Woman Blogs About Police, Goes to Jail. Fair? Unfair?

[Lemur]

This is an interesting case (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/09/AR2009080902126.html), and I'd like to hear Orgahs' opinions on the matter.

So this lady in Charlottesville, VA has been blogging obsessively about her local PD, which is no big deal. But then she takes it kind of far:


It's fair to say that Ms. Strom was unusually focused on the Jefferson Area Drug Enforcement task force, a 14-year-old unit drawn mainly from the police departments of Charlottesville, Albemarle County and the University of Virginia. (Her blog at http://iheartejade.blogspot.com, expresses the view that the task force is "nothing more than a group of arrogant thugs.") In a nearly year-long barrage of blog posts, she published snapshots she took in public of many or most of the task force's officers; detailed their comings and goings by following them in her car; mused about their habits and looks; hinted that she may have had a personal relationship with one of them; and, in one instance, reported that she had tipped off a local newspaper about their movements.

Predictably, this annoyed law enforcement officials, who, it's fair to guess, comprised much of her readership before her arrest. But what seems to have sent them over the edge -- and skewed their judgment -- is Ms. Strom's decision to post the name and address of one of the officers with a street-view photo of his house.

All this information was publicly available, including the photograph, which Ms. Strom gleaned from municipal records.

Apparently Virginia has a "harassment by identification" statute, which allowed the police to arrest her for her posts.

So, is she a martyr to freedom of speech? Or has she crossed a line by posting the home address of an officer? What say the Orgahs?

Personally, I think she was in the wrong, although the legal implications of jailing someone for posting publicly available information are troubling. But still, she's in the wrong.

[Rhyfelwyr]

If the information was publicly avaliable anyway, then it's hard to say that she's done anything seriously wrong. I wouldn't call her a martyr to freedom of speech though, she's obviously just a nutter. :shrug:

[Lemur]

Well, given how the world works (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/google_opt_out_feature_lets_users) these days, there's a lot of information about you available to anyone who has the obsession time. Should there be consequences for those who aggregate and organize that information when it could bring harm to the subject?

Should there be laws that cover aggregators, or should we work harder on making more information private?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

She shouldn't have been arrested. It's just a blog.

She broke the law yes, but there are all kinds of crazy statutes...

[Crazed Rabbit]

Unfair. She may be obsessed, but that law against 'harassment' is stupid. The cops provided no evidence that she was actually harming them in any way.

And they're really lousy at being 'undercover' if she found all this out about them. Compiling information should definitely not be a crime.

Eugene Volokh, what I would call an expert, also has this to say (http://volokh.com/posts/1248900796.shtml);

One thing I stress in the article is that much (though not all) such crime-facilitating speech does have value to law-abiding readers as well. Knowing the identity of an undercover police officer can help noncriminals know which of their acquaintances aren't what they seem, and can help criminal defense lawyers figure out how to better defend their clients. Even knowing a person's home address could be useful if you want to organize picketing of their homes. Such residential picketing could be restricted by city ordinance, but in some cities it isn't; and even if focused residential picketing is banned by a city ordinance, parading through the targets; neighborhood in order to express your message of condemnation to the targets' neighbors is constitutionally protected. See Madsen v. Women’s Health Ctr., 512 U.S. 753, 775 (1994); Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474, 480-81 (1988).

CR

[Banquo's Ghost]

Well, given how the world works (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/google_opt_out_feature_lets_users) these days, there's a lot of information about you available to anyone who has the obsession time. Should there be consequences for those who aggregate and organize that information when it could bring harm to the subject?

Should there be laws that cover aggregators, or should we work harder on making more information private?

Quite the opposite, in my opinion. Most countries need laws making more information available to the citizens. Information is power, and the less of it conserved to government discretion, the better.

Any information that is publicly available, is publicly available. If a blogger can access and aggregate it, you can be sure villains can and will. This woman wouldn't have made it any easier for organised "bad" people to find this policeman if they wanted - which is, I presume, the rationale for implying this should be illegal.

Government agencies ought to get used to the idea they work for the citizenry, and in most cases, the citizen has a right to information. If someone working in law enforcement or national security may be exposed, then a judge should be approached prior to need, and a case made to suppress the information on their identity from the public record.

I would have thought your First Amendment would have trumped any tin-pot local statute - but then that Constitution seems to be largely ignored these days. And then we get into a discussion about whether bloggers have the same consideration as "mainstream" journalism.

[Lemur]

I think the legal consensus that's congealing in the courts and state legislatures is that bloggers have exactly the same rights and responsibilities as "normal" journos.

