Kansas Bureau of Investigation takes lead following police raid of newspaper(kansascity.com)
kansascity.com
Kansas Bureau of Investigation takes lead following police raid of newspaper
https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article278253028.html
112 comments
Ensey's sister in law and brother own the Historic Elgin Hotel, one of them currently holds the liquor license for the restaurant, as it used to be their restaurant. The restaurant business is owned by Kari Newell (who purchased it from the Enseys in February) and operates out of the lobby of the Elgin hotel.
Kari Newell is the individual with the DUI that is attempting to get the liquor license and whose information was allegedly obtained illegally, prompting the search.
I'm not sure this is grounds for disqualification. No matter how Ensey decides to proceed against the police I don't think it moves the needle on whether or not Newell gets her liquor license or doesn't, so can't possibly harm or help his family's interests.
EDIT: Maybe the argument that he's biased is that he's inclined to sweep it under the run to keep his family's name out of the paper? That's reasonable.
Kari Newell is the individual with the DUI that is attempting to get the liquor license and whose information was allegedly obtained illegally, prompting the search.
I'm not sure this is grounds for disqualification. No matter how Ensey decides to proceed against the police I don't think it moves the needle on whether or not Newell gets her liquor license or doesn't, so can't possibly harm or help his family's interests.
EDIT: Maybe the argument that he's biased is that he's inclined to sweep it under the run to keep his family's name out of the paper? That's reasonable.
> not sure this is grounds for disqualification
It seems a felony DUI conviction would bar Newell from securing a liquor license [1]. (I don't believe Newell had a felony DUI conviction.)
[1] https://www.ksrevenue.gov/abcemployeefaqs.html
It seems a felony DUI conviction would bar Newell from securing a liquor license [1]. (I don't believe Newell had a felony DUI conviction.)
[1] https://www.ksrevenue.gov/abcemployeefaqs.html
> Is there a time limit on felony convictions?
> No, a felony must be expunged to work as an employee who serves, mixes and dispenses alcohol or manages employees who handle alcohol.
Jesus. Stripping people of their employment for a few years is acceptable if the offense is related to the employment. But forcing someone to switch careers or to sell their business for life? That's nuts.
> No, a felony must be expunged to work as an employee who serves, mixes and dispenses alcohol or manages employees who handle alcohol.
Jesus. Stripping people of their employment for a few years is acceptable if the offense is related to the employment. But forcing someone to switch careers or to sell their business for life? That's nuts.
A felony DUI conviction isn't a joke, people die all the time from others drunk driving and it's totally reasonable to prevent someone who can't manage their liquor from having access to an enormous quantity of wholesale liquor.
These things can typically be plead down to a lesser charge if its a first offense etc., so if it stuck as a felony conviction, there must've been serious circumstances (I'm speculating here, we don't know the details of the conviction).
These things can typically be plead down to a lesser charge if its a first offense etc., so if it stuck as a felony conviction, there must've been serious circumstances (I'm speculating here, we don't know the details of the conviction).
And also be serving alcohol to others...
> forcing someone to switch careers or to sell their business for life
It looks like a felony DUI in Kansas means you're on your third or fourth DUI [1].
[1] https://www.duikc.com/felony-dui-dwi-in-kansas-missouri
It looks like a felony DUI in Kansas means you're on your third or fourth DUI [1].
[1] https://www.duikc.com/felony-dui-dwi-in-kansas-missouri
Bullshit. Don't fucking drink and drive. It's not hard for most people. If you can't handle alcohol, how can you be expected to be a bartender? You really think having such a deep-seated problem with alcohol that you are willing to commit murder over it is somehow unrelated to employment as a bartender!? If someone was caught firing guns randomly into buildings, do you think that would be unrelated to their employment in a gun store?
The problem is that felony DUI (as opposed to lesser charges) is also about (a) a serious incident happening while you're intoxicated (chance) and (b) government prosecution discretion (serious bias).
That's an awful lots of "if"s to attach to a lifelong limitation.
F.ex. Do we all want to bet how often politician and wealthy donors' children take a felony DUI charge vs the general populace?
That's an awful lots of "if"s to attach to a lifelong limitation.
F.ex. Do we all want to bet how often politician and wealthy donors' children take a felony DUI charge vs the general populace?
There is zero "chance" in being in serious accident while intoxicated. Nobody fell down on a bottle of whiskey and accidentally drank it and then chose to drive.
We can have a meaningful discussion whether a single bad decision should destroy a life,but let's call it what it is, a decision, not a "chance".
We can have a meaningful discussion whether a single bad decision should destroy a life,but let's call it what it is, a decision, not a "chance".
If someone gets shitfaced, there's a good chance they make it home without killing anyone or being caught.
They go unpunished.
And yet, they were still committing the crime of driving under the influence... they (and everyone else) just got lucky.
Personally, I think bars should just be required to take keys. Take a breathalyzer, get your keys back. And the bar has liability for this. These aren't rocket science, million dollar devices.
They go unpunished.
And yet, they were still committing the crime of driving under the influence... they (and everyone else) just got lucky.
Personally, I think bars should just be required to take keys. Take a breathalyzer, get your keys back. And the bar has liability for this. These aren't rocket science, million dollar devices.
Many of my friends drove after drinking heavily at bars in their 20's and luckily never had any accidents. 30 years ago driving under the influence was more common. If a cop pulled you over and you were close to home, he might let you go with a warning and just say "you'd better go straight home."
Now my friends can't believe how stupid they were and are very thankful that they were lucky. Different times.
Exactly. It bugs me that we make the penalties for DUI so severe... when the reality of being charged depends so much on chance (getting caught, officer testing and arresting you, prosecutor deciding what to let you plea to).
