knock me over with a feather

http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/docs/20110603_165745_mink_v_knox.pdf

http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=11898

A Colorado prosecutor violated a student blogger’s constitutional rights when she approved a search warrant of his mother's home over a criminal libel allegation, a federal judge ruled on Friday.

U.S. District Judge Lewis T. Babcock ruled that Weld County Prosecutor Susan Knox violated Thomas Mink’s Fourth Amendment rights in 2003 while investigating a series of satirical postings made in an online publication. A university professor claimed that he had been libeled by Mink's writings.

The investigation into Mink began after he created a website known as The Howling Pig, which included an altered image of a University of Northern Colorado professor alongside several comments.

The professor, believing the website’s content was defamatory, contacted local police, who began a criminal libel investigation. Police put together a warrant to search Mink’s mother’s house, where Mink lived. Knox later reviewed and approved the warrant for submission to a judge.

After the warrant was issued, police searched Mink’s mother’s house and seized the personal computer that they shared.

Dismissing Knox’s claim that she was not liable because she is a government official, the court held that, because Mink’s activities constituted satire protected by the First Amendment, the attorney could not have believed that the articles stated actual facts about the professor or that a crime had been committed.

In affirming that Mink’s rights were violated, the district court brings to a close a case that has bounced around multiple courts for several years. The district court initially tossed out Mink’s civil rights claim on the ground that Knox was completely immune from suit because she was a government official acting in her official capacity.

Mink appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Denver (10th Cir.) and won, sending the case back to the district court. The district court then dismissed the claim a second time, ruling that Knox had shown that she was still immune from suit.

Mink appealed again and received another favorable ruling from the appellate court, which sent the case back to the district court once more.
 
where the fuck do government people get the idea that they are immune from prosecution when violating someone's rights? The constitution was created to protect us from government people who will always seek to violate our rights.
 
where the fuck do government people get the idea that they are immune from prosecution when violating someone's rights? The constitution was created to protect us from government people who will always seek to violate our rights.
In the 1976 case Imbler v. Pachtman, the U.S. Supreme Court carved out a wide exception to the law to exempt prosecutors. The Court said common law tradition grants prosecutors have what's known as "absolute immunity" from civil rights suits, meaning that they can't be sued, provided they're acting in their capacity as prosecutors. Few people enjoy such protections in their own line of work (judges have absolute immunity as well).

the government must provide a lawful protection scheme to insulate them from their own corruption
 
I find it interesting that the lower court judge didn't get the message the first time around and got reversed twice on the issue of immunity.....
 
Back
Top