Category Archives: Legal Opinions

Observations

Posted on by

I’m feeling lazy. I have been scanning the news, peering through old posts, something appropriate to blog about on this pre-Thanksgiving holiday. I’ve not found anything except for this observation.

I attended a meeting last night. A topic was the recent Constitutional Amendments passed this year that enhanced our 2nd Amendment rights in Missouri. Some people persist in stupidity.

A question was asked of our resident attorney. If the Federal and Missouri Constitutions say we have a “right to keep and bear arms, “doesn’t that make concealed carry licensing and restrictions on open carry unconstitutional?”

The person asking the question has been repeating it for months since Amendment 5 to the Missouri Constitution was passed in August. The real answer is, “No.” Not until it is taken to Court and the Court agrees with you.

Don’t like that answer? Well, too bad. It’s reality. The changes to and the enhancement of our rights in our Constitutions are basis for judgment, the foundation that law is ‘supposed’ to be in compliance. Doesn’t mean law will, nor that past law is automatically null-and-void. Not until a Court says so.

So, it you are like the questioner, one who keeps asking the same question hoping that someone will answer in the manner you want, I wouldn’t try ignoring law that doesn’t comply with your worldview—unless you have a barrel of money to defend yourself in court.

Facebook

It’s on! Veto Override Session

Posted on by

I had hoped to go to Jeff City this morning to do some politicin’. Well…I didn’t. I’ve been running on a sleep deficit for several days and it caught up with me last night. I woke up at 9:15am and it is a three-hour drive to Jeff City.

I’ve been urging folks to go to Jeff City and lobby their legislators on a number of bills, SB 656 for one, the Armed Teacher bill. There are more on the block if the backer’s can get 2/3rds of the House and Senate to override Nixon’s veto.

Eli Yokley’s PoliticMO Newsletter has this to say.

VETO SESH — the budget: ‘Missouri legislators look to override $40 million of Nixon cuts at veto session,’ PoliticMo: “When the Missouri House convenes for the first day of veto session tomorrow, they will be faced immediately with dozens of spending items vetoed by Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon that would cost the state $40 million. Nixon – a Democrat – has framed it as the Republican-controlled legislature opting to “grow government,” noting that their budget included 30 spending items not in the budget he presented. On the other side, the Legislature’s budget leaders said Tuesday Nixon’s priorities are in the wrong place, accusing him of putting his travel expenses above funding for priorities like children and victims of domestic abuse. …  Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Kurt Schaefer, R-Columbia, … who was joined by House Budget Committee Chairman Rick Stream, R-St. Louis, was non-specific when asked which items the legislature would specifically address. That information, he said, would be made available after the two budget leaders present their suggestions to members of their party tomorrow morning. Lawmakers will move through the 50 line-items one by one Wednesday morning starting in the House. Stream said debate would be limited in order to move quickly and on to other bills.

“Nixon has indicated that he could very easily turn around and withhold the new spending, especially if lawmakers override his vetoes of what he has depicted as costly sales tax measures. He has already withheld nearly $600 million due to that and sluggish state income. Schaefer said that decision – whether to withhold the money – is one the governor will have to make, but that legislators are planning to proceed with the override effort “to send the message on behalf of Missourians who are in need of these programs that the governor is wrong.'” http://bit.ly/1AyzRHS

— guns: ‘Missouri Republicans push for gun bill victory,’ by the AP’s new Summer Ballentine (@esballentine): “Missouri Republicans are clashing again with Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon on guns, as lawmakers approach a vote today that could overturn his veto of legislation allowing teachers to bring firearms to school and other residents to carry them openly in public. After multiple setbacks, a veto override would mark a victory in Missouri for backers of expanded gun rights. A measure that would have voided federal gun control laws died in the final hours of session this May. Nixon vetoed a similar bill last year that could have subjected federal officers to state criminal charges and lawsuits for attempting to enforce federal gun control laws. Lawmakers passed a less sweeping bill this session that would allow specially trained school employees to carry concealed guns on campuses. The measure also would allow anyone with a concealed-weapons permit to carry their gun openly, even in cities or towns with bans against open carry. …