The First Amendment has many exceptions, including the age-old "yell fire in a crowded theater" chestnut. There are also State Secrets, which are rightfully and justly exempted from free speech. Libel, slander, incitement to violence, the list goes on.

I dunno, posting the identity and home address of undercover police strikes me as serving little or no public benefit while endangering a schlub who puts his life on the line for his community. Don't see the upside, and the downside is obvious.

[Proletariat]

She's crazy like we all agree but who cares, the undercover cops should be more undercover. Let them be a little scared


Great thing we have here, even if it's a little irrelevant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_%28United_States%29

[Banquo's Ghost]

I dunno, posting the identity and home address of undercover police strikes me as serving little or no public benefit while endangering a schlub who puts his life on the line for his community. Don't see the upside, and the downside is obvious.

I don't disagree, except the information was already public. The downside was already extant.

[Marshal Murat]

I would think most police officers information is public, but looking it up and then moving it into a more public spotlight is endangering the officer who is trying to work undercover.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I would think most police officers information is public, but looking it up and then moving it into a more public spotlight is endangering the officer who is trying to work undercover.

I really don't think it is though. This isn't like a movie where johnny depp spends years undercover for a mafia family trying to get into the inner circle. This is a local drug unit where "undercover" means he's the guy who pretends to be buying drugs from someone in order to bust them.

[KukriKhan]

But the real problem here is the Virginia statute, in which an overly broad, ill-defined ban on harassment-by-identification, specifically in regard to police officers, seems to criminalize just about anything that might irritate targets.

Yes, that. Therefore = 'Unfair', imo.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Unfair. You can say that, but I bet you're just getting a bit nervous.


*mails links to CR's Backroom posts to the Seattle PD*

[Husar]

She's a stalker and should be happy not to live in Russia.

[Samurai Waki]

I gotta say... I'm actually with the Police on this one. Officer's addresses and phone numbers are suppressed from the general populace for a reason...

[Zim]

I've heard some pretty disturbing threats made against police officers, many of which there's no way to post under Org rules while still representing how awful they are, and many involving plans for unspeakable things being done to the spouse, the officer's young children, and other innocent family members, in addition to more normal death threats. At least one was recently prevented from carrying out such threats only because the officer involved happened to carry a firearm off duty.

I don't know much about Virginia law, but if they found a charge to bring against her, I'm all for it.

[Hosakawa Tito]

So, she provides an easy guide for felons & their associates to find the cop that busted them an enable said criminals to exact revenge on him and/or his family. Those that think that's a good thing have a pretty twisted sense of right & wrong imo.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So, she provides an easy guide for felons & their associates to find the cop that busted them an enable said criminals to exact revenge on him and/or his family. Those that think that's a good thing have a pretty twisted sense of right & wrong imo.

How many cops are attacked by the people they put in prison? How many people read her blog?

All the information is public record, 5 minutes of googling could get you the officers name and address.

Key phrase is "goes to jail. fair?"...clearly it isn't.

[Xiahou]

How many cops are attacked by the people they put in prison? How many people read her blog?

All the information is public record, 5 minutes of googling could get you the officers name and address.

Key phrase is "goes to jail. fair?"...clearly it isn't.If they were going to take the time to look up her blog, they could just as easily look up the information elsewhere- as it's publicly illegal. If the officer arrests and obtains evidence against a criminal, they would already know his identity. The accused has the right to confront and question his accusers in court.

So yeah, my initial reaction is that she did nothing wrong. It sounds like the police used a vague, badly written law to intimidate someone they didn't like.


I think the legal consensus that's congealing in the courts and state legislatures is that bloggers have exactly the same rights and responsibilities as "normal" journos.And "normal" journalists should have no more or less rights and privileges than you or I. Unless I'm mistaken, journalist is not defined anywhere in the Constitution. It really gets my hackles up when they start talking about themselves like they're members of some special privileged caste. :soapbox:

[Lemur]

And "normal" journalists should have no more or less rights and privileges than you or I. Unless I'm mistaken, journalist is not defined anywhere in the Constitution.
There are a whole bunch of laws not defined directly in the Constitution. Originalist thinking won't getcha far when you complain about local lawn ordinances.

Most states have some sort of shield law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_laws_in_the_United_States).

[Whacker]

I'm going to weigh in on the side of chickie here, I don't think she did anything wrong. As Xiahou pointed out, the accused has the right to know and face their accuser in a court of law. SLEO's are public servants and deal with issues of human rights daily, ergo they can and should be held to the utmost rigorous standards of conduct and public scrutiny. This is a key form of checks and balances for power.


