Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Phoenix Police Seize PCs of a Blogger Critical of the Department

Posted by Soulskill on from the check-and-mate dept.

logicassasin sends in a story about a blogger in Phoenix, AZ, who runs a site that is critical of the local police department. The police recently raided his home and seized his computer hardware. "Jeff Pataky, who runs Bad Phoenix Cops, said the officers confiscated three computers, routers, modems, hard drives, memory cards and everything necessary to continue blogging. The 41-year-old software engineer said they also confiscated numerous personal files and documents relating to a pending lawsuit he has against the department alleging harassment — which he says makes it obvious the raid was an act of retaliation." A local publication quotes Pataky saying, "We have heard internally from our police sources that they purposefully did this to stop me... They took my cable modem and wireless router. Anyone worth their salt knows nothing is stored in the cable modem."

22 of 515 comments (clear)

  1. Cable modem... by unts · · Score: 5, Funny

    Anyone worth their salt knows nothing is stored in the cable modem.

    Which is exactly why I've stuck a flash drive in mine that I can run a USB cable to when I want to do some "backups to my modem".
     
    Wink wink.

  2. Phoenix has done screwed up. by pecosdave · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This guy's obviously already been in court. ACLU time, and even up to the supreme court. The Phoenix police department is about to get a federal raping.

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    1. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by mysidia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unfortunately, it seems that if you want to blog and say anything remotely negative about the Phoenix police department, you better move out of Phoenix first.

      This is tyrannical, a clear abuse of power. Everyone aware and responsible for this farce and the reason for the seizure needs to be jailed.

      Apparently the standards and scrutiny imposed to ensure "probable cause" for a search before a warrant can be issued (or before a search can be done) aren't high enough.

    2. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by falconwolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Uhm, if he's already been to court, doesn't it stand the chance that maybe he's doing something wrong and deserves what he's getting?

      Yes, he was in court before. Because he filed a lawsuit against them.

      Cops don't just randomly pick people to pick on, even the most corrupt cops. They are after all, people, and for the most part they have better things to do, until you make yourself a target.

      Except it wasn't random and he didn't make himself a target. He went through a bad divorce and his ex filed a lot of complaints against him. According to TFA some of the complaints happened when he was out of town.

      Perhaps, just maybe, the slashdot assumption that a blogger did no wrong, is infact, wrong.

      People are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty not the other way around.

      This guy is doing exactly what any liar does, just like a politician does. Screams as loudly as possible to anyone who will listen that he has been wronged and trying to drag in a bunch of support from people who don't know what actually happened because all they've heard is his one sided bullshit story that paints him to be a saint.

      The innocent should do the same thing, scream as loud as they could when wronged.

      Falcon

      --
      Should there be a Law?
    3. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by ultranova · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Assuming the guy didn't deserve it. You don't know why they did it. All you know is that this guy claims they are singling him out.

      True, we don't know anything with certainty. However, it sure is mighty suspicious when authority raids the home of someone critical of said authority.

      Why the fuck do you idiots assume he is telling the truth? Innocent until proven guilt, no argument there, but no where does that statement say that you BELIEVE WHAT THEY SAY until proven guilty.

      It is incoherent to simultaneously assume someone not guilty and not believe them when they say they are, in fact, not guilty.

      I hate to tell you this but most of the time when you get attacked on this level, its because you did something wrong in the first place.

      Do you have some statistics to back that claim?

      For all you know they 'blogging' could be a front for a local child porn ring.

      Why would a child porn ring need a "front"? What could the blog possibly offer their operations? And if this hypothetical criminal organization needed a front, why choose one that was bound to attract police attention?

      If you're going to go making wild accusations with no basis whatsoever, at least make them somewhat plausible.

      Only on slashdot with a bunch of paranoid 12 year olds would the first reaction to be that he was completely innocent and the cops were wrong.

      So why read this forum? Go back to 4chan and learn to troll properly. Or did they ban you from there already? Or just laugh you out?

      Another hint, if you start poking a sleeping bear with a stick, the bear eventually will wake up and eat your ass for breakfast. I suspect his blogging resulted in roughly the same result.

      Here in Finland we shoot man-eating beasts as threats to public safety rather than give them a badge and a gun. But I guess that in Capitalist America, the beast shoots you !-)

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    4. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by Jerry · · Score: 5, Informative

      I was once told, point blank, by a captain of the New Castle police department that, quote "his job was not to protect me from criminals, his job was to arrest me for not toeing the line."

      He probably told you that because he is a psychopath with a badge and a gun.

      But, according the the Supreme Court, he is correct.

      The seminal case establishing the general rule that police have no duty under federal law to protect citizens is DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (109 S.Ct. 998, 1989; 489 U.S. 189 (1989)).

      http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1976377/posts:
      "Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole."