“Missouri lawmakers’ efforts to pass gun legislation are part of a larger movement among conservative states. After 20 children and six adults died in 2012 during a mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, some Republican-led state legislatures, including Missouri’s, fought against stricter gun control laws backed by Democratic President Barack Obama. … David Kopel, an associate policy analyst for the libertarian think tank Cato Institute, said the president’s policies played a powerful role in motivating Second Amendment activism. About 30 states allow the open carrying of guns without a permit, and about 13 others require some sort of license. Kansas in April approved a measure allowing the open carrying of firearms, which, like Missouri, will trump any local bans on open carry. Georgia gun owners can carry firearms openly in more places after the Legislature reduced open-carry restrictions, and lawmakers voted to make Arkansas an open carry state last year.” http://bit.ly/1uvYWT1

— abortion: ‘House speaker advocates for abortion-policy bills on eve of veto session,’ Columbia Missourian: “Speaker of the House Tim Jones had harsh words for Gov. Jay Nixon on Tuesday as he advocated for House bills 1132 and 1307 on the eve of the legislature’s veto override session.  … Jones said he hoped that the legislature would override the governor’s vetoes on the two bills.  House Bill 1132 establishes a tax credit for contributions to pregnancy resource centers, maternity homes and food pantries. House bill 1307 extends the waiting period for a woman considering an abortion from the current 24 hours to 72 hours. … Jones also said of House Bill 1132 that those who wanted to see the bill enacted into law were “simply asking for an extension of the public-private partnership.'” http://bit.ly/1p79qCM

Another veto to overturn is for SB 523, the Student Protection bill sponsored by our own Senator Ed Emory.

This act prohibits school districts from requiring a student to use an identification device that uses radio frequency identification technology to identify the student, transmit information regarding the student, or monitor or track the location of the student. The bill protects our students in public schools from unwanted data surveillance and tracking. This also prohibits the transmission of this data. — Missouri Alliance for Freedom.
The Legislature has already overridden one of Nixon’s vetos this year, the Tax Cut bill, SB 509, vetoed by Nixon early in the 2014 legislative session. The Legislature, promptly overrode Nixon’s veto within a week, if I remember correctly. Now, it’s time to continue that trend.

***

The Kansas Senatorial Soap Opera continues—with lawsuits. ‘Independent’ candidate Greg Orman is being sued in Federal court over the failure of his holding company to pay royalties to another company. The suit has been slowly making its way through the legal system since 2012.

Chad Taylor is now suing the state of Kansas—Kris Kobach as Kansas Secretary of State, to get himself removed from the November ballot. It’s a liberal tactic to shift democrat votes who would normally vote for Taylor, to vote for ‘democrat-masquerading-as-an-independent/RINO’ Greg Orman.

Kobach refused to remove Taylor from the ballot citing Kansas law.

Kobach cited a 1997 Kansas statute requiring a withdrawing candidate to declare he or she is “incapable” of serving if elected. Taylor’s letter, Kobach said, referenced the law but did not contain the required language. — Kansas City Star.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/government-politics/article1512707.html#storylink=cpy

According to Kansas law, the only valid reason for candidate withdrawing at this point in the election cycle is if the candidate is incapable of holding the office—such as a severe illness, injury, or sudden mental defect of the candidate. Taylor’s problem is that he has none of these valid reasons for withdrawing. None, that is, than obeying the democrat party’s diktat to quit.

I’m sure Pat Roberts would love to join in. I wouldn’t be surprised if he weren’t checking to see who he can sue to join in on the fun.

Facebook

Malfeasance in Missouri

Posted on by

An article was published, surprisingly, in the Kansas City Star that damns Missouri Governor Jay Nixon and Chris Koster. Koster for current and potential acts as Missouri’s Attorney General, and Nixon when he held the same post.

The case in question, is about a murder trial. A woman was murdered in her home in November 1990. The Sheriff was incompetent. Instead of investigating, as he was required, he allowed a private investigator, hired by the victim’s family, to be the investigator.

Major error #1. The PI concocted a scenario that fit—blame a neighbor who didn’t have an alibi because he was home asleep. The PI also ignored other avenues of investigation. The local prosecutor declined to file charges.

That’s where Jay Nixon stepped in. He needed a win. His reputation was in tatters and he wanted to run for Governor. He assigned an assistant AG to prosecute the case. That AG, Kenny Hulshof, withheld information from the Court and from the defense attorney. Those acts, hiding evidence, was illegal and prejudicial. The defendant, Mark Woodworth, was convicted.

