Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Man Arrested For Parodying Mayor On Twitter Files Civil Rights Lawsuit

Posted by timothy on from the and-how-will-this-play-out dept.

mpicpp (3454017) writes with an update from Ars Technica to this story: "The Illinois man who made headlines when he was detained for parodying the town's mayor on Twitter sued the Peoria politician and local police, claiming on Thursday that his civil rights were violated. As part of the April raid, the authorities seized the mobile phone and laptop of the 29-year-old prankster, Jonathan Daniel, and reviewed their contents, which he says was in violation of his First Amendment rights. Daniel, the operator of the @peoriamayor handle shut down by Twitter after the city threatened a lawsuit, was initially accused of impersonating a public official in violation of Illinois law. The authorities never lodged charges, however."

32 of 163 comments (clear)

  1. Shut up and take my money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is there a crowdfunding site where I can donate to his legal fund? I can't stand Illinois, and any time somebody scores a victory against the government there it brightens my day.

    1. Re:Shut up and take my money by Noah+Haders · · Score: 5, Funny

      you could mock the mayor on twitter. sounds like he deserves it.

    2. Re:Shut up and take my money by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

      I'm at 1060 w addison come and get me

    3. Re:Shut up and take my money by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In this case, it's an Illinois Republican. Elected with 100% of the vote, yet apparently has somewhat thin skin.

      And he's a numb skull if he thinks arrest is going to fly with higher courts. It's perfectly legal to parody a public official in the US.

      In fact, I'm pretty sure most of our elected officials are parodies of public servants.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Shut up and take my money by Frobnicator · · Score: 5, Informative

      I don't think you'll need to fund it. If you haven't read the PDF of his complaint, the listing of facts is surprisingly strong.

      Seriously, it is short, just read the few pages in the middle. Complaint in PDF.

      The claims include that there are written documents (probably email) between the mayor and the chief of police, where the mayor tells the cops to do something, the police chief says there is no legal basis, and the mayor tells him to do it anyway. Then the claims include that the cops made written statements (again, probably email) that show officers were ordered to arrest him, they balked saying there was no legal basis, but the police chief ordered it anyway. If he has those emails, that is rather damning.

      The list of claims continues by citing court records, where the police filed an empty form citing no probable cause even though the law requires proper documentation. Granting a warrant based on a blank probable cause statement is also pretty damning for those involved.

      If he actually has those papers, city officials and court officials declaring that they knew it was illegal but did it anyway, that is going to be hard for the individuals to deny.

      A few of them are likely just CYA papers, but if accurate, the exchange boils down to this: "Do this illegal thing." "Sorry boss, it is against the law." "I know it is against the law, do it anyway." If the allegations can be substantiated (and since the suit says those are all public official records, it should be easy to validate) then this case will be a quick settlement.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    5. Re:Shut up and take my money by Frobnicator · · Score: 2, Informative

      you could mock the mayor on twitter. sounds like he deserves it.

      The mayor already resigned. He's still being sued, but he is no longer in office.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    6. Re:Shut up and take my money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Same here, born in Pekin, moved to Peoria then realized the whole state sucks and left for Troy Michigan.

      After living here and then revisiting IL for Christmas every few years I realize how bad it really is there. I'll only be in town for like 2 or 3 days yet I'll be harassed by cops, have them randomly floor their cars screeching their tires while riding next to me then slam on the breaks and then speed back up next to me and stare at me.

      For no reason besides that I drive an Evo which is a very fast Turbo AWD rally car. I'll just be cruising and instantly get all sorts of harassment. North Pekin and Marquette Heights are the worst. Had a car fly up on me when a car was next to me.... Car behind has high beams on, I figured I'd speed up a tad to make room to move right so he could get past, soon as I did I get busted for my first speeding ticket at 18yrs old. He refuses to budge even after commenting that I "got away from them for 2 years so I must have it coming". Mind you this was my first ticket ever back when I drove a 95 Ford Escort and I have zero police records or interactions. All I did was politely move forward with my signal on to let an apparently faster car with high beams on by.....

      Every year I visit I tell my Fiance that something will happen somewhat mockingly.... then before our very eyes Illinois Police then start driving like thugs within our view. Running red lights and screeching their tires. Then they get behind some random car and then tailgate him about 1 inch from his bumper. After a few intersections they stop at 7-11 and spend 25 minutes there chatting it up. I actually stopped to watch them, then phoned in their car number to the sarge and explained to him what was going on. I've learned to fight fire with fire.