      "It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."

      Sources:

      7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES
      On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales' husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales' family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one's individual protection. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN FOLKS AND GOVERNMENT BODIES ARE REFUSING TO PASS THE Safety Ordinance.

      (1) Richard W. Stevens. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Hartford, Wisconsin: Mazel Freedom Press.

      (2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).

      (3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).

      (4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).

      (5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).

      (6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
      "...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)

      (7) "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her."
      Riss"Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your f

      --

      Running with Linux for over 20 years!

  3. No one left to speak for me by MinistryOfTruthiness · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When the Police came for the bloggers,
    I remained silent;
    I was not a blogger.

    Then they locked up the rich,
    I remained silent;
    I was not rich.

    Then they came for the gun owners,
    I did not speak out;
    I was not a gun owner.

    Then they came for the press,
    I did not speak out;
    I was not a member of the press.

    When they came for me,
    there was no one left to speak out for me.

    --
    "I know that every word that man just said is true, because it's EXACTLY what I wanted to hear." -- Space Ghost
    1. Re:No one left to speak for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Then they locked up the rich,

      Fail.

    2. Re:No one left to speak for me by KingSkippus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You, sir, are an idiot. Or a troll, but really, I'm leaning strongly towards idiot.

      It's just that stupid "don't fuck with people in power" attitude that has plagued this country for years. If everyone had your idiotic attitude, the ghost of Richard Nixon would still be President after everyone completely ignored Watergate, allowed him to toss out the Constitution, and declare himself leader ever after. It's idiots like you who elected George W. (as in, "What do you mean the law applies to me too?") Bush, who then—you guessed it—tossed out the Constitution and conducted a reign of scaremongering with the threat that if you spoke out against him (or just had a Muslim-sounding name, you were a terrorist who could be packed up and shipped to Egypt, Syria, or some other godforsaken part of the world and tortured or killed. Hell, with that attitude, we'd still be a fucking British colony, you moron.

      If the guy did something illegal, then let them prove it. As it is, though, all indications so far that the police are guilty as sin of gross abuse of power, and if so, every damn one of them who were involved in this should be heavily fined, jailed, and never allowed to work for law enforcement again.

      If you RTFA (reported by the Arizona Republic, you idiot, not just "some bloggers"), you'll see that a former homicide detective who is speaking out about crime lab mismanagement was also targeted. Of course, I guess that just falls under the "he should have just shut up and let the police do any damn thing they want" umbrella that is your philosophy on people who have the legal right to kill you.

      I'm not even going to try to explain how law enforcement must necessarily be held to a higher standard of not retaliating when people do things that aren't illegal no matter how much they don't like it. I'm afraid it might explode your tiny little brain that can't comprehend that things like accountability and the right to free speech is a little more complicated than poking a bear with a pointy stick. Maybe we'll get lucky and some policeman who you pissed off will throw you in a cage with a hungry bear just because he can, then maybe you'll realize how stupid and facetious your analogy really is.

  4. Backfired! by Tryle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is what happens when panic'd decisions are made. The police force thinks they can go in and silence the whole thing with a BS warrant and put an end to it, only for the story to be picked up nation wide and now they're drawing way more attention than ever.

    Serves them right. This looks like a clear cut abuse of power by the department and now that the story is national, hopefully some heads will roll.

    1. Re:Backfired! by langelgjm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The real question is, who's the judge who signed the warrant?

      If the guy's done nothing wrong, the department either fabricated information in requesting the warrant, in which case heads should roll, or the judge is incompetent, in which case the judge should be fired.

      --
      "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    2. Re:Backfired! by hot+soldering+iron · · Score: 5, Informative

      You forgot the other option: There wasn't any warrant issued. I happened to "see" a raid executed several years ago without a warrant (in Dallas). When we asked to see it, the cop in charge said,"Don't worry, we'll have one by the time we get to the jail." I spent 4 days in a holding cell before being released with all charges dropped against me. My friend wound up in court with a disbelieving judge catching the arresting cops in lies, and who dismissed the whole case after 15 min of police testimony. It still cost my friend several months and thousands of dollars for his lawyer to prepare a defense.

      That absolutely killed ANY trust in the legal system (there is no JUSTICE in it).

      --
      When you want something built, come see me. If you want correct grammar and spelling, get a F*ing liberal arts student.
  5. What the police were really after, by fava · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Harassing a critic is just a bonus, what the police really wanted was the names of the internal informants so that they can be silenced.

    No informants = No credible criticism.

  6. We need to start passing laws... by linzeal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...to explicitly layout stronger civil and criminal penalties for abuse of office in the US.