If we really cared about it as much as the legal penalties make us feel like we do, there wouldn't be any wiggle room for wink-wink, nudge-nudge.
Three people shouldn't be able to do the same thing, and one gets the book thrown at them while the other two have zero consequences.
If we really cared about it as much as the legal penalties make us feel like we do, there wouldn't be any wiggle room for wink-wink, nudge-nudge.
Three people shouldn't be able to do the same thing, and one gets the book thrown at them while the other two have zero consequences.
> the bar has liability for this.
In most states they already do, under so-called "dram shop laws."
But since it's very easy to lie about where someone was drinking, the incentives are such you still need the bar owner willing to enforce this. If only we had some heuristics for who might be appropriate!
In most states they already do, under so-called "dram shop laws."
But since it's very easy to lie about where someone was drinking, the incentives are such you still need the bar owner willing to enforce this. If only we had some heuristics for who might be appropriate!
Cryptographically-signed networked breathalyzers? :)
And require a bar to be able to produce a signed result for anyone who bought a drink at their establishment, if subsequently requested.
There will always be loopholes, but it feels like we could do more to preclude DUIs instead of punishing only those we catch.
And require a bar to be able to produce a signed result for anyone who bought a drink at their establishment, if subsequently requested.
There will always be loopholes, but it feels like we could do more to preclude DUIs instead of punishing only those we catch.
Maybe tone it down a little and reply to what was _written_.
Go read the link provided.
> a felony conviction of *any* type.
Go read the link provided.
> a felony conviction of *any* type.
Your sentence on its own would be alarming if it were generalized. But this is specific and particular.
A person dispensing alcohol in many states and provinces is legally responsible for safety of their patrons. Argument might be made that in all cases they have some moral responsibility as well - although I understand there are people who will philosophically disagree with this and I think interesting discussion can be had there.
A person with "felony DUI" has proven to a tremendous (and usually repeated) degree that they cannot execute a key portion of what their liquor license actually entails.
So understanding slippery slope arguments and so on, in this one case, I'm not outraged at the regulation.
A person dispensing alcohol in many states and provinces is legally responsible for safety of their patrons. Argument might be made that in all cases they have some moral responsibility as well - although I understand there are people who will philosophically disagree with this and I think interesting discussion can be had there.
A person with "felony DUI" has proven to a tremendous (and usually repeated) degree that they cannot execute a key portion of what their liquor license actually entails.
So understanding slippery slope arguments and so on, in this one case, I'm not outraged at the regulation.
Just to be clear, the restriction is with ANY felony conviction.
In practice this affects DUI felons who want to work with liquor and either:
1) will not or cannot spend $200 on an expungement, or
2) did something disgusting enough during the course of committing their felony that a judge cannot be persuaded to expunge their conviction record. (I just assume there's some judicial discretion with this in Kansas.)
As the grandparent post noted, there's no reason to assume the felony rules are relevant in this case.
1) will not or cannot spend $200 on an expungement, or
2) did something disgusting enough during the course of committing their felony that a judge cannot be persuaded to expunge their conviction record. (I just assume there's some judicial discretion with this in Kansas.)
As the grandparent post noted, there's no reason to assume the felony rules are relevant in this case.
I have no issue with not allowing someone that has this much problem with alcohol not being allowed to work around alcohol.
However, preventing someone the ability to vote for life is something I'd agree with you if that's what you want to get upset about, but you're current argument falls flat
However, preventing someone the ability to vote for life is something I'd agree with you if that's what you want to get upset about, but you're current argument falls flat
It’s not just any employment. The state has a very reasonable interest in ensuring laws around the sale of alcohol are followed. License holders are in effect agents of the state in this regard.
They can work in a bar with the conviction, just not run it.
They can work in a bar with the conviction, just not run it.
> Yes, owners or employees who serve, mix or dispense alcohol cannot have a felony conviction of any type.
According to the link provided above, no, you cannot work with alcohol in a license holding establishment with ANY felony.
According to the link provided above, no, you cannot work with alcohol in a license holding establishment with ANY felony.
Does this all actually mean they are bringing the KBI in on the investigation against the newspaper? People responding as though this is a check on the police, but this sounds like it could instead be an escalation (maybe by law enforcement that isn't so ham handed, but not necessarily any more virtuous)
> Does this all actually mean they are bringing the KBI in on the investigation against the newspaper?
Police conducted the raid. The Marion County Attorney withdrew the search warrant on the basis of "'insufficient evidence'...to establish a 'legally sufficient nexus between this alleged crime and the places searched and the items seized'" [1].
Said attorney's brother, with his wife, "owns Marion’s Historic Elgin Hotel, where the restaurant Chef’s Plate at Parlour 1886 is located. The hotel’s liquor license is currently held by [the wife], but is only valid through Aug. 28. Newell owns Chef’s Plate and is seeking her own liquor license" [2]. (Newell is the proximate cause of this mess.)
At face value, this looks like a conflicted party asking a third party to take over a tainted investigation.
[1] https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/kansas/article27830017...
[2] https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article2...
Police conducted the raid. The Marion County Attorney withdrew the search warrant on the basis of "'insufficient evidence'...to establish a 'legally sufficient nexus between this alleged crime and the places searched and the items seized'" [1].
Said attorney's brother, with his wife, "owns Marion’s Historic Elgin Hotel, where the restaurant Chef’s Plate at Parlour 1886 is located. The hotel’s liquor license is currently held by [the wife], but is only valid through Aug. 28. Newell owns Chef’s Plate and is seeking her own liquor license" [2]. (Newell is the proximate cause of this mess.)
At face value, this looks like a conflicted party asking a third party to take over a tainted investigation.
[1] https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/kansas/article27830017...
[2] https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article2...