      Same night one comes up behind me in a drive thru which I had already been waiting at for nearly 15 minutes. I saw him coming down the road and suddenly he noticed my sports car. He whips 3 lanes to quickly turn at the intersection and into the restaurant parking lot to get behind me. Then he doesn't order anything, flies out right behind me as I'm done with my order and throws his lights on. I've literally moved like 10ft and haven't even had a chance to get up to 25mph. Then he rolls next to me, flips me off, then burns his tires back towards downtown and shuts his lights off....

      I swear it's like a freaking police state. literally. figuratively. essentially....... Then I go back to Michigan where everyone is friendly, non-judgemental, and most importantly I'm not guilty of anything by driving my Red Mustang Cobra or Lancer Evolution until I actually break a law. In IL I'm profiled and stopped before I can even break a law. Literally pulling me over out of a drive thru that I sat at for a long time. How could I possibly have deserved that?

      I've still yet to ever be arrested or actually taken to jail. Yet I've had like 10-15 police encounters in the years since living there and almost a guaranteed one every time I visit for 2 to 3 days ONCE A YEAR. Like clockwork they never fail to perform exactly as I mention.

      It's basically Jocks with guns at this point. Jackbooted thuggery,

    7. Re:Shut up and take my money by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Based upon that, the fellow is tackling the problem all wrong. First up should be a call to Federal Authorities to file a complaint for infringement of his civil rights and let them do all the heavy lifting. Once the Feds have successfully prosecuted the case, his civil suit then becomes a simple manner of negotiating out the value of the claim.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    8. Re:Shut up and take my money by dbIII · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I see this (like the insane Terry Childs situation) as yet another reason why having city police instead of just state and federal police is structurally unsound. A state police department could consider it as a request to arrest a potential lawbreaker while with city police it's an order from their boss with little or no oversight.

      And he's a numb skull if he thinks arrest is going to fly with higher courts

      I don't think he cares, the arrest alone is a punishment and a demonstration of "might makes right" Soviet style.

    9. Re:Shut up and take my money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      His criminal charges were dropped, the only legal stuff he has left is his lawsuit against the city which the ACLU is taking care of. I would suggest becoming a member of the ACLU and donating to them so that they can continue standing up for everyone's civil rights.

    10. Re:Shut up and take my money by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At this stage he probably doesn't have much confidence in law enforcement.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    11. Re:Shut up and take my money by JimSadler · · Score: 2

      I would not count on the Feds to help much at all. One tactic employed by the Feds is to take so long to open or investigate a situation that statutes can no longer be enforced. If it is a civil violation you may have a very short time to file a suit. The expense of such a suit may be crushing for you as well even if you win. On top of all of that state or county sovereignty rules may make such a suit next to impossible. This is the false promise of our legal system at work. How often do we see companies like Microsoft pay fines in the tens of millions of dollars. But these companies make more money than the fines cost them and it is actually an encouragement to keep on breaking the law. So you pay a 50 million dollar fine but you made 750 million by committing the illegal acts. Imagine a jury, composed of tax payers, who know full well that any significant law suit will increase their property taxes and other fees. In effect you are asking a jury to take money out of their own pockets. That rules out a big win.

    12. Re:Shut up and take my money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      > The mayor already resigned. He's still being sued, but he is no longer in office.

      That is false. Jim Ardis is still in office.

      It is the Chief of Police who resigned to take a job as head of north american security for Caterpillar where he is surely making even more money.

  2. A plague of lawyers seems appropriate by Crashmarik · · Score: 4, Funny

    punishment for officials who abuse their power. Sort of a use your enemies to fight each other strategy

  3. Jonathan Daniel won the legal lottery by sinij · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is open-and-shut case, and the only question is what the settlement and payout to Jonathan Daniel would be.

    1. Re:Jonathan Daniel won the legal lottery by JMJimmy · · Score: 2

      I don't think it is open and shut... perhaps for illegal search but they detained him legally, I believe, and released him without charge. The question is whether they had grounds to detain him. He can claim parody but there's not much indication of that. He used actual pictures of the man, made slanderous statements, and may have made claims to be the real mayor (not sure on this as I've not read the tweets). Very little of it seems parody-like from what I've read. I'll bet there will be a counter suit for slander if the statute of limitations hasn't run out.

    2. Re:Jonathan Daniel won the legal lottery by LordLucless · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Right - they never lodged charges, but they stole his stuff, and read his private papers anyway. That's sorta the whole point.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    3. Re:Jonathan Daniel won the legal lottery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      the question is not if they had grounds to detain him. You can FIND grounds to detain anyone. Searching his phone without a warrant though is (should be) serious trouble. The cops should have known better. And if you'd seen the tweets, it was pretty obvious this was NOT the mayor.... I think it has good standing as Parody, but IANAL.

