Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Louisiana Sheriff Who Raided Blogger Criticizing Him Found To Have Acted Unconstitutionally.

This is an update to a story I blogged about a few weeks ago.

Looks like there is a lawsuit comin' yer way now Sheriff.

Good.

Sheriff’s Raid to Find Blogger Who Criticized Him Was Unconstitutional, Court Rules


AN APPELLATE COURT in Baton Rouge ruled Thursday that a raid on a police officer’s house in search of the blogger who had accused the sheriff of corruption was unconstitutional.

The Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeals argued that Sheriff Jerry Larpenter’s investigation into the blog ExposeDAT had flawed rationale: the alleged defamation was not actually a crime as applied to a public official.

The unanimous ruling from the three-judge panel comes after police officer Wayne Anderson and his wife Jennifer Anderson were denied assistance in local and federal court.

“I love it when justice is tangible,” Jerri Smitko, one of the Andersons’ laywers, told The Intercept.

“With that piece of paper it says that what they did was unconstitutional — that’s a great feeling because you’re holding it in your hand and it’s vindication for people that they intended to oppress,” she added.

The raid was sparked by the sheriff’s investigation into who was behind the anonymous blog that accused local officials, including him, of corruption and fraud. Through a blog and a Facebook page called “John Turner,” ExposeDAT used public records to show conflicts of interest.

The sheriff sought warrants when Tony Alford, a local business owner, filed a criminal complaint about the blog. On August 2, Larpenter and his deputies raided the Andersons’ house after they traced the IP address of the John Turner Facebook page through a warrant to AT&T.

The information AT&T provided, according to an affidavit, gave the sheriff an address and a name: Wayne Anderson.

The court found that the raid on the Andersons’ house was unjustified. “Anthony Alford, the supposed victim, is president of the Terrebonne Parish Levee and Conservation Board of Louisiana, and a public official,” the decision read. “Consequently, the search warrant lacks probable cause because the conduct complained of is not a criminally actionable offense.”

The ruling said that when applied to public officials, like Alford, the criminal defamation statute is unconstitutional.

Smitko said she now plans to go to the Terrebonne Parish Court and retrieve Anderson and his family’s electronic devices.

“I certainly believe that my clients have been damaged by this unconstitutional action,” Smitko said. “They’ve been deprived of their rights, and I anticipate that we’ll be meeting shortly to discuss pursuing a claim for damages against the parties involved.”

The electronic devices were being held for an investigation that was in the hands of the Louisiana attorney general. Now, the case is closed.

“We respect the First Circuit decision, we have no plans to appeal, and as far as the attorney general is concerned, the case is closed,” Ruth Wisher, press secretary for the attorney general, told The Intercept.

I saved the best part for last,

On August 15, Larpenter was supposed to be honored for his service to the community by being inducted into the Louisiana Justice Hall of Fame. The ceremony was rescheduled because of flooding.


He is obviously a paragon of justice.
Cough, cough.

3 comments:

Glenn B said...

The blatant corruption within a lot of law enforcement agencies/departments is absolutely mind boggling. That they then try to use the law to destroy the whistle blowers is heinous to say the least.

Peter said...

Yeah, I had pretty much the same reaction:

http://seeemilyplay.therealgunguys.com/?p=5379

Anonymous said...

Where is the link to the story that shows the Sheriff being lead away in hand cuffs for his day in court?
I'll settle for a recall vote just to get him out of office as he is THE highest law enforcement officer.
Not likely if he was corrupt, none of recipients of alleged corruption would want any changes.

Fair Use Notice

Fair Use Statement: This site may contain copyrighted material, the use of which may not have been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: “http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml” If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.