> At face value, this looks like a conflicted party asking a third party to take over a tainted investigation.
KBI is not a third party, they were active participants in the investigation leading to the raid, and released a supportive statement during the outrage over it.
(The third party that needs to get involved is the US DOJ.)
https://kansasreflector.com/2023/08/13/kbi-director-on-mario...
KBI is not a third party, they were active participants in the investigation leading to the raid, and released a supportive statement during the outrage over it.
(The third party that needs to get involved is the US DOJ.)
https://kansasreflector.com/2023/08/13/kbi-director-on-mario...
So is the hypothesis that the Ensey's want to ensure Newell receives the new liquor license, but the reporting by the newspaper was going to interfere with that?
Or more generally we could just assume that the Ensey's and Newell are friends due to their business relationship, so the County Attorney was simply attempting to protect his friend from bad press.
Or more generally we could just assume that the Ensey's and Newell are friends due to their business relationship, so the County Attorney was simply attempting to protect his friend from bad press.
> Does this all actually mean they are bringing the KBI in on the investigation against the newspaper?
Either that or against the people publishing the suppressed criminal history of the judge.
Either that or against the people publishing the suppressed criminal history of the judge.
It does sound like they want them to investigate the newspaper
My guess is there will be no charges filed. They will drag this out for a year until the world has forgot all about it, then just quietly drop it all.
You and I will forget about it, but news outlets tend to not forget about police raids like this.
As they shouldn't. Anyone characterizing this as anything other than systemic corruption is downright insane. It may not be the jurisdiction you live in, but it absolutely deserves attention being brought to it.
The facts have yet to be determined.
It's possible the paper did break some laws.
The odds don't look good that they did (vs other motives), and even if they did the warrant and seizures were likely illegally extensive, but it's a possibility.
Either we care about actual facts and laws, or we judge that on the basis of who the accused is.
The correct action would be to:
- Support the paper financially so they can fund a robust defense
- Continue to press for an investigation into the original warrant and seizure
It's possible the paper did break some laws.
The odds don't look good that they did (vs other motives), and even if they did the warrant and seizures were likely illegally extensive, but it's a possibility.
Either we care about actual facts and laws, or we judge that on the basis of who the accused is.
The correct action would be to:
- Support the paper financially so they can fund a robust defense
- Continue to press for an investigation into the original warrant and seizure
[deleted]
The worst that will happen is the police have to give some taxpayer money to the newspaper and maybe a couple of officers have to find jobs in the next county over.
The more interesting question to me is how is criminal justice info pertaining to a conviction and defendant confidential in any sense? The expression "confidential criminal justice information" is practically an oxymoron, unless she did it as a juvenile.
So let me get this straight: the newspaper was investigating a liquor license request and using public records found the applicant had DUI arrests. The newspaper handed over this information to the police without publishing it. The police responded by alleging some kind of crime related to this request, signing an affidavit to that effect.
The judge who approved the search warrant is Magistrate Judge Laura Viar. Plot twist: that judge herself has 2 DUI arrests [1].
My first question when I heard about this raid was "what judge signed off on the search warrant and what were they told?" You can read the affidavit [2], which has since been withdrawn.
Any investigation should look at the judge who signed off on conducting a search of a newspaper, for which the bar should be extremely high.
[1]: https://www.npr.org/2023/08/17/1194392001/judge-who-signed-k...
[2]: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23919909-marion-coun...
The judge who approved the search warrant is Magistrate Judge Laura Viar. Plot twist: that judge herself has 2 DUI arrests [1].
My first question when I heard about this raid was "what judge signed off on the search warrant and what were they told?" You can read the affidavit [2], which has since been withdrawn.
Any investigation should look at the judge who signed off on conducting a search of a newspaper, for which the bar should be extremely high.
[1]: https://www.npr.org/2023/08/17/1194392001/judge-who-signed-k...
[2]: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23919909-marion-coun...
Many years I eavesdropped in on a conversation between two guys each with multiple DUIs. They were telling stories about people in government who "get it", including police, that they shouldn't be punished for just driving home from the bar, or going out for more pretzels, etc. Incredible self-justifying stories of "everyone knows" the DUI punishment system is bullshit.
That line of thinking is so prevalent it’s a standard polygraph test question!
“Have you ever driven while intoxicated?”
The examiner expects “No” and uses the reaction to gauge what a lie looks like for the remainder of the test. Never driven drunk? Screw you!
antipoligraph.org
“Have you ever driven while intoxicated?”
The examiner expects “No” and uses the reaction to gauge what a lie looks like for the remainder of the test. Never driven drunk? Screw you!
antipoligraph.org
This is a deep problem that extends to sexual harassment, sex crimes and child predation.
You see entities like churches who systemically cover up and essentially defend child predators and you ask yourself why. Why didn't that organization "clean house" and report offenders to law enforcement? The usual answer given is they don't want the scandal and bad PR but that doesn't really hold water anymore given all the negative publicity surrounding, for example, the Mormon and Catholic churches around this issue.
What I think you'll find if you look deeper is the leadership is infected with a sufficient number of people who (as you put it) "get it". Religious doctrine complicates this as many such religions blame the sexual desire in men on women tempting them and yes, this can go to some horrific extremes.
Sexual harassment also seems to become endemic in organizations as those who should be holding underlines responsible for their bad behaviour also "get it" and don't see it as a problem.
Less horrific, I'm sure many on here have experienced bullying as a child. How many of you that have tried to report such problems and were told things like "boys will be boys" or "they're just playing" about abusive behavior, even serious abuse?
I've thought about this a lot: how do these people who "get it" find each other? I doubt it's ever verbally explicit. It seems to be a dark form of tribalism to identify people who are "one of us".
