This whole thing is shitty. The restaurant owner had a DUI years ago, which she was hiding because she really wanted her restaurant to get a (very lucrative) alcohol license. She was also repeatedly driving on a suspended license due to the DUI, something that the the local cops knew and completely ignored. Possibly because the DA’s brother owns the hotel the restaurant is in, and once they have an alcohol license he can raise the rent, maybe by an indecent amount. Oh, and multiple people have alleged that the police chief left his previous paid-twice-as-much job in Kansas City due to multiple serious accusations of sexual assault.
The Marion Record had investigated both the DUI and the sexual assault allegations, but had decided not to print either story due to journalistic concerns (they suspected the divorcing husband may have illegally accessed his wife’s accounts to send them copies of the DUI information, and none of the people bringing up the police chief’s alleged history would go on the record and the KC police personnel department wouldn’t give any information either).
Some locals says that the Record is “too aggressive” in it’s reporting, while others think that revealing this kind of thing is what newspapers are supposed to do. And in the meantime, the restaurant owner has gotten her liquor license, the hotel owner can (presumably) raise the rent, and the police chief got to keep the newspaper’s computers for five days - including (just ever-so-conveniently) the computer that contained the information the paper had on the people who were saying the police chief had left because of the sexual assault allegations. But I’m sure he never tried to find that information in the five days they had the computers because that would’ve been unethical, wouldn’t it …
The good news is that apparently the newspaper’s insurance is going to cover most of the costs of getting their equipment back, and they have a really nice lawsuit they’re going to go ahead with. I’m not sure how the lawsuit will go, what with qualified immunity:
Qualified immunity is a judge-made legal protection that shields government officials from claims of unconstitutional conduct. It is a unique and specialized defense available only to government actors and can, if applied, allow those actors to avoid responsibility for constitutional violations.
But who knows? Hopefully the town (the sheriff) and county (the judge) get hit with a really nice large fine, maybe even an actual punishment. There’s also a chance that the town/county’s insurance won’t cover the payout, which will suck for the residents.
The judge and county attorney would likely be shielded by qualified immunity, in my opinion. The police chief who wrote the affidavit, executed the warrant, and ran his mouth on Facebook (he hasn’t run his mouth since the county attorney withdrew the warrant for insufficient evidence btw) while having potentially ulterior motives might not find it so easy, however. Qualified immunity generally shields incompetence, but not malice.
Edit: I will note as an aside that the hotel already had a liquor license, the owner just didn’t want to keep it under his name when the restaurant was the one running the bar.
Thanks for the clarification! My understanding was that the liquor license could not be transferred, and that it was due to expire this week anyway, thus the rush for the new one.
Do you think the judge would/should be censured in some way? She apparently signed off without an affidavit of probable cause, and there was no actual urgency to the search warrant. Plus she should have (theoretically, at least) known that you can’t (generally) use search warrantss on newspapers.
I’m not sure how much the DA (CA) was involved. With the county apparently being run this unofficially, it’s possible the sheriff went straight to the judge. I will note that the DA is the brother of the hotel owner, though whether that figured into his/her calculations (if indeed they were involved) I don’t know.
This whole thing is shitty. The restaurant owner had a DUI years ago, which she was hiding because she really wanted her restaurant to get a (very lucrative) alcohol license. She was also repeatedly driving on a suspended license due to the DUI, something that the the local cops knew and completely ignored. Possibly because the DA’s brother owns the hotel the restaurant is in, and once they have an alcohol license he can raise the rent, maybe by an indecent amount. Oh, and multiple people have alleged that the police chief left his previous paid-twice-as-much job in Kansas City due to multiple serious accusations of sexual assault.
The Marion Record had investigated both the DUI and the sexual assault allegations, but had decided not to print either story due to journalistic concerns (they suspected the divorcing husband may have illegally accessed his wife’s accounts to send them copies of the DUI information, and none of the people bringing up the police chief’s alleged history would go on the record and the KC police personnel department wouldn’t give any information either).
Some locals says that the Record is “too aggressive” in it’s reporting, while others think that revealing this kind of thing is what newspapers are supposed to do. And in the meantime, the restaurant owner has gotten her liquor license, the hotel owner can (presumably) raise the rent, and the police chief got to keep the newspaper’s computers for five days - including (just ever-so-conveniently) the computer that contained the information the paper had on the people who were saying the police chief had left because of the sexual assault allegations. But I’m sure he never tried to find that information in the five days they had the computers because that would’ve been unethical, wouldn’t it …
The good news is that apparently the newspaper’s insurance is going to cover most of the costs of getting their equipment back, and they have a really nice lawsuit they’re going to go ahead with. I’m not sure how the lawsuit will go, what with qualified immunity:
But who knows? Hopefully the town (the sheriff) and county (the judge) get hit with a really nice large fine, maybe even an actual punishment. There’s also a chance that the town/county’s insurance won’t cover the payout, which will suck for the residents.
The judge and county attorney would likely be shielded by qualified immunity, in my opinion. The police chief who wrote the affidavit, executed the warrant, and ran his mouth on Facebook (he hasn’t run his mouth since the county attorney withdrew the warrant for insufficient evidence btw) while having potentially ulterior motives might not find it so easy, however. Qualified immunity generally shields incompetence, but not malice.
Edit: I will note as an aside that the hotel already had a liquor license, the owner just didn’t want to keep it under his name when the restaurant was the one running the bar.
Thanks for the clarification! My understanding was that the liquor license could not be transferred, and that it was due to expire this week anyway, thus the rush for the new one.
Do you think the judge would/should be censured in some way? She apparently signed off without an affidavit of probable cause, and there was no actual urgency to the search warrant. Plus she should have (theoretically, at least) known that you can’t (generally) use search warrantss on newspapers.
I’m not sure how much the DA (CA) was involved. With the county apparently being run this unofficially, it’s possible the sheriff went straight to the judge. I will note that the DA is the brother of the hotel owner, though whether that figured into his/her calculations (if indeed they were involved) I don’t know.
I wonder if someone in her office rubber stamped it, literally.
Thanks for the summary of the whole story! I didn’t get the whole picture from the article. Appreciate it.