On March 12, 2009, the Police Department of Phoenix, Arizona, raided the home of Jeff Pataky for "petty theft and computer tampering with intent to harass", and recently added identity theft to the charges for stealing name plates of police officers and harassing them.
Sounds innocent enough, until you find that Jeff Pataky is the operator of Bad Phoenix Cops , a blog dedicated to exposing corruption and deceit within the Phoenix Police Department. Pataky started the site after he was "maliciously prosecuted" by police after his ex-wife falsely accused him of harassing her, which he quite obviously disproved by being out of town on every occasion. According to Pataky, the police took computers, modems, routers, hard drives, memory cards, and other equipment - basically anything that would allow Pataky to continue blogging. They also took numerous personal files pertaining to Pataky's pending lawsuit against the department for their harassment of Pataky and attempts to illegally stifle his criticism on the blog. Pataky dismisses these charges, as the "stolen" nameplates were made at a local trophy shop, with instructions posted on the blog for further dissemination, and his "harassment" of the police is the public exposure of their corruption and disregard for legal processes - as immediate in the public concern as it can get.
Excuse me for a moment, but WHAT. THE. FUCK. Police are raiding a blogger critical of them and essentially stealing the equipment necessary for him to reach his audience. This is, quite possibly, the greatest hypocrisy of "serving the public" that I have ever seen.
However embarassing the information Pataky posts on his blog may be, as public officials, the police officers lambasted have no legal recourse against the criticism, unless they can show Pataky made his comments with actual malice. The Supreme Court ruled as such in New York Times v Sullivan, when it was ruled that public officials could not silence their critics unless they could show that the criticism was knowingly false and malicious in content. While Pataky's postings may be malicious, they certainly are most likely true, as the source for all of Pataky's work comes from insiders in the police department, both current and retired. Given the nature and source of the complaints against these police, and the complete over-reaction against Pataky's home, it will be extremely difficult for them to prove actual malice on Pataky's part - if the charges are false at all. If the charges are true, then as public officials, such information is critical for an honest evaluation of the police force, and a critical public interest is vested in the information. With such a heavy public interest, Pataky has every right to publish the complaints and accusations against Phoenix police officers. The burden of proof is on the officers. If they don't want to see their names on the web, stop doing illegal shit and telling everyone about it.
Final Thought: Assistant Chief Andy Anderson claimed the case was "unique" because Pataky was running an "unaccredited grassroots web site." Umm, hello, but since when did people need "accreditation" to publish information about the public sphere? Never, ever, ever has there been a requirement to be part of the mainstream media circuit to engage in your First Amendment right to speech. Even if accreditation was required, the police department is in no way, shape, or form the legal authority on what sources can be accredited. The Phoenix Police Department, as a whole, is clearly in the wrong here. Stop trying to usurp the First Amendment.
Update: Due to several questions in the comments, I will point out that Bad Phoenix Cops has evidence that the officers involved had been informed by dedicated lawyers for the Phoenix Police Department that they are in fact public officials, despite the non-democratic process by which they are hired.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Actually, my post last week was about police (specifically the NYPD)also, and how they were falsely harassing and arresting photographers for taking photos in public places. So I too, feel a bit disillusioned when it comes to the police currently...
ReplyDeleteBut as far as your story goes, I felt about as angry as you did when reading it. I'm assuming they had a search warrant for this? I hope so, or the police are in even more trouble!
An interesting question is this though: are the police public officials? Because it is "public officials" that New York v Sullivan was referring to. Technically, police are hired, not elected. HOWEVER, as police deal with the public and the community, I believe they should be held to those same standards. The community looks to the police to serve and protect. It's tough for the public to trust those who are turning against them.
It's clear the police have a grudge against this guy. I really hope he wins his case/lawsuit/whatever he plans on doing!
And an "unaccredited grassroots web site????" wow...haha. Guess that's what my blog is too, seeing as I'm not an accredited first amendment lawyer....oops!
The police were informed by lawyers the first time they tried to take down the blog that as public officials, they were under greater scrutiny and couldn't do such things. The search warrant they had was for petty theft (of nameplates that Pataky recreated himself to mock the police chief, aka "Mr Potato Head") and computer tampering with intent to harass, which could only be reached by the most convoluted logic possible.
ReplyDelete=] Mr. Potato Head....now I want to watch Toy Story...
ReplyDeleteThis is insane. I can definitely believe it after all the insane things cops have done...cough Drew Peterson cough...Bollingbrook is about twenty minutes from my house so I saw "Missing" pictures up all the time. Bollingbrook and Woodridge police are also known for threatening to punish kids for possession of marijuana and then taking it and smoking it...I guess some police believe that, because they in essence are the law, they are also above it. Oh how wrong they are. Pataky better win whatever he files...
I find it interesting that they labeled the plates as of police officers and I am assuming the harassment goes along with that issue? What's funny is that, as they claim the plates are theirs, then I guess they are admitting they are in fact Mr. Potato Head...
I've never quite understood the pastime of cop-bashing, but it does seem to be a popular one. And it's an unfortunate one, in my opinion, because it only encourages the police to make poor decisions like this. Though most officers are legitimately trying to serve and protect, people are quick to turn on all cops because of the outrageous things a few of them do. Of course, that doesn't change that this was a very, very poor decision.
ReplyDeleteAt best, it's bad PR (which isn't something officers seem to need). At it's worst, this is exactly as you say, a breach of free speech.
This perfectly demonstrates the play between libertarian and neo-liberal approaches to the First Amendment. Obviously, the officers thought the best remedy was to silence the critical speech, which really only reinforces the speech's message. But if the officers had countered with MORE speech, they could have taken advantage of attention and potentially ended up ahead.
While I would agree officers that maintaining a good public image is beneficial to society (a possible justification for their actions), most of the shortcuts around freedom of expression that are common to neo-liberalism are irresponsible and harmful.
It's both a shame that the police would resort to this extreme action and that society has created an atmosphere where they see this as the only remedy.
Persons hired by the government to work in an official government capacity are, in some sense, public officials (such as the Cabinet posts, who are appointed, and the heads of law enforcement agencies, who are hired). I am undecided as to whether the run-of-the-mill cop is a public official or not (it would depend on the legal definition of public official). I am guessing they are, but that is just my gut inclination.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, this is one of those few cases where we get to see interaction between the First and Fourth (unlawful search and seizure) Amendments. I am guessing Patkay would win with respect to both; his First Amendment rights were violated in the act of violating his Fourth (and vice versa).
I agree: corruption in police departments is indeed a grave public concern and cannot merit special restrictions on speech.
I think that blogging is part of what makes a country democratic. For example, blogging is probably not allowed in China. The Chinese internet is constantly supervised. Anyone who dares to say anything bad about public officials run the risk of going to jail. Pataky's first amendment rights were violated.
ReplyDeleteSimilar to why we support anonymous writing. Some of the best works in history were created by anonymous writers. Blogging is that outlet for opinions. Besides, there are plenty of news articles and websites that critique several aspects of the American government, if the police took every one of their modems, routers, etc., I'm sure they would run out of places to store them.