We had some significant cases in police departments recently (eg Antioch). This kind of clustering belies negligence, selection or both. This can get so bad that, for example, the LA County Sheriffs are essentially a collection of deputy gangs.
You see entities like churches who systemically cover up and essentially defend child predators and you ask yourself why. Why didn't that organization "clean house" and report offenders to law enforcement? The usual answer given is they don't want the scandal and bad PR but that doesn't really hold water anymore given all the negative publicity surrounding, for example, the Mormon and Catholic churches around this issue.
What I think you'll find if you look deeper is the leadership is infected with a sufficient number of people who (as you put it) "get it". Religious doctrine complicates this as many such religions blame the sexual desire in men on women tempting them and yes, this can go to some horrific extremes.
Sexual harassment also seems to become endemic in organizations as those who should be holding underlines responsible for their bad behaviour also "get it" and don't see it as a problem.
Less horrific, I'm sure many on here have experienced bullying as a child. How many of you that have tried to report such problems and were told things like "boys will be boys" or "they're just playing" about abusive behavior, even serious abuse?
I've thought about this a lot: how do these people who "get it" find each other? I doubt it's ever verbally explicit. It seems to be a dark form of tribalism to identify people who are "one of us".
We had some significant cases in police departments recently (eg Antioch). This kind of clustering belies negligence, selection or both. This can get so bad that, for example, the LA County Sheriffs are essentially a collection of deputy gangs.
> how do these people who "get it" find each other?
Jokes.
Assholes tend to make jokes at other peoples' expense. If someone else joins in on the off-color jokes, then you know they are the same kind of asshole you are.
Jokes.
Assholes tend to make jokes at other peoples' expense. If someone else joins in on the off-color jokes, then you know they are the same kind of asshole you are.
I believe our current state of DUI laws were pressured into passing my special interest groups such as M.A.D.D. Laws in many states are so strict that you can get a DUI if you decide to "sleep it off," in your car without driving anywhere, as long as you have the keys near you. I believe this would seem to incentivize drunk driving.
I’m not sure about other states, but in Kansas you can sleep it off provided that your keys never go into the ignition. Not sure how this works with keyless ignition now though.
Looking at the affidavit, it seems that Zorn may have lied about the purpose of the DOR request. Nothing in the list explicitly applies to a journalist researching specific people. Option E almost sounds relevant but it's just for debt collection matters. Option M maybe could be relevant if doing a public records request in regards to a liquor license is legal under Kansas law is related to "public safety". If Zorn really did lie about her identity to obtain the records, it does sound like a crime was committed here. Obviously there is some beef between the paper and some people in the town.
Off topic: Is it really necessary to have such a bureaucratic process for obtaining a liquor license? Why does having a DUI prohibit you from selling liquor? I remember talking to a local taco shop that wanted to sell beers for dining-in consumption. He had to put an ad out in the local paper saying how he was applying for a liquor license to give everyone notice and time to submit any comments to the ABC board.
Off topic: Is it really necessary to have such a bureaucratic process for obtaining a liquor license? Why does having a DUI prohibit you from selling liquor? I remember talking to a local taco shop that wanted to sell beers for dining-in consumption. He had to put an ad out in the local paper saying how he was applying for a liquor license to give everyone notice and time to submit any comments to the ABC board.
> Why does having a DUI prohibit you from selling liquor?
The US is still really puritanical about alcohol, particularly liquor. It's still illegal to distill in many states, and craft distilleries have to bring per-state campaigns to have it legalized. You only have to go back a few decades to find it illegal to brew craft beer in many states.
This is all commercial, it's completely illegal to home-distill AFAIK.
Basically, prohibition was never fully rolled back, and it has taken ages for the restrictions to gradually be removed. Particularly in more-religious areas, there's still a deep moral disapproval of alcohol, particularly hard alcohol.
The US is still really puritanical about alcohol, particularly liquor. It's still illegal to distill in many states, and craft distilleries have to bring per-state campaigns to have it legalized. You only have to go back a few decades to find it illegal to brew craft beer in many states.
This is all commercial, it's completely illegal to home-distill AFAIK.
Basically, prohibition was never fully rolled back, and it has taken ages for the restrictions to gradually be removed. Particularly in more-religious areas, there's still a deep moral disapproval of alcohol, particularly hard alcohol.
Also, more importantly: taxes.
And in the South / Midwest: religion.
As to taxes, alcohol licensing and sales bring in revenue, so state limitation increases the value of a license.
As to religion, politicians can trumpet about how they're keeping vice limited in the area.
PS: Example irony: the Tennessee town where Jack Daniels is made (Lynchburg) is in a dry county (Moore).
And in the South / Midwest: religion.
As to taxes, alcohol licensing and sales bring in revenue, so state limitation increases the value of a license.
As to religion, politicians can trumpet about how they're keeping vice limited in the area.
PS: Example irony: the Tennessee town where Jack Daniels is made (Lynchburg) is in a dry county (Moore).
Agreed, I think there is also some cynical protectionism, in that the big distributors and producers want to maintain their monopoly, and so they lobby against new craft producer licenses that would compete with them.
An example is the Type 75 "brewpub" license in CA, which lets a brewery sell their beer on-premises. The distributors lobbied to smuggle in a requirement that a Type 75 has to have at least one beer on tap that is bought from a distributor and not brewed on-site. There's no defensible reason for this requirement, it's pure pork. Distributors just want to make it harder for brewpubs to enter the market and compete with them, and ensure they get a kickback from every brewpub that does open.
An example is the Type 75 "brewpub" license in CA, which lets a brewery sell their beer on-premises. The distributors lobbied to smuggle in a requirement that a Type 75 has to have at least one beer on tap that is bought from a distributor and not brewed on-site. There's no defensible reason for this requirement, it's pure pork. Distributors just want to make it harder for brewpubs to enter the market and compete with them, and ensure they get a kickback from every brewpub that does open.