        Use of the office to start an unjustified war, death and 50 million dollars or 50% of your wealth whichever is greater.

        Use of the office to murder, death and 50% of assets.

        Use of the office to take bribes, death and repayment of any contracts lost by competing companies.

        Use of the office to facilitate violence or cause violence against a person, 25 years to life.

        Use of the office to intimidate, threaten or harass, 15 years.

        Use of the office to deny someone their constitutional rights, 5 years.

        Anyone want to help get this on the ballot in 50 states while we still have the populist fervor going?

        Public servants need to be held to a higher standard because of the amount of power they have been given. If we continue allowing politicians and police to be above the law than we have lost our way as a people. We need to remake the laws so that this sort of thing carries penalties that these police officers and district attorneys will be forced to reckon with when they demonstrably are routinely operating as criminals with badges and warrants.

    --
    An Education is the Font of All Liberty
  7. To quote a fellow slashdotter's sig: by ternarybit · · Score: 5, Funny

    Orwell got everything right except the year. The Thought Police are now a reality, at least in Phoenix.

    1. Re:To quote a fellow slashdotter's sig: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To quote another slashdotter's sig:

      Please read 1984 before commenting on 1984.

  8. We should be glad... by fjo3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...that law enforcement agencies are still foolish enough to harass people in such a public and blatant way. Over time they will gain more technical expertise and find other, more difficult to detect, methods of harassing citizens who dare to criticize them. I fear the day when the police get a little bit smarter about disguising their abuses of power. Until then it will continue to be relatively easy to bring the enforcers of law to justice.

  9. Re:The real question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I am so glad I do not live in Phoenix anymore. My friend who has HIV was on his way to the doctors when he got pulled over and arrested for a suspicion of a DUI and had to spend 24 hours without his medicine. They laughed at him in his holding cell and said things like, "Cold enough for you faggot?" when he started shivering from lack of his meds. If you are considering raising a family there remember Phoenix is one of the #1 places in the country for shooting underage suspects, often unarmed. Almost no one ever gets prosecuted for police misconduct there. Scary fucking place.

  10. Re:More by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Possibly. But the chilling effect on possible informants is real. And having people with guns show up at your house and root through your possessions is always disturbing. There's also the opportunity to plant evidence, or to find evidence of an unrelated and real offense, however minor, to continue to bother our blogger with.

  11. grain of salt by fermion · · Score: 5, Interesting
    First, as shown the power of the government is out of control. Homeland security and the like began this trend, and people were happy with it which certain parties were in power because it was used to harass certain other parties they did not like. However, in America giving too much power to the government is dangerous because control shifts and such expansions of power can come back and bite you in the ass. Given that the second hit on google news for this story on a site that advertises the item "The Obama Deception" and has many survivalist stuff, one might assume that the slant in the story is derived from one being hoisted on one's own petard. To be fair though, it seems like the site does speak out against government excesses in general, but it did have a Nazi ad at one reload.

    Second, this appears to be a simple domestic dispute. Guy gets a divorce and wife starts accusing him of what he says are false claims. Judge, probably just seeing that this couple can't stand each other, and probably does not want to waste time sorting out the truth, just drops the charges. Who knows who is telling the truth in such cases. I know people who have been accused of cutting other peoples phones off to harass them. I know for a fact that they didn't do it how can you prove it one way or another?

    So what does this guy do. Start collecting 'tips' from persons inside the department and posting these accusations online. OK, that makes sense, you get slandered by unsubstantiated charges, so you go out and do the same? This is a good way to make friends with the police. Tell the world that one of them is a child molester, even though it may or may not be true. I telling you this is what I live for. Trying to do my job by helping two people that are too immature and uncivilized to get along with each other, I mean the police are required to investigate any reasonable charge, and then what do I get. My face plastered on the internet as a child molester. Oh yeah, that brightens my day.

    Predictably this guy goes too far and gets himself in trouble and the police uses the excuse to take out a problem. Again, overkill, but so is calling a soon-to-be cop a child molester on the internet is not the way to go, especially when all the documentation is apparently yet to be delivered.

    Arizona seems to have it's share of messed up policing, but there must be a better way to go about this than ranting on the internet with unsubstantiated claims.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  12. Re:The real question is by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How long before people understand the Streisand Effect??

    Perhaps it is too soon, but a search on Google news suggests that this story is getting little attention in news media.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  13. Eugene, Oregon too... by AmigaHeretic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gr4RsI2V6Y

    Check out the video. Some college kids from the UofO are out in the "Ken Kezzie Free Speech" plaza in Eugene protesting the spraying of pesticides and get harassed by the cops and the taserd.

    I mean look at the kids out there, 18 or 19, doing one of the great things about this country and that is letting you're thoughts be voiced.

    This is crazy!