Hacker News Reader

Comment by PLenz | Hacker News Reader

The search warrant was itself illegal. Hiding behind it is not a valid defense.

Allegedly, they weren't trying to uncover newspaper sources, they were investigating identity theft. I'm not convinced either state or federal law would have applied here, though getting a court order beyond the warrant would have avoided the controversy entirely.

Perhaps they were worried that the evidence would have been deleted if they'd waited.

Or perhaps, they simply really were using it as a cover to raid the office to destroy any info about the chief.

Hopefully time will tell.

> Allegedly, they weren't trying to uncover newspaper sources, they were investigating identity theft.

The allegation of identity theft got them the warrant. However, that allegation seems like a lie, when it's compared against the event the cops were investigating.

Reporter Phyllis Zorn verified the tip by conducting a driver’s record search on the Department of Revenue’s website, using Newell’s first and last name and the driver’s license number for Newell that the record had received from its source. The results showed the tip about Newell’s record was accurate.

Being caught in a lie might explain why the warrant was withdrawn.

ref: https://www.kcur.org/news/2023-08-20/now-withdrawn-affidavit...

I would note, while I side with the news paper, allegations are sufficient to get a warrant so long as they are credible and convince a judge they are.

My opinion, IANL, is they are and never were credible and the police in collusion with the judge did something at least unethical if not illegal.

According to the article a warrant is not enough in Kansas. They had a further obligation in local law that raised the burden on the police force. That they didn’t seem to meet that burden is the crux of the article.

Unfortunately, the only remedy ever given for bad search warrants is exclusion of evidence from trial. Since the newspaper isn't likely to be put on trial, no remedy is forthcoming.

Perhaps those involved should be charged by the DOJ for violation of Constitutional rights... Sounds like the actors were fraudulently acting under color of law.

Why do you say that the search warrant was illegal?

A search warrant of a newspaper is not inherently illegal.

On the other hand, if I understand correctly, the search warrant was authorized (or at least the authorization was filed) only three days after the search. Post hoc approval of search warrants is almost certainly not legal. If that wasn't a clerical mixup, then yes, the search warrant was illegal. (I'm not going to get too bothered by an approved search warrant that didn't get filed for three days because a clerk messed up - if that's what happened.)

According to the article, the state shield law says that you can't execute a search warrant on a newspaper. It must be a subpoena in order to prevent abuse of power against the free press.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com