Sheriff Uses Unconstitutional Law To Raid Home And Seize Electronics Belonging To Watchdog Blogger
from the bad-laws-used-most-efficiently-by-bad-people dept
A Louisiana sheriff has just inserted himself into a mess of First and Fourth Amendment violations by using his power to go after an anonymous blogger who claimed he was corrupt. Naomi LaChance of The Intercept has more details.
After a watchdog blog repeatedly linked him and other local officials to corruption and fraud, the Sheriff of Terrebone Parish in Louisiana on Tuesday sent six deputies to raid a police officer’s home to seize computers and other electronic devices.
Sheriff Jerry Larpenter’s deputies submitted affidavits alleging criminal defamation against the anonymous author of the ExposeDAT blog, and obtained search warrants to seize evidence in the officer’s house and from Facebook.
The target of this raid -- supposedly the blog's author (although he denies being behind it) -- is another law enforcement officer. Wayne Anderson works for the Houma Police Department. Taken from his home during the raid were five cell phones and two computers -- including his children's laptop.
Sheriff Larpenter is trying to use Louisiana's criminal defamation law to prosecute Anderson. Unfortunately for the overreaching sheriff, that law isn't going to work.
The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled the criminal defamation law unconstitutional "insofar as it attempts 'to punish public expression and publication concerning public officials, public figures, and private individuals who are engaged in public affairs.’”
Larpenter is trying to get around this by claiming the "investigation" was prompted by a citizen's complaint -- that of Tony Alford, an insurance agent named in the blog's posts. The blog's author alleges impropriety related to Alford's no-bid contract to provide insurance coverage for the parish via the agency he works for, Alford, Staples, Lapeyre & Robichaux. The corruption hook here is that Sheriff Larpenter's wife also works for the same insurance agency.
So, it's not really about Tony Alford. It's about Larpenter and his wife. The blog has also made allegations about improper relationships between the department and the town's most powerful government officials, including District Attorney Joe Waitz, Jr. Unsurprisingly, this is the same DA Larpenter wants to prosecute the case.
When Larpenter was asked whether there is a conflict in him investigating an alleged crime involving himself, he replied, "If you're gonna lie about me and make it under a fictitious name, I'm gonna come after you."
He went on to say that once he finished investigating the blog, he would turn the case over to District Attorney Waitz to determine if Waitz wanted to prosecute it or “hand it off.”
Waitz, to his credit, has recognized the conflict of interest and has chosen to pass it on to another office for possible prosecution. But the charge is unlikely to stick, even with Sheriff Larpenter's maneuvering. Larpenter's comments make it clear this attempted prosecution is personal ("lie about me") and is willing to use an unconstitutional statute to justify a search/seizure of personal electronics. But even his invocation of a supposed "private" individual (the insurance agent) to obtain search warrants isn't going to be enough to salvage this blatant attempt to shut down a critic. As the parish's main insurance provider, Alford is very definitely a "private individual engaged in public affairs." Beyond that, he's a public figure in his own right.
In addition to holding public contracts, Tony Alford is also the acting President of the Terrebonne Parish Levee and Conservation District Board of Commissioners, a public position that requires him to file annual personal financial disclosures with the Louisiana Board of Ethics.
Even the process used to obtain the search warrant to seize Anderson's devices was a bit shady.
The one they used to search Anderson’s home was signed Tuesday by Judge Randall Bethancourt, who was not serving as the on-duty judge for criminal cases that day.
This suggests a bit of magistrate shopping by the Sheriff's Office. Now that the warrant has been executed and devices seized, a motion to quash is in place. But that does little for Officer Wayne Anderson. Not only has he been suspended (with pay) by the Houma Police Department while this farce plays out, but the court is holding onto his computers and phones until a hearing on the motion can take place.
