Virginia woman arrested for blogging about the police

Repeater · Jul 31, 2009

imported post

From The Agitator:

A Virginia woman has been arrested for blogging about the members of a local drug task force. The charge is harassment of a police officer. She apparently posted on the blog one officer’s home address, as well as photos of all members of the task force, and a photo of one officer getting into his unmarked car in front of his home.

What do you think of this woman’s arrest? Photographing, writing about, and criticizing police officers, even by name, should of course be legal. But it’s a tougher call when the officers in question work undercover. Naming them, posting their photos, posting their addresses, are all pretty clearly efforts to intimidate them, and it isn’t difficult to see how doing so not only makes it more difficult for them to do their jobs, but may well endanger their lives.

The woman says all of the information on her blog was publicly available. If that’s the case, and all she did was aggregate already available information, I’m inclined to think she shouldn’t have been arrested.

Her blog:
http://iheartejade.blogspot.com/

The Free-Lance Star publishes names and addresses of CHP holders and says it has a right to publish information that is publicly available, yet a Virginia woman is arrested when she does essentially the same thing -- except it's about cops, not CHP holders.

Glock27Bill · Jul 31, 2009

imported post

I don't think she is intimidating, but maybe obstruction of justice would fit.

Sheriff · Jul 31, 2009

imported post

After reading the blog, I personally think it all stems from extramarital affairs she had with a few of them. A woman scorned.

The news and/or warrant claims she endangered a cop by publishing his home address. But these same cops had no second thoughts about releasing my full name and physical address for media publication in 1997..... while I was a sworn deputy sheriff. After using a P O Box for 25 years for safety reasons, they PUBLISHED MY ADDRESS!!!! And again in 2005. They endangered my family by doing so.

As always, in America.... double standards!

LEO 229 · Jul 31, 2009

imported post

Repeater wrote:

The Free-Lance Star publishes names and addresses of CHP holders and says it has a right to publish information that is publicly available, yet a Virginia woman is arrested when she does essentially the same thing -- except it's about cops, not CHP holders.

Come on now... Please use just a little common sense. :?

Let's compare:

Cop infiltrates a Hell's Angels Biker Gang. He spends several months working his way up the ladder to get information on the gang. If they find out he is a cop.. they will kill him!

Seeing his photo and announcing he is a cop is certain death. The person posting it knows he is undercover and the reason he is undercover is so they do not suspect he is a cop.

The gang presidentreads youhaveCC permit.... big deal! He has no interest in you.

Criminals reading you have a permit are not going to be more likely to come "get you" and steal your gun. At best.. They might break inwhile you are away. But that is true for any house.

I can follow you home from the gun show or gun store. I do not need a CC permit list.

If you are so worried people will know you have a gun... maybe you should stop OCing. I can follow you home knowing you have a gun.

Sheriff · Jul 31, 2009

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Come on now... Please use just a little common sense. :?

Let's compare:

Cop infiltrates a Hell's Angels Biker Gang. He spends several months working his way up the ladder to get information on the gang. If they find out he is a cop.. they will kill him!

Seeing his photo and announcing he is a cop is certain death.

Please stop being so melodramatic!:shock:

We're talking about a small city where everybody knows the undercover cops anyway. How do they know? Because these guys walk around with guns, badges, pagers and cell phones on their belt all the time in public. They also wear vests and jackets with the word POLICE in plain view. They walk to and from their cars carrying SWAT bags. They toss official police placards in their windshields when parking. It's as if they want to be undercover, but they also want people to know they are cops as well.

If you take the time to read her blog you will see images to support everything I have said above. :lol:

Sheriff · Jul 31, 2009

imported post

additional comment: If you read her blog you will see the entry where she laid pictures out for a couple of thugs one day and asked them if they knew the people.

One of the thugs said "yeahsss, dez dee-tectives!"

Small town, everybody knows them anyway. The most damaging secret the girl released was the physical home address of one of them. And as I said.... these same people didn't have second thoughts about releasing my name and physical address in 1997 and 2005 while I was a sworn deputy sheriff. Placing my family in danger.

Either of these sound familiar?

Good for the goose,but not the gander, eh?:lol:

Don't do as I do, do as I say! :lol:

vt357 · Jul 31, 2009

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Repeater wrote:

The Free-Lance Star publishes names and addresses of CHP holders and says it has a right to publish information that is publicly available, yet a Virginia woman is arrested when she does essentially the same thing -- except it's about cops, not CHP holders.