[deleted]
Having a DUI speaks to a person's character -- having multiple DUIs speaks volumes.
Someone who thinks it's okay to drive under the influence is unlikely to follow the laws around preventing over-consumption by their patrons.
Someone who thinks it's okay to drive under the influence is unlikely to follow the laws around preventing over-consumption by their patrons.
I agree, but I also think recency should factor in the equation. If you had a major series of screw-ups 2 decades ago and nothing since, you aren't likely to be an issue.
HN is probably more tasting room crowd than local watering hole (which I'll also cop to), but bars are a public space which can rapidly go from safe to unsafe (and their patrons, harmless to violent), and you need people with some amount of maturity to handle that.
My father repped a few bars early in his career as a lawyer (70s/80s). One condition: no pool cues.
My father repped a few bars early in his career as a lawyer (70s/80s). One condition: no pool cues.
It's even worse than that. The newspaper was also investigating the police chief who ordered the raid on the paper. [0]
[0] https://thehandbasket.substack.com/p/a-conversation-with-the...
[0] https://thehandbasket.substack.com/p/a-conversation-with-the...
> So let me get this straight: the newspaper was investigating a liquor license request and using public records found the applicant had DUI arrests.
They used the public records system to verify information they'd already received from an informant.
They used the public records system to verify information they'd already received from an informant.
While the information might be public, I read something about the system used to look up the information wasn't exactly a public system where the one doing the looking up did not normally have access. Essentially, it was a reporter taking a shortcut. This is why they ultimately decided to not publish the story because the confirmation was on shaky ground
What's the not-exactly-public-system here?
I assume its a one of the commercially available services that collect this information from the governments and sell it back to governments and non-governments, alike.
I assume its a one of the commercially available services that collect this information from the governments and sell it back to governments and non-governments, alike.
See page 6 of the police affidavit: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23919909-marion-coun...
It's a Department of Revenue website where the user must select their reason for accessing the information and agree to terms of use per a Kansas law.
It's a Department of Revenue website where the user must select their reason for accessing the information and agree to terms of use per a Kansas law.
I don't recall. It was just an article I read on the subject this weekend, and I don't even remember who published it to even attempt to look it up.
However, I don't know why the specific service actually matters. There's a word for a person not granted access to a system accessing the system without permission. It's in the name of this website
However, I don't know why the specific service actually matters. There's a word for a person not granted access to a system accessing the system without permission. It's in the name of this website
You've defined down "hacker" pretty badly if debatably not using a publicly accessible website for its intended purpose according to the posted terms of service now qualifies.
The complaint seems to be:
> On Friday August 4, 2023 at or around 1851 hours I received an email from Eric Meyer. In. the email he states that he received a copy of someone's private Department of Revenue Records... I then contacted Marion City Administrator, Brogan Jones, and told him that an internal investigation should be conducted. Brogan stated he was aware of the Department of Revenue Record (DOR record) because City Council member~ Ruth Herbel, sent him a screenshot via email of the DOR record belonging to Kari Newell.
> My investigation revealed the letter was not stolen from her mailbox, rather it was downloaded directly from the Department of Revenue. The Department of Revenue advised the individuals who downloaded the information were Phyllis Zorn and "Kari Newell"... Downloading the document involved either impersonating the victim or lying about the reasons why the record was being sought.
(p5 of the affidavit).
This seems to clearly contradict your claim that the newspaper was using public records. I have no idea if a search and seizure warrant is a proportionate response to a private record being accessed like this, but whoever downloaded the document pretty clearly breached the law. Around here its common to think "if it's available by clicking through pages on the internet it's public" but that's not how the legal system tends to see things. In this case breaking a "pinkie promise that I have a legal reason to request this record" might be enough to give air cover for the search.
To be clear I'm not supporting this raid, it's a bad look and it's not obvious that it's reasonable to assume there would be evidence of a crime on those computers, but it does seem there is another side to the story here, and it's not as simple as the narrative that's been spun by the defendants.
Checkpointing the rest of my investigation; IANAL, here's what I found on the specific violation that someone committed:
The penalties for violating the DPPA are outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 2724. They include:
> Criminal Penalties: A person who knowingly violates the DPPA can be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
> Civil Penalties: The Attorney General may bring a civil action in a U.S. district court against any person or entity that violates the DPPA. The court may award:
> Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages in the amount of $2,500; Punitive damages upon proof of willful or reckless disregard of the law; Reasonable attorneys' fees and other litigation costs; and Such other preliminary and equitable relief as the court determines to be appropriate. Private Right of Action: An individual driver may bring a civil action in a U.S. district court against a person or entity that violates the DPPA with respect to that driver's information. The court may award the same types of damages as in a civil action brought by the Attorney General.
Now again, you could argue that the Kansas DMV was negligent here, and the ToS that was clicked through was invalid? I'm not sure what precedent would say on that one. Interested in others' thoughts, if anyone has more experience here.
> On Friday August 4, 2023 at or around 1851 hours I received an email from Eric Meyer. In. the email he states that he received a copy of someone's private Department of Revenue Records... I then contacted Marion City Administrator, Brogan Jones, and told him that an internal investigation should be conducted. Brogan stated he was aware of the Department of Revenue Record (DOR record) because City Council member~ Ruth Herbel, sent him a screenshot via email of the DOR record belonging to Kari Newell.
> My investigation revealed the letter was not stolen from her mailbox, rather it was downloaded directly from the Department of Revenue. The Department of Revenue advised the individuals who downloaded the information were Phyllis Zorn and "Kari Newell"... Downloading the document involved either impersonating the victim or lying about the reasons why the record was being sought.
