Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.3
Site Design by Sekimori

« Executive power and all that | Main | Off topic but quite annoying »

Here's a story that deserves more coverage

Posted by David Hardy · 20 October 2007 10:59 AM

From the Arizona Daily Star.

Basically, the Phoenix AZ published an article critical of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, that mentioned his home address -- not out of nastiness, but because the article concerned his realty holdings. No problem. BUT the story was also carried on its webpage, and there is a statute making it a felony to put a law enforcement officer's home address on the internet IF it poses an imminent threat to them.

The Maricopa County Attorney figures he has a conflict of interest, since the alternative paper also criticizes him a lot. He hands the case to another county attorney. But they do nothing (which, I'd suggest , is just what they should do), and so he takes it back (you'd think doing so involves a conflict) and hires a former associate as a special prosecutor.

Whereupon the guy has two executives of the alternative paper arrested and hauled away in handcuffs, convenes a grand jury, and subpeonas all the paper's website internet data, including the last three years' visitors logs (including the websites that each visitor had visited before going to the newspaper).

This is pretty dang shocking to me, and I think it deserves wider coverage (and the officials involved deserve investigation, not to mention un-election if not impeachment).

· General con law

12 Comments | Leave a comment

Tarn Helm | October 20, 2007 1:10 PM | Reply

"No problem?"

Arpaio's home address should not be publicized in print or on the internet or anywhere else without his permission.

I see a huge problem.

Arpaio is one of the few fellows out there who is trying to enforce the law.

He deserves special consideration.

The folks who published it should have omitted mention of his home address.

By failing to do so, they created a huge problem.

Now they have a huge problem.

No one should publish the home address of law enforcement officers--whether on the internet or in print.

The law is supposed to help the cause of maintaining a law-abiding society.

When the law fails to protect the enforcers of law from those who would wantonly kill them, then the law needs to be changed.

Arpaio's address should never have been published anywhere that would make it available to the public without his permission.

Dan Hamilton | October 20, 2007 1:15 PM | Reply

Tarn Helm is right. The Paper is wrong.

scott | October 20, 2007 1:50 PM | Reply

the 2 readers above may not be residents of AZ like I am.

If they are then they should know that the New Times (the paper in question) published a series of articles critical of the sherriff, in particular, why he had used the law allowing for his personl residence to be redacted from public documents to ALSO redact the various commercial holdings he has purchased since becoming sherriff.

the paper noted that the sherriff had spent $1,000,000 IN CASH for the various properties, on sole income of a pension from the DEA and his salary as sherriff.

Also, to note, the sherriffs home address was ALREADY available on several public sites already, all one had to do was dig a bit. clearly, our "toughest sherriff in the land" seems to have something to hide.

as for the commentator who claims the sherriff is the only one out here trying to enforce the law -

well, as one who is here, I can say that sherriff Joe is a BAD sherriff, a publicity hound, probably a crook, and DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for the deaths of several inmates (arrested, NOT CONVICTED of any crime) in his jails by being place in "restraint chairs". the county has had to settle SEVERAL wrongfull death suits at the cost of millions of dollars.

it should also be noted that as of Sat morning the charges have been dropped, the special prosecutor FIRED, and the county attorney and the prosecutor are now the subject of ETHICS investigations by the AZ State Bar.

i'd say that pretty much lays waste to any complaint against the New Times.

Scott W
Phx, AZ

straightarrow | October 20, 2007 2:24 PM | Reply

Tarn Helm is wrong. Every police officer should have his address published. That would do more to adjust their attitude about the dignity of citizenship, which they regularly violate, and it would encourage them to be sure they do their jobs properly.

Next time a cop asks for your ID, tell him you want to see his. I have done this. My reasoning to him was that with my ID he would soon know more about me than I would remember about myself. That being the case, if I was burgled or one of my family was molested or raped in my home, I would know where to find him in order to add him to the list of suspects. He decided he didn't need to know that much about me. Of course, that was years ago, before they could shoot anybody they damn well pleased with no penalty.

