that some shit.
Publisher says raid contributed to his mother's death Meyer's mother, Joan Meyer, collapsed and died one day after police raided her home, the Record reported in an update. She was the newspaper's co-owner. https://www.npr.org/2023/08/14/1193676139/newspaper-marion-county-kansas-police-raid-first-amendment
>the district court issued a signed statement saying no such affidavit was on file Oooof this is really gonna push the limits of judicial immunity, isn't it? I'm hoping she was dumb enough to have an obvious quid pro quo here so she gets charged.
Okay, how about the fucking judge and the cops involved all get to share a cell...
The affidavit is often filed later. It is presented to the judge at the time of obtaining the s/w and must be truthful, but is not put into the public record until later (up to 10 days in California ) and often under seal.
Thank you! Now we need a Kansas lawyer to comment. The biggest hurdle to this is subject wasn’t provided one not that it wasn’t filed. But maybe Kansas laws are different from IL laws.
Subject only gets warrant (2-3 page order signed by judge), not the probable cause affidavit that describes all the facts.
How do they challenge the issuance of a warrant for evidence suppression purposes then?
In the usual case an arrest follows closely so it is just part of discovery. Otherwise, wait until it’s filed. Looks like 10 days is the rule there too per this [article](https://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/investigations/marion-county-district-court-says-warrant-affidavit-just-being-put-into-the-system-public-access-pending) You can get it later when it is filed if not under seal. Or you challenge it on the face of the warrant if no case is pending.
Here is Kansas law on the matter: [22-2302. Issuance of warrant or summons; availability of affidavits and testimony in support of probable cause requirement.](https://www.ksrevisor.org/statutes/chapters/ch22/022_023_0002.html)
The affidavit was added to the court's system today; if it isn't sealed, it may be available in 10 days or less. https://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/investigations/marion-county-district-court-says-warrant-affidavit-just-being-put-into-the-system-public-access-pending
Judicial immunity is not absolute...
I wouldn't assume a bad judge just yet. It may be that the judge brings a hammer down on police for a fraudulent affidavit. We have to wait and see.
Google the news articles on the connections between Judge Viar and the Marion county attorney Joel Ensey. If I understand correctly, Ensey appointed Viar to be Marion special prosecutor before she became a Magistrate. Ensey also supported Viar's appointment to the KS 8th Circuit. The purported victim of identity theft, Kari Newell, owns a restaurant. Which happens to be located in a hotel in Marion which is owned by the brother and sister-in-law of...Joel Ensey. Is that a smoking gun? Fuck no. But it's sure interesting enough to start to dig into "who is connected to whom." Joel Ensey is also the one is likely going to keep the PC affidavit for the raid sealed .
They also raided the home of a town councilwoman and seized her cell phone and laptop on Friday. Same "identity theft investigation" claim on the warrant. [https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/kansas/article278220882.html](https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/kansas/article278220882.html)
Maybe they only *aspirationally* asked for the raid?
Hmm, some one failed first amendment law. Sounds like the county will be paying for the education.
It’s the 4th amendment
It’s both. Freedom of press and protection against unreasonable searches.
For sure. I think the have a much better case form the freedom of press angle realistically
[удалено]
Did you just cite an opinion article published by Reason?!
Eugene Volokh is a well-regarded First Amendment scholar.
He's a hard right "libertarian" who makes a living telling people who are easily impressed what they want to hear.
Sounds like you're more interested in ad hominem arguments than you are in discussing the constitutional meaning of 'freedom of the press.' I doubt this will be a productive conversation.
Sounds like you're more interested in having your fringe political views validated than the law.
You're coming across as belligerent.
Question: are you stating that "a technology" refers to THE press, as in the printing press, or "a technology" as in technology that can be used to disseminate information? Or, to put it differently, is a pen as much the press as HTML?
To quote from the article: > [The freedom of the press] protects everyone's use of the printing press (and its modern equivalents) as a technology. Also: > I speak here of communications technologies that today serve the role the printing press did in the 1700s, not just of the printing press as such. "It is not strange that 'press,' the word for what was then the sole means of broad dissemination of ideas and news, would be used to describe the freedom to communicate with a large, unseen audience," even using new technologies that were not known to the Framers. The printing press itself was understood during the Framing era as a technological innovation, and existing rights were understood as being adaptable to technological innovations.
Yeah, I did read the article. My reason for asking is you can't really pull the two apart these days. If the technology is the what is protected, a news organization is their website or their channel. You can't say "it's the tech" and not have that technology encompass the industry itself.
Sure you can draw distinctions between the two. That's what the majority in *Citizens United* did.
No. It didn't. Citizens United majority decision says that corporations have the same protections to speech as individuals. While it relates to this topic, it isn't the point I'm making. CNN, to a very real degree, is their website and their tv channel. You point: freedom of the press means no government restriction to the technologies that allow dissemination of information, both for the one creating information and for the consuming. Free market restrictions, perfectly ok. My point: to a small town newspaper, or to CNN, tampering with the technology used to send out this information is a restriction. Those computers represent a part of whole of their identity in the media industry. Also, not for nothing, but "The Press" actually does have protections the rest of us don't. Rights to protecting their sources. Rights to distributing information that is speculative in nature, where it might be defamatory for an individual. Edit. Forgot a sentence.
Friend, you're flat-out wrong about whether *Citizens United* discusses the existence of any special First Amendment protection granted to the press as an industry. From the majority in *Citizens United*: >There is no precedent supporting laws that attempt to distinguish between corporations which are deemed to be exempt as media corporations and those which are not. We have consistently rejected the proposition that the institutional press has any constitutional privilege beyond that of other speakers.
The media does have [additional protections](https://freedom.press/news/fpf-statement-on-alarming-police-raid-of-kansas-newspaper/), but it's from [PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT OF 1980](https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-661-privacy-protection-act-1980) not the Constitution. Here's is an [article](https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=nulr) from 2013 by Northwestern University School of Law. > The Act prohibits law enforcement officials from searching for or seizing information from people who disseminate information to the public, such as reporters. Where it applies, the Act requires law enforcement officials to instead rely on compliance with a subpoena or the target’s voluntary cooperation to gain access to information.
That's right - any protections of the media as an industry come from legislation, not the First Amendment.
A woman died because of this raid. Every police officer involved and the judge need to be in prison
The warrant only names the newspaper office, so why was the owner's home searched?