During the trial review, some of the errors were noted and a new trial was ordered. Another assistant AG prosecuted and withheld still more evidence in the second trial. The Woodworth was convicted again.

But the friends and family of Woodworth didn’t give up. They fought and acquired another judicial review. In 2010, Boone County Judge Gary Oxenhandler was tasked with that review.

Oxenhandler said he was convinced that had the investigation and prosecutions been handled properly, “no jury would have convicted Woodworth of the crimes charged.” — KC Star.

The Supreme Court set aside Woodworth’s conviction.

At this point, Chris Koster enters the scene. He vowed to try Woodworth again. Never let it be said that Koster let an opportunity to allow an injustice pass him by.

On a change of venue, the Judge reviewed the case. In his order, returning the case to the Livingston County prosecutor, the judge said, “Given the history of this case, at this point in time there is absolutely no reason the office of attorney general should prosecute this case.” His other comments included the phrases, “a manifold injustice,” and, “the concept of ‘due process of law’ took flight.“

… in a stunning rebuke to some of Missouri’s most powerful politicians, Platte County Judge Owens Lee Hull Jr. has ordered the state attorney general’s office off the case. — KC Star.

Now, Koster has lost his opportunity to continue this example of governmental malfeasance. In all this, besides Nixon and Koster, is another well known name. The initial prosecutor against Woodworth, was Kenny Hulshof, who later was elected to the US House.

The final word in this travesty of justice comes from the article in the Kansas City Star.

As is usually the case, those who mismanage criminal justice meet with few consequences. Nixon spent 16 years as attorney general and moved up to governor. Hulshof served 12 years in the U.S. Congress. Courts have raised serious questions about his handling of several cases during Hulshof’s time as Nixon’s assistant in the attorney general’s office.

Now Koster, another attorney general with big political ambitions, has held a third trial over the head of a man who already has been subjected to two unjust prosecutions and years of lost freedom. — KC Star.

You can read the entire article, here, as reported by Barbara Shelly. Woodworth is currently out of prison, on bond, waiting for the Livingston County prosecutor’s decision whether a third trial is warranted.

When you have democrats in offices of authority, examples of malfeasance seems to be the norm. Democrat Cass County Prosecutor Teresa Hensley, mimics the policies of Koster. She has refused to investigate and prosecute clear cases of malfeasance in the Cass County Clerk’s and Collectors offices—violations of the State nepotism statues and possible fraudulent payments to close relatives.

Hensley went so far, in one case, to have the AG research for any excuse to not prosecute. They came up with one that insiders in Jeff City agree was not applicable. However, Hensley seized the excuse and ran with it.

In the case of the County Clerk, a democrat associate Circuit Judge, who has since left office, declared the Clerk could not be charged for violations that had occurred during a previous term. When proof was provided to Hensley that acts also occurred during the Clerk’s current term, Hensley refused to acknowledge the evidence and has refused to act.

Democrats protecting corrupt democrat office holders.

Wherever democrat politicians are involved, you can be assured, whatever is being done, will not be hindered by law. Lawlessness is the motto of the democrat party from the lowest level of local government, to the county, state and federal governments.

When government is lawless, why should anyone obey the law?

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2014/01/29/4785479/koster-furthered-injustice-against.html#storylink=cpy
Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2014/01/29/4785479/koster-furthered-injustice-against.html#storylink=cpy
Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2014/01/29/4785479/koster-furthered-injustice-against.html#storylink=cpy.”
Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2014/01/29/4785479/koster-furthered-injustice-against.html#storylink=cpy

 

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2014/01/29/4785479/koster-furthered-injustice-against.html#storylink=cpy

 

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2014/01/29/4785479/koster-furthered-injustice-atml#storylink=
Facebook

The Abuses of Militarized Police

Posted on by

A story has come from Nevada of a lawsuit that was filed on July 1st, 2013. It contends the Henderson, NV, police violated the 3rd Amendment rights of a man and his parents.

Amendment 3 – Quartering of Soldiers

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The issue in this complaint against the Henderson PD is that “militarized” police, i.e., their SWAT organization, seized the home of a man against his wishes. When the SWAT police didn’t get permission to enter, they broke in the door, assaulted him, arrested him and took him off to jail. They subsequently, using a subterfuge, did the same with his parents who lived in another, nearby residence. The following day all charges were dropped. Clearly the arrest was a ploy to remove the man from his home and his parents from their home against their protests.

