After nearly a week of intense criticism and national headlines, the local prosecutor behind a controversial police raid on a Kansas newspaper office has agreed to withdraw the search warrant and return items taken from the paper.
The reversal, first reported by TV station KSHB and confirmed by the attorney for the Marion County Record, followed days of outraged reactions from press advocacy organizations, which called the police seizure Friday a violation of state and federal laws.
Attorney Bernard Rhodes told The Washington Post that County Attorney Joel Ensey withdrew the warrant Wednesday and would return computers, cellphones and records taken by Marion police and sheriff’s deputies from the newspaper headquarters and the home of Eric Meyer, its publisher and editor.
A day after the raid, Meyer’s 98-year-old mother, Joan Meyer, collapsed and died. The newspaper attributed her death to stress brought on by the search of the home she shared with her son.
While the newspaper and Meyer now appear to be out of legal jeopardy, Rhodes suggested that this is unlikely to be the end of the incident. He urged state officials to investigate how the raid came about, including the role played by Marion Police Chief Gideon Cody, who led the search.
The Record had been investigating Cody’s departure from the Kansas City, Mo., police force this year, and he had threatened to sue the paper if it published allegations of misconduct, Rhodes said.
The raid of the small weekly newspaper — virtually unprecedented in the United States — was apparently prompted by a dispute involving a local restaurant owner in Marion, a town of about 1,900 residents located about 60 miles from Wichita. Kari Newell claimed that the paper’s reporters had illegally stolen her identity to access a government database that contained records of her arrest for drunken driving in 2008.
The newspaper denied it had done so, but the allegation led officials to seek a search warrant from a local magistrate judge to search the newspaper and the Meyer home.
In a statement, the county attorney said he had asked a court to withdraw the warrant he sought last week for alleged identity theft and unlawful use of a computer.
“I have come to the conclusion that insufficient evidence exists to establish a legally sufficient nexus between this alleged crime and the places searched and the items seized,” Ensey said. “As a result, I have submitted a proposed order asking the court to release the evidence seized. I have asked local law enforcement to return the material seized to the owners of the property.”
My immediate question is: what warrant in the first place?
I thought the county records office said no warrant or other reports from the magistrate had been filed there, meaning everything done by the police and others was illegal.
They had the warrant, and the paper got a copy of it in the original search. What they couldn’t “find” was the sworn affidavit that listed the facts that gave enough probable cause for the search warrant. Except that it turns out that they have “found” it - except it’s essentially just a copy-and-paste if the search warrant itself, which is undoubtedly why they’re asking for it to be pulled.
However, I have every faith that in the five days they’ve had the computers, that the police chief has gone through them and gotten the identities of the multiple people who were reporting sexual assault allegations against him.
Oh, and the bar owner got her liquor license approved, so she can make a lot more money now. Which means that the hotel her restaurant is in can raise her rent, which is nice for the hotel owner. And the hotel owner just ever so casually happens to be the District Attorney …