Tarn Helm | October 20, 2007 11:12 PM | Reply

"straightarrow" wrote, at October 20, 2007 02:24 PM:

"Tarn Helm is wrong. Every police officer should have his address published. That would do more to adjust their attitude about the dignity of citizenship, which they regularly violate, and it would encourage them to be sure they do their jobs properly."

Law enforcement officers are targets precisely for doing their jobs properly. The lawbreakers don't differentiate the way you do (or seem to) between good cops and bad cops. Lawbreakers will not thank LEOs for "doing their jobs properly."

The vast majority of LEOs do perform their jobs properly.

LEOs and their innocent family members should not be subjected to unnecessary exposure of their identity or their home's location.

The story of Buford Pusser, while the subject of some very imperfectly made movies ("Walking Tall"), was nevertheless a perfect example of the consequences of the kind of transparency to which you would like to subject LEOs.

Making policy based on resentment of LEOs is unlikely to promote anything but an even more empowered class of career criminals.

The suggestion that LEOs addresses be published seems imprudent at best.

Flighterdoc | October 21, 2007 9:06 AM | Reply

Most LEO's may not be thugs. Those that are ruin it for everyone else.

However, if any CITIZEN can have their address published on the internet, then any civil servant should be able to also: We do not have classes of citizenship where some are more entitled or equal than others.

Even the President's home address is published.

And the fact that LEO's don't want their address published only serves to highlight their inability to effectively address the criminal population.

BTW, most confidentiality laws for LEO's are really for judges and DA's.

straightarrow | October 21, 2007 10:12 AM | Reply

It is no more imprudent than publishing anyone else's. If you have so much fear for cops and their families think what it must be like for people without sidearms, mace,batons, handcuffs, collar radio, backup, radio cars, M-16's and an almost guaranteed immunity from the law.

Oh yeah, I forgot to add a propensity for whining.

JKB | October 21, 2007 6:40 PM | Reply

Sorry but the biggest problem with bad police is just what this story is about. It rests with corrupt DAs who won't prosecute or authorize an investigation. A family member did public corruption investigations as a state investigator. Many cases he wanted to pursue were stopped when the DA who had connections to the politician or sheriff wouldn't authorize the investigations. If a federal angle could be developed the case turned over to the FBI, so there are a few politicians and police officials in jail even though they had connections.

One issue as shown in the AZ case, politicians and police officials will take action against an investigator, either law enforcement or reporter, where your run-of-the-mill criminal simple considers police investigation the cost of doing business. They use their political connections mostly but when it gets desperate they sometimes try murder.

In fact, now that the legal avenue has been shut down, the editors and reporters in AZ are probably now most in danger from the sheriff.

straightarrow | October 21, 2007 6:52 PM | Reply

"Sorry but the biggest problem with bad police is just what this story is about."-JKB

The biggest problem is the so-called good cops will not arrest or testify against the bad cops, most of this is for the reasons you have stated. Ergo, it is a very difficult proposition to sell the idea that most cops are "good" when they adhere to the same exact modus operandi as any other criminal gang.

MuzzleBlast | October 22, 2007 9:45 AM | Reply

Anybody that is paid with public funds (taxes, ya know) is a public official and subject to open public records. If you don't like the risks of the job, get a different one.

--MuzzleBlast

steve | October 22, 2007 10:32 AM | Reply

Arpaio is one of the few fellows out there who is trying to enforce the law. Isn't that ,/i>ironic.

TJH | October 22, 2007 6:00 PM | Reply

Does this rise to the level of felony? Were the reporters engaged in a conspiracy to deprive Apraio of his rights? Since we're discussing arms and the law, does this felony indicate that the perpetrators are not trustworthy enough to carry weapons for their own defense? In other words: this crime is on the same level as armed robbery, forcible rape, assault with a weapon and murder?

I think that the municipal government can extend the privilege of privacy to Arpaio if it so chooses, and he probably has grounds to sue the paper for the costs of relocation. If he's engaged in criminal behavior, then it has to be proven front of a jury, and he's either convicted or he isn't.

Too bad about the lawsuit jackpots at taxpayer expense, but the powers that be chose to retain him.

Leave a comment