You can read the complaint of the lawsuit here.

Henderson [Nevada] police arrested a family for refusing to let officers use their homes as lookouts for a domestic violence investigation of their neighbors, the family claims in court.

Anthony Mitchell and his parents Michael and Linda Mitchell sued the City of Henderson, its Police Chief Jutta Chambers, Officers Garret Poiner, Ronald Feola, Ramona Walls, Angela Walker, and Christopher Worley, and City of North Las Vegas and its Police Chief Joseph Chronister, in Federal Court….

The Mitchell family’s claim includes Third Amendment violations, a rare claim in the United States….

“On the morning of July 10th, 2011, officers from the Henderson Police Department responded to a domestic violence call at a neighbor’s residence,” the Mitchells say in the complaint.

It continues: “At 10:45 a.m. defendant Officer Christopher Worley (HPD) contacted plaintiff Anthony Mitchell via his telephone. Worley told plaintiff that police needed to occupy his home in order to gain a ‘tactical advantage’ against the occupant of the neighboring house. Anthony Mitchell told the officer that he did not want to become involved and that he did not want police to enter his residence. Although Worley continued to insist that plaintiff should leave his residence, plaintiff clearly explained that he did not intend to leave his home or to allow police to occupy his home. Worley then ended the phone call.

Mitchell claims that defendant officers, including Cawthorn and Worley and Sgt. Michael Waller then “conspired among themselves to force Anthony Mitchell out of his residence and to occupy his home for their own use.”

The complaint continues: “Defendant Officer David Cawthorn outlined the defendants’ plan in his official report: ‘It was determined to move to 367 Evening Side and attempt to contact Mitchell. If Mitchell answered the door he would be asked to leave. If he refused to leave he would be arrested for Obstructing a Police Officer. If Mitchell refused to answer the door, force entry would be made and Mitchell would be arrested.’”

It continues: “The officers banged forcefully on the door and loudly commanded Anthony Mitchell to open the door to his residence.

“Surprised and perturbed, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell immediately called his mother (plaintiff Linda Mitchell) on the phone, exclaiming to her that the police were beating on his front door.

“Seconds later, officers, including Officer Rockwell, smashed open plaintiff Anthony Mitchell’s front door with a metal ram as plaintiff stood in his living room.

“As plaintiff Anthony Mitchell stood in shock, the officers aimed their weapons at Anthony Mitchell and shouted obscenities at him and ordered him to lie down on the floor….

“Although plaintiff Anthony Mitchell was lying motionless on the ground and posed no threat, officers, including Officer David Cawthorn, then fired multiple ‘pepperball’ rounds at plaintiff as he lay defenseless on the floor of his living room. Anthony Mitchell was struck at least three times by shots fired from close range, injuring him and causing him severe pain….”

Officers then arrested him for obstructing a police officer, searched the house and moved furniture without his permission and set up a place in his home for a lookout, Mitchell says in the complaint. — The Volokh Conspiracy.

If you read the complaint, you’ll note the Henderson Police also violated their 4th Amendment rights as well by searching both homes without warrants nor any probable cause.

Amendment 4 – Search and Seizure

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The police searched, ransacked the house, for what reason?

When plaintiff Linda Mitchell returned to her home, the cabinets and closet doors throughout the house had been left open and their contents moved about. Water had been consumed from their water dispenser. Even the refrigerator door had been left ajar and mustard and mayonnaise had been left on their kitchen floor.” — Courthouse News.

The Mitchells, son and parents, had broken no law. They were not the subject of the domestic dispute—that was their neighbor. So what justification did the police have for their actions other than they could? From what a number of legal professional have determined, none. There was no justification.

The crux of this suit is whether militarized police constitutes “soldiers” within the definition of the 3rd Amendment. They are agents of the state, as are soldiers. Many will say SWAT police are soldiers if you use the “walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck” logic.

Although it’s not well known, there is a history of US military forces violating the 3rd Amendment. That last such occurance was during WW II.

