That’s what I was thinking as well. If they happened to be lucky enough to have all their files backed up (or recent images of their drives), it would probably make sense to buy new computers, or at least hard drives, and restore everything. Then they can worry about the seized computers later.
While I’d guess that the cops didn’t install remote access software or key loggers on them, if they were mine, I’d pull the ethernet/wifi cards out before powering them on to make sure they never have access to the network.
In fact, it might even be worth having an independent computer forensics company check them all to see if anything has been added/deleted/accessed etc while they were gone.
I saw an interview with one of the owners this morning, and he said that they have a forensic expert waiting to review the computers as soon as they get returned.
My WAG is that this is all going to be part of a massive lawsuit, and that whoever is paying for the forensic computer person is doing more discovery for a suit than anything else.
You’re not. I’m amazed this part hasn’t got more attention. They put an old lady under so much undeserved stress that she died, and it’s like a footnote behind a small town paper being fucked with by the cops.
But unless the medical examiner can prove that her death was a direct result of the raid, I can’t imagine anything will become of it.
Have there ever been cases where someone was prosecuted (successfully) for, essentially, scarring someone to death?
To be clear, I’m not saying that it’s not what happened and I’m sure many other (probably not in the prime of their life) people have died after dealing with something this stressful, but I assume it would be difficult to make the case to a jury.
I do wonder if some of the more recent efforts to legislate elder abuse could be applied. The other thing to do is to keep bringing the factor up in the community - as elder voters tend to be a strong and active voting block.
But I will also join the group doubting that any sort of real justice will be applied, because the self-reporting cycle of make the ‘others’ in society so threatening that our law enforcement must be untouchable to keep us safe. And when the ‘others’ don’t receive protection from LEO, and act to change those laws or protect themselves, well, we then obviously (sarcasm) need MORE protection from those folks. And on and on…
I read somewhere else (sorry, no cite) that this will be almost impossible to legally hold anyone accountable for. They’ll almost certainly suffer no consequences for this (including civil because qualified immunity).
I’m also outraged by the fact that the cops took pictures of the publisher’s bank and investment accounts statements. That fact will certainly be included in the upcoming lawsuit.
It will be interesting, to say the least, to observe how many heads will roll as this case proceeds.
I am honestly sort of amused to think about what it would have been like if the police had raided the newspaper that I recently used to work for, particularly toward the very end of my tenure. With so many staffers choosing to work remotely, I was often the only person in the building. They probably would have busted in and immediately become visibly unhappy at not having a bunch of people around to intimidate. “Sir, would you mind calling a few people so they could come in and we could be total jerks to them?” the jackbooted leader would say to me.
[Non-paywalled msn.com repost of Washington Post story]
Confidential affidavits detail reasoning for police raid of Kansas newspaper
The police chief alleged in the affidavits that evidence could be found at those locations that Zorn had committed identity theft, a felony, and computer crimes by accessing the driving record. Users of the website run by the Department of Revenue, which oversees driving licenses and penalties, must choose from a handful of reasons that they are entitled to view records, which are generally confidential under the state’s Drivers’ Privacy Protection Act.
The eligible reasons, which are listed in the affidavits, include that users are requesting their own records or are licensed private investigators. The only reason that references research is about statistical reports that will not disclose individuals’ personal information. There is no exception listed for media research.
I’m curious if she disclosed her DUI on her liquor license* application and/or if her jurisdiction does background searches.
In my area, a DUI will generally not be an issue. However, if you don’t disclose it, they’ll find it when they do a background search and your application will be denied because you lied on the application. I’ve seen liquor licenses get rejected for things that aren’t an issue, but the person just didn’t disclose them.
*My experience is mostly with Operator’s or Bartender’s Licenses, which is what the person (at a bar or store) selling you the alcohol holds. The business owner holds a “Liquor License”. Over the years, a handful of my employees have had DUIs on their record and never had any issue getting their licensees. The owner has a clean record, but nothing on the application ever caught my eye that a DUI would be an issue.
And, of course, this is all specific to my jurisdiction and I’m making a huge assumption that hers is at least similar. Which it may not be.
Sounds like there was evidence of plenty of criminal activity before the illicit information reached the newspaper. Where were the rest of the warrants?