(p5 of the affidavit).
This seems to clearly contradict your claim that the newspaper was using public records. I have no idea if a search and seizure warrant is a proportionate response to a private record being accessed like this, but whoever downloaded the document pretty clearly breached the law. Around here its common to think "if it's available by clicking through pages on the internet it's public" but that's not how the legal system tends to see things. In this case breaking a "pinkie promise that I have a legal reason to request this record" might be enough to give air cover for the search.
To be clear I'm not supporting this raid, it's a bad look and it's not obvious that it's reasonable to assume there would be evidence of a crime on those computers, but it does seem there is another side to the story here, and it's not as simple as the narrative that's been spun by the defendants.
Checkpointing the rest of my investigation; IANAL, here's what I found on the specific violation that someone committed:
The penalties for violating the DPPA are outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 2724. They include:
> Criminal Penalties: A person who knowingly violates the DPPA can be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
> Civil Penalties: The Attorney General may bring a civil action in a U.S. district court against any person or entity that violates the DPPA. The court may award:
> Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages in the amount of $2,500; Punitive damages upon proof of willful or reckless disregard of the law; Reasonable attorneys' fees and other litigation costs; and Such other preliminary and equitable relief as the court determines to be appropriate. Private Right of Action: An individual driver may bring a civil action in a U.S. district court against a person or entity that violates the DPPA with respect to that driver's information. The court may award the same types of damages as in a civil action brought by the Attorney General.
Now again, you could argue that the Kansas DMV was negligent here, and the ToS that was clicked through was invalid? I'm not sure what precedent would say on that one. Interested in others' thoughts, if anyone has more experience here.
> This seems to clearly contradict your claim that the newspaper was using public records.
The affidavit specifically alleged "identity theft". That is, at best, a stretch. Under Kansas law it seems "obtaining personal information" might qualify but if they already had the record and were verifying it, what have they obtained? What's done with it matters too. It's one story if someone gets your PII for material gain (eg taking out a loan in your name) vs publishing that vs passing the information on to the police.
Also remember that the license record may not have been obtained illegally either. We don't know the true source.
You go on to mention DPPA. I'm not sure a County Sheriff is in any kind of position to investigate a Federal crime.
The affidavit specifically alleged "identity theft". That is, at best, a stretch. Under Kansas law it seems "obtaining personal information" might qualify but if they already had the record and were verifying it, what have they obtained? What's done with it matters too. It's one story if someone gets your PII for material gain (eg taking out a loan in your name) vs publishing that vs passing the information on to the police.
Also remember that the license record may not have been obtained illegally either. We don't know the true source.
You go on to mention DPPA. I'm not sure a County Sheriff is in any kind of position to investigate a Federal crime.
Sure, as I said in my post I agree the rest is up for debate, and again I'm not supporting the raid. But the specific claim about the document being a public record seems prima facie false, and nothing you mentioning here is supporting that claim.
I do appreciate the deeper analysis on why the warrant doesn't hold up. It doesn't seem to me that you need to make any claim about the document being public in order to make it clear that the warrant was dubious; I think you could just retract that specific claim and then your argument would be on very strong ground.
I do appreciate the deeper analysis on why the warrant doesn't hold up. It doesn't seem to me that you need to make any claim about the document being public in order to make it clear that the warrant was dubious; I think you could just retract that specific claim and then your argument would be on very strong ground.
I worked at similar small newspapers for about ten years a few decades back. This sort of thing is common - get too close to some in power, and they pull tricks like this. We always said not to argue with those who buy their ink by the barrel.
This is good news and exactly the kind of oversight that I expected to see.
I wouldn't hold my breath. I'd prefer the federal government to take the lead here. There's a clear conflict of interest.
> The KBI said it was asked by Marion police and Marion County Attorney Joel Ensey to join an investigation into accusations of “illegal access and dissemination of confidential criminal justice information.” Ensey will decide whether to file criminal charges after the KBI forwards the findings of its investigation.
https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article2...
> The KBI said it was asked by Marion police and Marion County Attorney Joel Ensey to join an investigation into accusations of “illegal access and dissemination of confidential criminal justice information.” Ensey will decide whether to file criminal charges after the KBI forwards the findings of its investigation.
https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article2...
Yes, but the person with the conflict of interest has asked an outside party to conduct the investigation. That's proper behavior. Ensey should probably recluse himself entirely but not being a lawyer or overly familiar with Kansas law it's not clear what options the county attorney has.
The fact and the conditions under which the raid/search took place in the first place? Oh boy, that's problematic.
The fact and the conditions under which the raid/search took place in the first place? Oh boy, that's problematic.
The guy who asked for the investigation has a clear conflict of interest. That doesn't mean that the KPI has one.
Ensey maybe should be more cautious about opening that door. He may not like what walks through it...
Ensey maybe should be more cautious about opening that door. He may not like what walks through it...
I'm tired of the cynicism. We aren't even at that point yet- their investigation just started.
You're tired of cynicism against American justice systems? How many times do systemic abuses need to be brought to light before you warrant cynicism as the default?
If These cops were properly checked by these higher authorities we wouldn't be in this situation to begin with.
If These cops were properly checked by these higher authorities we wouldn't be in this situation to begin with.
> How many times do systemic abuses need to be brought to light before you warrant cynicism as the default?
The number of occurrences is not important unless paired with total opportunity for occurrences.
Ten out of a hundred is pretty damn bad, but ten out of a billion is a statistical rounding error.
It's up to you to decide whether you want to make arguments to sway people by emotion and based on popular opinion or based on facts. To be clear, you may be completely right in this case (I don't know the statistics), but it's up to you to decide whether you're happier winning an argument or being right, because how you argue the point will often tend to put you in one of those categories from the beginning.
