When Cops Go Rogue - Blatantly Illegal Police Actions

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.