During World War II, after Japan attacked the Aleutian Islands off Alaska’s coast, the United States forcibly evacuated the islands’ natives and quartered soldiers in private homes. That hitherto unremarked violation of the Third Amendment gives us a fresh perspective on what “Property” means in the U.S. Constitution. As a general legal matter, property includes not just real estate – land, fixtures attached thereto, and related rights – but also various kinds of personal property, ranging from tangibles such as books to intangibles such as causes of action. That knowledge would, if we interpreted the Constitution as we do other legal documents, tell us just about everything we need to know about the scope of constitutional property. Case law and commentary do not speak as plainly, however, raising troubling questions about what “Property” means each of the four times it appears in the Constitution. In particular, some authority suggests that the Takings Clause protects personal property less completely than it does real property. The unjust treatment of Aleutian natives during World War II shows the risk of giving constitutional property so peculiar and narrow a definition. This paper describes the troubling inconsistencies that afflict the law of constitutional property and invokes the Third Amendment, that oft-forgotten relic of the American Revolution, to argue for giving “Property” a plain, generous, and consistent meaning throughout Constitution. — The Volokh Conspiracy.

The issue above is, that while troops “may” be quartered in private homes during wartime, the act must follow specific law. In other words, Congress must pass specific legislation that clarifies the circumstances when the 3rd Amendment doesn’t apply, compensation to the owners for damage, and the legal procedures to enact the seizure. That clarifying legislation has never been passed making the acts during WW II illegal.

The event in Henderson, NV in 2011 doesn’t have the quasi-justification of occurring during war. That is, if the Henderson PD does not consider themselves at war with the residents of Henderson.

The abuses of militarized police are growing across the country. It is a manifestation of a growing police state that has been actively encouraged by the federal government.

Whether our front door is kicked in by a group of lawless thugs, or by armed and armored SWAT troops acting like lawless thugs, it is still a violation of our castle. Theoretically, we could be justified in resisting under the auspices of castle laws. Of course, it wouldn’t matter when the SWAT team kills us. We’re still just as dead. And…the SWAT team would likely get off without charges.

It does beg the question. Can people defend themselves against police when it is the police who are violating the law? That is something for our Legislatures to address.

Facebook

Whispers from the Internet

Posted on by

Unless you’re a listener of Mark Levin, you probably haven’t heard this bit of news. Levin’s Landmark Legal Foundation is suing the EPA to acquire documents concerning pending regulation, post-election, and whether those regulations are politically biased.

Conservative talker Mark Levin’s legal arm sues EPA

12:28 AM 10/25/2012

Conservative radio talk show host Mark Levin’s legal group is suing the Environmental Protection Agency to obtain documents pertaining to the regulations the agency plans to implement after the election.

Levin’s law firm, the Landmark Legal Foundation, filed the lawsuit in federal court this week, seeking a court order directing the EPA to preserve and produce all records related to the agency’s regulatory plans after the presidential election.

The suit argues that news stories and political observers have indicated the EPA is “intentionally delaying the issuance of controversial new regulations until after the November election” with the possibility that “a) the Obama Administration is improperly politicizing EPA activities; b) EPA officials are attempting to shield their true policy goals from the public; and/or c) EPA officials themselves are putting partisan interests above the public welfare.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/25/conservative-talker-mark-levins-legal-arm-sues-epa/#ixzz2AK91q6TL

One of the things Levin wants to establish is a pattern of behavior by the EPA of malfeasance and political manipulation of regulations to support a leftist agenda. Levine filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOA) and the EPA denied the request.

Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe, ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, released a report last week on the regulations he expects the EPA will implement after the election. The senator told The Daily Caller that he appreciated the [Landmark Legal Foundation] challenge to the agency. — The Dailycaller.

The EPA has been a rogue agency for years, progressively getting worse with each administration. It’s time for the EPA to go and it’s legitimate functions absorbed into another department like the Department of the Interior.

***

The democrats have been caught instructing people how to vote fraudulently. The individual is the son of Virginia democrat congressman Jim Moran. Moran’s son is also Moran’s campaign manager.

James O’Keefe video leads to resignation of Patrick Moran from father’s campaign

1:39 AM 10/25/2012

Democratic Rep. Jim Moran’s son, Patrick Moran, has resigned from his father’s campaign after apparently advising an undercover Project Veritas reporter on how to commit voter fraud.

“Effective immediately, I have resigned from the Moran for Congress campaign,” Patrick Moran said in a statement to TPM.

Conservative activist James O’Keefe released the damning video that led to Moran’s resignation earlier Wednesday.