The number of occurrences is not important unless paired with total opportunity for occurrences.
Ten out of a hundred is pretty damn bad, but ten out of a billion is a statistical rounding error.
It's up to you to decide whether you want to make arguments to sway people by emotion and based on popular opinion or based on facts. To be clear, you may be completely right in this case (I don't know the statistics), but it's up to you to decide whether you're happier winning an argument or being right, because how you argue the point will often tend to put you in one of those categories from the beginning.
Police corruption and abuse are real. Failures of the justice system are real. We must also acknowledge that the system often works correctly, even in high profile cases. As I write this, there is a real chance the former president will serve jail time after a fair trial. The police who murdered George Floyd are in jail, and serious reforms were enacted as a result of their misconduct. It is healthy to sniff for corruption. It isn't healthy to smell it before it is there.
> The police who murdered George Floyd are in jail, and serious reforms were enacted as a result of their misconduct.
This is probably the highest profile situation that worked out as it should (with the PD firing the officers within 24 hours of the event). Oftentimes, this does not happen. Let's look at several high profile deaths:
Eric Garner - no indictments, no charges.
Michael Brown - County, DA, DOJ all declined to press charges.
Tamir Rice - all charges declined.
Laquan MacDonald - officer guilty of second degree murder, released 3 years in to a 7 year sentence.
Walter Scott - officer found not guilty of murder, guilty of violating federal civil rights. State dropped charges.
Freddie Grey - six officers charged, three cases dropped, three acquitted. DOJ declined charges.
Philando Castile - officer acquitted of manslaughter despite their own bodycam (but to your point, he was charged).
Justine Damond - shot after calling 911 to report being raped. Officer convicted of murder and manslaughter, murder overturned on appeal.
Breonna Taylor - no charges filed, and officials stated it was justified because someone else was firing at them. One officer convicted of negligence after shooting at entirely the wrong home.
Many of the above charges also only came about after significant public protest over PD/DA/DOJ initially declining any charges or denying there was any issue.
> As I write this, there is a real chance the former president will serve jail time after a fair trial.
You are entirely too optimistic. Realistically, at best, he will be placed under limited house arrest.
This is probably the highest profile situation that worked out as it should (with the PD firing the officers within 24 hours of the event). Oftentimes, this does not happen. Let's look at several high profile deaths:
Eric Garner - no indictments, no charges.
Michael Brown - County, DA, DOJ all declined to press charges.
Tamir Rice - all charges declined.
Laquan MacDonald - officer guilty of second degree murder, released 3 years in to a 7 year sentence.
Walter Scott - officer found not guilty of murder, guilty of violating federal civil rights. State dropped charges.
Freddie Grey - six officers charged, three cases dropped, three acquitted. DOJ declined charges.
Philando Castile - officer acquitted of manslaughter despite their own bodycam (but to your point, he was charged).
Justine Damond - shot after calling 911 to report being raped. Officer convicted of murder and manslaughter, murder overturned on appeal.
Breonna Taylor - no charges filed, and officials stated it was justified because someone else was firing at them. One officer convicted of negligence after shooting at entirely the wrong home.
Many of the above charges also only came about after significant public protest over PD/DA/DOJ initially declining any charges or denying there was any issue.
> As I write this, there is a real chance the former president will serve jail time after a fair trial.
You are entirely too optimistic. Realistically, at best, he will be placed under limited house arrest.
> We must also acknowledge that the system often works correctly
Any system that treats non-violent drug offenders as hardcore criminals may be a system that is working correctly (as designed) but is not working justly.
Any system that treats non-violent drug offenders as hardcore criminals may be a system that is working correctly (as designed) but is not working justly.
This is changing the subject. My point was that 1) corruption exists and 2) it is not (in my opinion) a dominant factor in the justice system.
Regarding drug use: I do not think I have a right to tell other people what to put in their mouth / nose / whatever. It should be legal to use recreational drugs, just as it is legal to do many other very stupid things.
Regarding drug use: I do not think I have a right to tell other people what to put in their mouth / nose / whatever. It should be legal to use recreational drugs, just as it is legal to do many other very stupid things.
[deleted]
Please explain how one can use any illicit hard drug without causing harm to others. Just because addicts aren’t killing people themselves doesn’t mean their actions have no consequences.
(I say this as an opioid addict myself who will forever have to wrestle with the money I gave to violent cartels to support my habit.)
(I say this as an opioid addict myself who will forever have to wrestle with the money I gave to violent cartels to support my habit.)
If someone is growing magic mushrooms for their own consumption, how does that harm anyone at all?
I've always believed that the pushback against private consumption of mind-altering substances is due to the puritanism underlying American culture.
“Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” - H.L. Mencken
“Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” - H.L. Mencken
Is it only American tho? Lots of countries in Asia have death penalties for drug crime.
A lot of those sentiments probably trace back to Britain introducing opium to China and the resulting damage of that
A have opioid addicted friends that just order their supply from off-shore pharmacies that ship genuine meds - they aren't hurting anybody, well, other than the US government by avoiding having to pay tax on medication.
[deleted]
Their investigation is 'find out if the newspaper broke the law', not 'find out how a judge signed off on a totally insuffincent search warrant on a newspaper that may be a smokescreen to stop their investigation into the newly appointed chief who may have been allowed to quit before their were fired for sexual misconduct at their previous job'.
I'll go with cynical here.
I'll go with cynical here.
They are investigating the entire situation, including the circumstances behind the search.
[deleted]
I guess we will see.
The police chief is new and not from Kansas. The KBI nothing to gain by covering for him.
