Judge rules SWAT raid over parody Twitter account of mayor completely justified.

[Barnabas]

The good news is that this guy ought to be able to get some good money out of the lawsuit. It clearly falls under Illegal Search and Seizure, and also Parody is clearly defined as free speech (Though I didnt check to see if it was labelled as parody or was intended to be fake from the get go)

Either way, super illegal.

Police can say the marijuana was out in the open and it's admissible. This is even if the warrant wasn't specifically looking for drugs. They took everything that had an internet connection so they could legally search the entire house for said equipment. The weed was just a freebie. The room mate that did the twitter account is the dick in this situation not the police.

[Jokerfiend]

So had they found evidence that he murdered some kid that died mysteriously a few years ago, you would still want them to just ignore that?

No, but Murder isn't ignorable.

There are levels of crimes, anything leading to rape, kidnapping, murder, or sabotage cannot be ignored, but the rest SHOULD be.

- - - Updated - - -

Police can say the marijuana was out in the open and it's admissible. This is even if the warrant wasn't specifically looking for drugs. The room mate that did that is the dick in this situation not the police.

It wasn't out in the open, as they shouldn't have been there to begin with. It's false pretense. It isn't like Police were duped or misinformed about a warrant, and had rights to be there for the crime they were searching for.

They weren't searching for a crime, thus, anything will be dropped.

[Barnabas]

No, but Murder isn't ignorable.

There are levels of crimes, anything leading to rape, kidnapping, murder, or sabotage cannot be ignored, but the rest SHOULD be.

- - - Updated - - -



It wasn't out in the open, as they shouldn't have been there to begin with. It's false pretense. It isn't like Police were duped or misinformed about a warrant, and had rights to be there for the crime they were searching for.

They weren't searching for a crime, thus, anything will be dropped.

They had a warrant to search the premises. It doesn't matter if it was the right guy. If they didn't find weed they would've left the guy alone. The judge said it was admissible.

[Rukentuts]

Impersonation for the purposes of fraud is different than for satire.

Dunno how credible this site is.

http://www.skokiecriminallawyer.com/...rsonation.html

[ringpriest]

Apparently nobody taught this judge the spirit of the law.

Nor did anyone stop to think, that a mayor being upset is not grounds for a search warrant.

The worse the US government becomes, from the top in DC down to the smallest localities, the more it will hate and fear well-executed (and well-deserved) mockery.

[namelessone]

They had a warrant to search the premises. It doesn't matter if it was the right guy. If they didn't find weed they would've left the guy alone. The judge said it was admissible.

The argument is whether judge is right or not. He's not right by virtue of being judge alone.

[Jokerfiend]

They had a warrant to search the premises. It doesn't matter if it was the right guy. If they didn't find weed they would've left the guy alone. The judge said it was admissible.

It's not the fact they were in there. It's why they were in there. They shouldn't be there to begin with, thus, at fault and it will be thrown out.

[Kellhound]

The only person that should be charged is the mayor.

[Xar226]

Would you sing the same tune if they had found evidence of a more serious crime?

It doesn't matter what tune he chooses to sing. It's called the exclusionary rule: You don't get to use evidence you found through an illegal search against somebody. They could have found bodies and it wouldn't be admissible in court if the search was illegal.

SWAT team over fake twitter seems excessive, but impersonating someone IS a crime.

Parody has always been a protected form of free speech in the United States.

- - - Updated - - -

To those who think there's more to the story: Sadly, there is not. I heard this story in all its ridiculous details a couple of months ago, and the reality is that there was nothing extra. The Mayor was pissed off, he called the police chief and told him to find something to charge this guy with. The chief originally came back and said there was nothing. Mayor got pissed again, cops kept looking, found a law that might apply, got a judge to sign off based on it, police investigation. Afterward they found out the law does not apply.

The original story as laid out through Freedom of Information Act requests to the city:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...p-in-his-face/

[Neganova]

I actually just read about this in a Cracked article today: http://www.cracked.com/article_21456...astrophes.html

It's entry number 2.

And if you're feeling heroic, you can even click on the links within the articles for their sources.

[Jokerfiend]

It doesn't matter what tune he chooses to sing. It's called the exclusionary rule: You don't get to use evidence you found through an illegal search against somebody. They could have found bodies and it wouldn't be admissible in court if the search was illegal.



Parody has always been a protected form of free speech in the United States.