The First Amendment implications of Sheriff Larpenter's raid are clear. That the search warrant -- in pursuit of bogus criminal defamation charges -- has already been carried out means Sheriff Larpenter will be facing Fourth Amendment violations claims as well in the inevitable civil rights lawsuit that will follow this debacle. Sheriff Larpenter should have had no problem fighting speech he didn't like with speech of his own -- especially considering his position as a public figure who holds a powerful office. Instead, he has chosen to abuse his position and power to silence a critic, something that's not exactly helping him look any less corrupt.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 1st amendment, 4th amendment, anonymity, corruption, critics, free speech, jerry larpenter, louisiana, searches, terrebone parish, warrants, wayne anderson
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Telling priorities
But that does little for Officer Wayne Anderson. Not only has he been suspended (with pay) by the Houma Police Department while this farce plays out, but the court is holding onto his computers and phones until a hearing on the motion can take place.So the one under investigation has been suspended with pay during the investigation. So out of curiosity, what's the sheriff's employment status? You know, the sheriff that responded to accusations of corruption by raiding the house of someone that may or may not be the one who made the accusations, and is trying to do a legal tap-dance around what the law actually says to do so?
Still employed? Same as before?
Yeah, I can tell the police really take accusations of corruption seriously.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Genius move.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Genius move.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Genius move.
Though illegal search and theft of private property has been somewhat devalued as a shocking violation of the oath to "serve and protect" recently. Was the failure to administer a beatdown just professional courtesy or something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Genius move.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Genius move.
Their moto
If at first you dont succeed, try and try and corrupt again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Terrebonne Parish? Meet the Streisand Effect. Where the effort to censor news instead results in it being seen far, far more widely than it otherwise would have been.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Delicious irony for dinner, kids!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
OK. Alright. No need to get the houma police.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: parish avenger
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So let Anderson move to exclude evidence at trial by challenging the warrant. Good luck with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not only will the citizens be paying out the nose for violating the rights of an innocent, but the odds that an offical willing to be this shady won't try to gather any data he can from the devices to gain leverage are low.
One would think that investing a portion of the settlement into a forensic review of the system would be a wise move, and might add more 0's to the settlement.
It almost sounds like there should be some sort of "department of justice" to come in and make sure that they know their duty & live up to the letter of the law. Willing to bet that given the overreaction, there is a really big fire that the smokes been pointing to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In that case yeah, if they do speak up they will absolutely side with the sheriff and against the one trying to expose corruption in the LEO ranks, because can't have the people thinking that LEO's are corrupt now can we?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Telling priorities
So the one under investigation has been suspended with pay during the investigation. So out of curiosity, what's the sheriff's employment status? You know, the sheriff that responded to accusations of corruption by raiding the house of someone that may or may not be the one who made the accusations, and is trying to do a legal tap-dance around what the law actually says to do so?
Still employed? Same as before?
Yeah, I can tell the police really take accusations of corruption seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once he realizes this, his next thought will likely be "What would Sheriff Joe Arpaio do?"
(As of last year, cases involving Arpaio or his office have cost Maricopa County taxpayers $142 million in legal expenses, settlements, and court awards.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
snicker
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sheriff Larpenter will be facing Fourth Amendment violations claims as well in the inevitable civil rights lawsuit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sheriff Larpenter will be facing Fourth Amendment violations claims as well in the inevitable civil rights lawsuit
Sheriff is an Elected Position. Maybe next time they will not vote for a fraud!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sheriff Larpenter will be facing Fourth Amendment violations claims as well in the inevitable civil rights lawsuit
Must be nice being in an elected position, never having to be personally responsible for your own actions because you can always say "Hey, it's their fault for electing me!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But in the end will anything happen to that Sheriff abusing his power? Seriously doubt it. If anything it'll be a light slap on the wrist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Conflict of whatnow?
So, yes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Conflict of whatnow?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Conflict of whatnow?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Open WIFI involved?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Open WIFI involved?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An elected sheriff vs. appointed sheriff
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The crooked are beginning to fall
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Self Fulfilling Prophecy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hesitate to use the word forced, but then i realize he used it first and hence gave up his right in this SPECIFIC situation
Oh yeah, then FIRED, for thinking nothing wrong with this action AND/WHILE holding a position with an ever growing list of authority, requiring much more responsibility then shown
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rights of Violation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]