“There will be a lot of voter protection,” Moran explains to the reporter in the video. “So, if they just have — you know just the utility bill or bank statement — bank statement would obviously be tough — but, they can fake a utility bill with ease.”

“You have to forge it,” Moran says, referring to the utility bill required to pose as a registered voter.

Watch the undercover video:

Moran told the undercover reporter that an attorney from either the Obama campaign or the Democratic National Committee would defend him if things went bad.

Voter fraud: it’s what democrats do.

Facebook

Law violation or 1st Amendment violation

Posted on by

First let’s be clear—I am not a lawyer! Yes, I’ve read a bit about law and legal theories. That does not make me a lawyer. Not even close. However, the story below raises questions in my mind. Is the act a violation of law or was the consequence of the act a violation of our 1st Amendment rights?  You decide.

In Mesquite, TX, a man was found guilty of a  drug violation. His girlfriend was skimming through Facebook and found a photo of the undercover cop involved in her friend’s drug case. She copied that photo and spread it around. She’s now been charged with “retaliation.” I’m unsure exactly what that means. I’ve not heard of an equivalent in Missouri.

Actions have consequences. We all know that. On the other hand, is it a crime to spread public information? The undercover cop’s photo on Facebook was, since it was publicly viewable, public information. If the cop did not want his photo passed around, why did he allow it to appear on Facebook? I don’t believe Facebook makes any guarantee of privacy.

From the other side, did the woman pass the photo around to “out” the undercover cop? Perhaps. Probably quite likely. Can that be a crime when the cop made no effort to conceal his face and appearance from the public? Good question.

I can see the woman being charged if the undercover cop did NOT allow his photo to appear on Facebook and the woman tracked him down and took a photo for the express purpose of exposing him. If that had been the train of events I could see a charge of retaliation being levied against her. But that is not what happened.

I doubt this story will make much news nor will it be followed by the MSM with all their legal pundits examining every iota of the tale.  It is, however, a cautionary tale for all of us—do not place anything on the internet that we do not want anyone to know. There is no nor will there ever be any privacy on the internet.

Police: Woman Arrested For Spreading Facebook Photos Of Undercover Cop

October 15, 2012 6:40 AM

MESQUITE, Texas (CBS HOUSTON) – A North Texas woman has been arrested after being accused of posting Facebook photos of an undercover policeman who testified against her friend in court.

Mesquite police arrested Melissa Walthall, 30, for allegedly posting the photo of the officer, who authorities say recently testified in a drug case against her friend. Her Facebook post identified the person as an undercover officer, according to a federal affidavit.

After a caller tipped off Mesquite police to Walthall’s Facebook post about a week ago, an investigator found that it posed a “viable threat to that officer’s safety,” the affidavit said.

The Dallas Morning News reports that her friend, George Pickens, 34, was upset about the officer’s testimony and found his photograph on Facebook while researching him online.

Pickens’ brother, Bobby Stedham, used the photo to make fliers, and the two men planned to display them like garage sale signs, according to the affidavit. Police reported finding them while searching Pickens’ Dallas-area house.

Stedham, 26, has been charged with retaliation, and Pickens faces federal drug and weapons charges, based on items police reported finding during the search of his house, the Houston Chronicle reported.

Mitch Landry, the deputy executive director of the Texas Municipal Police Association in Austin, said his organization has discussed with its members the perils of social media — particularly for those involved in undercover work.

“Our best advice is — if you don’t want that information out there, don’t have those accounts,” Landry told the newspaper. “There’s no way to be truly anonymous if you have a Facebook page.”

Many police departments have not yet developed social media policies and guidelines for their officers. The Dallas County Sheriff’s Department, for example, has an electronic etiquette policy that prohibits such things as vulgar language or sending obscene messages. It does not address the use of social media.

Continued on the website…

I don’t know what policies our local police departments and Sheriff’s office may have. It would be very prudent for them to review those policies or if none exist, to create them to cover circumstances like this. In my mind, I would have difficulty finding the woman guilty of passing along public information. Did she go looking for it? Yes. But she did not take the photo herself. Nor did she physically stalk the officer to acquire a photo. She did what any of us could do in a few minutes online. My opinion is that the undercover cop should have no expectation of remaining anonymous when he allowed his photo to be uploaded to Facebook and then allowed it to remain there.

Any lawyers out there who’d like to present an opinion?  I’m curious.

Facebook