- - - Updated - - -

To those who think there's more to the story: Sadly, there is not. I heard this story in all its ridiculous details a couple of months ago, and the reality is that there was nothing extra. The Mayor was pissed off, he called the police chief and told him to find something to charge this guy with. The chief originally came back and said there was nothing. Mayor got pissed again, cops kept looking, found a law that might apply, got a judge to sign off based on it, police investigation. Afterward they found out the law does not apply.

The original story as laid out through Freedom of Information Act requests to the city:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...p-in-his-face/

If that latter is the case, then it's open and shut. It ruined this guy's life, regardless, and he will be compensated by malicious prosecution.

[Kasierith]

You'd have to show some kind of personal gain being made through deceit to go from satire to impersonating.

This would be false. "A Peoria judge this week ruled that the police were entitled to raid the house on North University Street on 15 April under the town’s “false personation” law which makes it illegal to pass yourself off as a public official. Judge Thomas Keith found that police had probable cause to believe they would find materials relevant to the Twitter feed such as computers or flash drives used to create it." A standing law validated the search. In terms of civil law, you do not have to have made personal gains in order to be legally liable for impersonating another individual... as long as you are doing it with malicious intent. In terms of stealing someone's picture and passing it off as yourself, for example, it would not make one legally vulnerable if they used the picture and nothing else, not the name or pretending to be the actual person... but using their picture and their personal information to make others believe you are that person and then working to sabotage that individual, regardless of personal gain, is vulnerable, and has precedents as such.

While I would agree that the war on drugs is a waste of money and ultimately harms more than helps society, it was a police search validated by standing laws of the city, and they are within their rights to extent further charges based on what they find on site.

- - - Updated - - -

Parody has always been a protected form of free speech in the United States.

The judge who signed off on it at the time apparently disagreed. Because the judge validated the search, the search was valid, and they were legally permitted to apply other charges based on what they found on site.

[Kellhound]

This would be false. "A Peoria judge this week ruled that the police were entitled to raid the house on North University Street on 15 April under the town’s “false personation” law which makes it illegal to pass yourself off as a public official. Judge Thomas Keith found that police had probable cause to believe they would find materials relevant to the Twitter feed such as computers or flash drives used to create it." A standing law validated the search. In terms of civil law, you do not have to have made personal gains in order to be legally liable for impersonating another individual... as long as you are doing it with malicious intent. In terms of stealing someone's picture and passing it off as yourself, for example, it would not make one legally vulnerable if they used the picture and nothing else, not the name or pretending to be the actual person... but using their picture and their personal information to make others believe you are that person and then working to sabotage that individual, regardless of personal gain, is vulnerable, and has precedents as such.

While I would agree that the war on drugs is a waste of money and ultimately harms more than helps society, it was a police search validated by standing laws of the city, and they are within their rights to extent further charges based on what they find on site.

- - - Updated - - -



The judge who signed off on it at the time apparently disagreed. Because the judge validated the search, the search was valid, and they were legally permitted to apply other charges based on what they found on site.

Technically, it is only a valid search if it survives appeal.

[Gheld]

Dunno how credible this site is.

http://www.skokiecriminallawyer.com/...rsonation.html

Well if a gwone up says it's the law then the case is settled.

There's no such thing as a shitty and misguided law, or the abuse thereof.

[Deleted]

#justmurica, move along nothing interesting to see here.

[Dendrek]

Another victory in the War on Drugs!

No one ever talks about the real victims: we internet goers who have to read about it all the time.

[prwraith]

The judge who signed off on it at the time apparently disagreed. Because the judge validated the search, the search was valid, and they were legally permitted to apply other charges based on what they found on site.

That's the crux of the issue isn't it. Simply because a judge said so does not make it correct though. We have some horrible incompetent judges these days, and thank god for appeals and judicial review.

Constitutional amendment trumps down law for false impersonation though. If parody is clearly defined as a free speech issue, that towns law is null and void by virtue of being unconstitutional. Making said search an illegal search and any evidence found the results of an illegal search and inadmissible.

[Rukentuts]

Well if a gwone up says it's the law then the case is settled.

There's no such thing as a shitty and misguided law, or the abuse thereof.

Shitty law and shitty enforcement are two different things my point was. Therefore the blame either goes on the legislators or cops, respectively.

[Lyese]

Its a federal felony to sign up for stuff online intending to impersonate someone else, but I don't know whether this falls under that or not.

Parody is protected speech. I think even Twitter recognizes parody accounts as parody, but I'm not on it.

- - - Updated - - -

The judge who signed off on it at the time apparently disagreed. Because the judge validated the search, the search was valid, and they were legally permitted to apply other charges based on what they found on site.

That's grounds for either getting the search thrown out of court or an appeal all the way up through the system. Precedent's already been set.