The judge who signed off on a search warrant authorizing the raid of a newspaper office in Marion, Kansas, is facing a complaint about her decision and has been asked by a judicial body to respond, records shared with CNN by the complainant show.

  • Osa-Eris-Xero512@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    10 months ago

    I don’t know about going nowhere. The higher courts generally get pretty grumpy about lower courts going mask-off like this.

    • roguetrick@kbin.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Nothing for them to quash at this point since the county attorney withdrew the warrant. I don’t really forsee her getting impeached or being declared without capacity and she has qualified immunity for civil damages. Hope she doesn’t get reelected.

      Edit: unless she’s shown to have signed off without the affidavit. That could get her into trouble. I don’t think they can prove that though.

      • sharpiemarker@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        If the warrant was withdrawn, doesn’t that imply that the police who executed the withdrawn warrant were illegally searching and seizing?

        • admiralteal@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          The penalty for searching without a warrant is that evidence acquired is inadmissible. Sometimes. Sometimes not even that. Typically, that’s fucking it. So it doesn’t really matter that the search was illegal once the property is returned. Mostly, the penalties for the police are just political ones.

          If there are some provable damages, the person who’s civil rights were damaged might be able to sue, though with qualified immunity even that is a very, very uphill battle. SCOTUS rules against plaintiffs in cases like that routinely because the SCOTUS is very, very pro-police. They routinely rule that making things harder for the police & prosecutors is too high a price to pay for protecting civil rights. See, for example, Van Buren vs US or Arizona v. Gant.

        • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          No. It means the prosecutors won’t be further pursuing the case. The warrant is legal process, returnable to the judge who signed it. If a party unilaterally wants to end a legal process it began, the procedure is to file a withdrawal.