    4. Re:Jonathan Daniel won the legal lottery by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Informative

      The fourth (warrant) doesn't really matter (and yes they did have one). This guy is claiming 1st amendment US constitution and article 1 section 4 of the Illinois state constitution here.

      He is saying he has a right to mock politicians. Even if they filed charges, his first amendment claims simply becomes a defense but it appears that the only charges they could file is if the fake account attempted to impersonate a government official in their official capacity. The problem here is that the comments or tweets were about smoking crack, eating pussy, and crap like that in response to the mayor's actions. For the law in question to apply, he would have had to say something like the mayors office is supporting the Gay KKK rally or something of the sorts that would make the public believe government was taking an action or position on something. But it appears to have all been personal degradation and character assassinations (which may open a civil suit but still would have no net effect on the first amendment claims).

    5. Re:Jonathan Daniel won the legal lottery by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 3, Informative

      It was listed as being a parody account several days before the raid.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    6. Re:Jonathan Daniel won the legal lottery by plover · · Score: 4, Informative

      But it appears to have all been personal degradation and character assassinations (which may open a civil suit but still would have no net effect on the first amendment claims).

      Libel laws have much tighter requirements in the case of a "public figure", where actual financial harm has to be proven. The (real) mayor can't simply claim "his false statements made me embarrassed, so I want $10,000 in pain and suffering", he has to show real losses, as in "when he claimed I smoked crack, my boss filled out an HR form that said they had to fire me because they couldn't have a drug user driving forklifts, so I was fired, and lost $10,000 in wages."

      --
      John
    7. Re:Jonathan Daniel won the legal lottery by Sabriel · · Score: 2

      He's not arguing they didn't have a warrant, he's arguing they didn't have the "probable cause" you bolded and they performed the "unreasonable searches and seizures" you didn't bold: in other words, that they didn't follow due process to obtain the warrant they used against him.

    8. Re:Jonathan Daniel won the legal lottery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      they detained him legally, I believe, and released him without charge

      False arrests need to be treated as felonies and the police responsible need to be placed in prison like other felons.

      With all of the thousands and thousands of laws which were designed to allow police and 'officials' to create charges out of thin air, none of them applied to this person. This person did absolutely nothing wrong in the eyes of the law, yet an armed paramilitary wing of the city government came to kick his door in. The problem with this paramilitary wing coming to kidnap you is that they have a checklist where they can start shooting you for 'officer safety' and get away with it. This checklist includes things such as 'he looked like a drug crazed domestic terrorist who had a firearm somewhere in the house' and 'he owned a dog'.

      Put the police in prison where they belong.

  4. Re:Is this still the Land of the Free ? by JMJimmy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Didn't you know? It's FREE*

    *With purchase of power, results may vary. By reading this you agree to give up all your legal rights.

  5. Re:Is this still the Land of the Free ? by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Funny

    Have they been stripped off by the Obama Administration, along with the Privacy of the citizens?

    They must have been, especially since the US had never ever seen any problems with corrupt local politicians before Obama became president!

  6. Let's hope its a section 1983 suit by dbc · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Section 1983 lawsuits for deprivation of civil rights under color of authority allows piercing the immunity of public officers and going after their personal assets. In this case, the mayor, and any of the police that participated. Their. Personal. Assets. Not the taxpayers.
    http://legal-dictionary.thefre...

  7. Left something out by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why does the summary not mention the name of the mayor? It's pertinent, no?

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Left something out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      the original poster didn't want to be arrested.

  8. Re:Is this still the Land of the Free ? by NoKaOi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I sadly can't think of a better alternative, though.

    For a start, how about calling "campaign contributions" what they really are, "bribes," and make it illegal.

  9. Re:Is this still the Land of the Free ? by currently_awake · · Score: 2

    I am thinking that rich men don't get rich by spending their own money on stuff if they can avoid it. If you are already rich you don't need to get elected to loot the country.

  10. More: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Quoting:

    The account had fewer than 50 followers, yet now "there are more than a dozen copycat accounts."

  11. section 242: send them to jail by raymorris · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Also section 242 makes it a crime to violate someone's civil rights under color of law, with sentences ranging from one year to the death penalty.

    During settlement negotiations, his lawyer could mention that she has an appointment with federal prosecutors to discuss the case. The mayor, judge, and chief of police may sell their houses and cars to pay a settlement which makes the Curtin happy enough that he doesn't feel the need to press for a federal criminal case.