Cynicism is warranted, as there's a conflict of interest. Hope my comment doesn't imply deafeatism or anything, but for 'local' 'small town' corruption, I wouldn't trust the county or even the state to do be impartial as the phrase 'small world' has a completely different meaning. I'd prefer the feds to step in, that's all. Why is that considered cynical when the DOJ in the past has investigated countless civil rights violations by local or state level institutions?
I'm also tired of cynicism, but this is a useful comment pointing out a valid conflict of interest, and suggesting a better alternative ("I'd prefer the federal government to take the lead here"). It's not just a lazy "don't engage, don't vote, nothing will ever get better" type of comment, which is probably what you're actually tired of.
In this case the cynicism is warranted. There is a HUGE conflict of interest here.
I get it but nobody should blindly trust authority. They must earn our trust.
Right...which is what state investigators are in the process of doing.
The KBI director's early comments on the case were borderline retarded, and the Kansas Attorney General came out publicly in defense of those comments. I imagine things will work out okay, since the law appears to be pretty thoroughly against law enforcement here, but let's not pretend it's not idiots all the way down.
I think it should be the Federal Gov that takes the lead, but I guess in reality all lLaw Enforcement Orgs would have fully support this raid and want to do a lot more. Probably with the New York Times and the Washington Post at the top of the list.
With the current US Court System, I expect this will be allowed if this raid ever gets to the Supreme Court.
With the current US Court System, I expect this will be allowed if this raid ever gets to the Supreme Court.
> With the current US Court System, I expect this will be allowed if this raid ever gets to the Supreme Court.
What do you mean?
What do you mean?
The current USSC is very politicized and wanting to enact their form of justice that departs strongly with jurisprudence as it has been understood for decades.
In short they want to legislate from the bench.
In short they want to legislate from the bench.
What do you mean departing from jurisprudence? Are you saying that overturning precedent is a departure from jurisprudence? If that is the case, then you would be incorrect that it is a departure that has been understood for decades. Here is a list: https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overru...
> The current USSC is very politicized
How so?
> departs strongly with jurisprudence as it has been understood for decades
How so?
> they want to legislate from the bench
How so?
How so?
> departs strongly with jurisprudence as it has been understood for decades
How so?
> they want to legislate from the bench
How so?
They mean that the Supreme Court is a fascist institution that will always side with the police.
I passed 3 bar exams -- my default rule of thumb for the multiple-choice questions was that the Supreme Court would always side against the little guy when law enforcement was involved.
I passed 3 bar exams -- my default rule of thumb for the multiple-choice questions was that the Supreme Court would always side against the little guy when law enforcement was involved.
>the Supreme Court would always side against the little guy when law enforcement was involved.
That's not accurate.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-564
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/533/27/
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/new-york-state-r...
That's not accurate.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-564
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/533/27/
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/new-york-state-r...
Maybe always being the word getting your research gears engaged. What does the reverse look like where the cases were ruled in favor of law enforcement? If the 4 examples pale to the new number, I'd be willing to say always myself
Scrolling through the decisions since Ginsburg was replaced with Barret, the cases that dealt with police have gone as follows:
* Lange v. California (police in hot pursuit of a suspect conduct warrantless entry) 9-0 in favor of the suspect
* United States v. Cooley 9-0 that tribal officers can stop non-natives on tribal land. Technically pro-police, but this really isn't so much a police issue as tribal sovereignty issue.
* Taylor v. Riojas 7-1 correctional officers did not in fact hold qualified immunity
In general, recent SCOTUS decisions have generally tended to land in favor of criminal defendants with regards to 4th Amendment violations. However, where SCOTUS has tended to land strongly against criminal defendants is in regards to post-conviction reconsideration, e.g. something like https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/court-blocks-pathway-for-....
* Lange v. California (police in hot pursuit of a suspect conduct warrantless entry) 9-0 in favor of the suspect
* United States v. Cooley 9-0 that tribal officers can stop non-natives on tribal land. Technically pro-police, but this really isn't so much a police issue as tribal sovereignty issue.
* Taylor v. Riojas 7-1 correctional officers did not in fact hold qualified immunity
In general, recent SCOTUS decisions have generally tended to land in favor of criminal defendants with regards to 4th Amendment violations. However, where SCOTUS has tended to land strongly against criminal defendants is in regards to post-conviction reconsideration, e.g. something like https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/court-blocks-pathway-for-....
>Maybe always being the word getting your research gears engaged.
Yes, but I've been following legal decisions since it was obvious there were severe issues with many local jurisdictions. The current SCOTUS seems to be pretty strong regarding rights lately, Roe being the exception.
>What does the reverse look like where the cases were ruled in favor of law enforcement?
I dunno, maybe point out some recent decisions you don't like, lets discuss them.
Yes, but I've been following legal decisions since it was obvious there were severe issues with many local jurisdictions. The current SCOTUS seems to be pretty strong regarding rights lately, Roe being the exception.
>What does the reverse look like where the cases were ruled in favor of law enforcement?
I dunno, maybe point out some recent decisions you don't like, lets discuss them.
> Roe being the exception.
What do you mean?
What do you mean?
> the Supreme Court is a fascist institution
> that will always side with the police
Both claims are false.
> that will always side with the police
Both claims are false.
There is no reason to think this would ever go to the supreme court.
> I think it should be the Federal Gov that takes the lead
The federal government isn't exactly the best people to go at when it comes to the protection of journalists ans whistle blowers...
The federal government isn't exactly the best people to go at when it comes to the protection of journalists ans whistle blowers...
I agree. KS resident here, I do have to say I've been pleased with the KBI. Their cooperation and contributions have been instrumental in solving some very difficult cases from murderers to corrupt politicians.
Isn't Ensey the guy whose family owns the hotel/liquor license that started all of this?