And "normal" journalists should have no more or less rights and privileges than you or I. Unless I'm mistaken, journalist is not defined anywhere in the Constitution. It really gets my hackles up when they start talking about themselves like they're members of some special privileged caste. :soapbox:

For the most part, I would agree with you. However, Lemur does have a good point as well. I am generally in favor of "Shield" type laws. Information is power, and one of the ways that is disseminated to the masses is through media outlets. The many unsavory things that might not show our government or other entities in good lights need to get out into the open. A special caste? Hell no. But should journalists have a ways and means to go about their jobs with some manners of protection in place so they can actually do it? Sure.

[Hosakawa Tito]

How many cops are attacked by the people they put in prison?

These cops deal with drug gangs and organized crime not with run of the mill small time felons. Check out how many law enforcement personnel *Mexican & US* are murdered on our southern border by drug gangs.

Ever notice when the news films a major drug arrest that any video of the task force members involved have their faces blacked out, interviews/statements have the voice distorted, to protect their identities? It's pretty obvious why, right?

Did she post this with the intent to endanger their lives? Probably not. From the little bit of info we have it appears her vendetta is personal, love relationship gone bad maybe?


reported that she had tipped off a local newspaper about their movements.


Right there she's attempting to interfere with an ongoing investigation that at best could scotch weeks/months of police work, and at worst get somebody hurt or killed. For what, because somebody dumped her?

So, let's turn it around. One of these cops does to her what she is accused of doing. Should the cop be arrested? The correct answer is yes.

[Kralizec]

§ 18.2-186.4. Use of a person’s identity with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass; penalty.
It shall be unlawful for any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass another person, to publish the person’s name or photograph along with identifying information as defined in clauses (iii) through (ix), or clause (xii) of subsection C of § 18.2-186.3, including identification of the person’s primary residence address. Any person who violates this section is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
Any person who violates this section knowing or having reason to know that person is a law-enforcement officer, as defined in § 9.1-101, is guilty of a Class 6 felony. The sentence shall include a mandatory minimum term of confinement of six months.

It doesn't sound like a silly statute at all. What this woman did amounts to stalking. A mandatory sentence of 6 months in confinement because the victims were police officers seems overboard, though.


The above is intriguing in that it seems to support what I’ve repeatedly stated: publishing pictures and other identifying information of Law Enforcement is not a crime. What is illegal -- and I knew this already -- is harassment, which is the angle the aforesaid code plays. Really what it boils down to is motivation.

I deny my intent was to harass Dasani. I’m not trying to harass any of the officers. I HeArTE JADE is, and has been, a means to exhibit some of the things I’ve experienced because of my curiosity about, and interest in, the JADE Task Force.

I suppose though, when it comes to my actual motives and what I say vs what a group of Law Enforcement claim my motives are and what they feel, the latter people are all that matter.

With that in mind, I expect what will come out in court, in my defense, will still be scandalous for Jefferson Area Drug Enforcement.

Not very convincing.

[Husar]

Well, to me it looks a lot like stalking and besides, here you cannot publish pictures of a single person without their permission, I think it needs at least 3 or more people to be considered a group photo or it has to be a person of public interest, like a movie star or politician. Posting dozens of pictures of policemen, possibly their families etc. sounds like stalking and/or invasion of privacy to me.
Would you think it's fine if some guy kept following your wife around and publishing pictures of her on his blog, Xiahou? :inquisitive:

[rory_20_uk]

All the info is in public view. If people abuse the police numbers that is the fault of the individual - not the person who posted it, nor the server that hosted the web page, nor the telephone company that connected the call.

If the police aren't managing to be under cover perhaps they aren't doing agreat job in the first place. Telling journos a fact isn't tipping the suspects off.

~:smoking:

[Kralizec]

I imagine that it's hard to go undercover if every move you make is being watched and reported by an embittered banshee.
But that point is neither here nor there, since she's not being prosecuted for hindering police operations. I think it's pretty clear that what she did is illegal according to the statute I just cited.

[naut]

Wouldn't jailing her give more coverage to her blog? Maybe that's her angle? :beam:

[Fragony]

'Predictably, this annoyed law enforcement officials, who, it's fair to guess, comprised much of her readership before her arrest. But what seems to have sent them over the edge -- and skewed their judgment -- is Ms. Strom's decision to post the name and address of one of the officers with a street-view photo of his house.'

Extremely irresponsible, that is no longer harrasment that is endangering the life of this man and his family, he will probably have to move.

[Cute Wolf]

Pretty unfair.....

Considering much what I saw in FB......... abouy... oopsss :laugh4:

Seriously.... Saying something in the internet is somewhat ridiculous IF you are threatened by the law.... because more men outta here write more things more henious and disturbing.... and still free.....