Click to expand...

Come on now... Please use just a little common sense. :?

Let's compare:

Cop infiltrates a Hell's Angels Biker Gang. He spends several months working his way up the ladder to get information on the gang. If they find out he is a cop.. they will kill him!

Seeing his photo and announcing he is a cop is certain death. The person posting it knows he is undercover and the reason he is undercover is so they do not suspect he is a cop.

The gang presidentreads youhaveCC permit.... big deal! He has no interest in you.

Criminals reading you have a permit are not going to be more likely to come "get you" and steal your gun. At best.. They might break inwhile you are away. But that is true for any house.

I can follow you home from the gun show or gun store. I do not need a CC permit list.

If you are so worried people will know you have a gun... maybe you should stop OCing. I can follow you home knowing you have a gun.

Yes let's compare.

What you posted about the police is right 1% of the time. The majority of officers park their squad car in their driveway. Photos of them and their address, while annoying, aren't a huge deal. But there are the select few who are truly undercover, and exposing their ID would get them killed.

What you posted about CHP holders is right 99% of the time. It's annoying when they post your address, but like you said if you OC people can easily follow you home if they were so inclined. But there is also the 1% of CHP holders where it is a life and death situation. Some of these people have permits because their lives are literally in danger from an abusive ex who will kill them if they find out where they live.

So I'd say the two situations are about on par. They don't truly affect 99% of the group. But the 1% that is affected, is in truly in danger.

Hendu024 · Jul 31, 2009

imported post

Someone obviously has way too much time on her hands.

Sheriff · Jul 31, 2009

imported post

vt357 wrote:

But there are the select few who are truly undercover, and exposing their ID would get them killed.

Those that are truly deep undercover know how to remain undercover.

The guys this girl is writing about are true amatuers, based on their own actions. They might as well have signs on their backs in big red letters that read, "Hey, look at me. I am in plain clothes, but make no mistake.. I am still a cop!"

user · Jul 31, 2009

imported post

This is precisely why I object to "selective incorporation" of Bill of Rights principles as "substantive due process" ("substantive" and "process" are not the same kind of thing at all, it's sort of like saying "boiling ice") by way of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The way the law is right now, that person has an absolute right to speak her mind and to publish information any way she sees fit. First amendment as funnelled through the Fourteenth.

Before the Supreme Court started trying to subordinate the states to the U.S. by means of the due process clause, this would have been an issue of state law alone. Congress could not have told her not to publish, but there's no reason why a state couldn't create a statute that says something like, "thou shalt not take pictures of cops."

Icetera · Jul 31, 2009

imported post

vt357 wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Repeater wrote:

The Free-Lance Star publishes names and addresses of CHP holders and says it has a right to publish information that is publicly available, yet a Virginia woman is arrested when she does essentially the same thing -- except it's about cops, not CHP holders.

Click to expand...

Come on now... Please use just a little common sense. :?

Let's compare:

Cop infiltrates a Hell's Angels Biker Gang. He spends several months working his way up the ladder to get information on the gang. If they find out he is a cop.. they will kill him!

Seeing his photo and announcing he is a cop is certain death. The person posting it knows he is undercover and the reason he is undercover is so they do not suspect he is a cop.

The gang presidentreads youhaveCC permit.... big deal! He has no interest in you.

Criminals reading you have a permit are not going to be more likely to come "get you" and steal your gun. At best.. They might break inwhile you are away. But that is true for any house.

I can follow you home from the gun show or gun store. I do not need a CC permit list.

If you are so worried people will know you have a gun... maybe you should stop OCing. I can follow you home knowing you have a gun.

Click to expand...

Yes let's compare.

What you posted about the police is right 1% of the time. The majority of officers park their squad car in their driveway. Photos of them and their address, while annoying, aren't a huge deal. But there are the select few who are truly undercover, and exposing their ID would get them killed.

What you posted about CHP holders is right 99% of the time. It's annoying when they post your address, but like you said if you OC people can easily follow you home if they were so inclined. But there is also the 1% of CHP holders where it is a life and death situation. Some of these people have permits because their lives are literally in danger from an abusive ex who will kill them if they find out where they live.

So I'd say the two situations are about on par. They don't truly affect 99% of the group. But the 1% that is affected, is in truly in danger.

Well said.

LEO 229 · Jul 31, 2009

imported post

vt357 wrote:

Yes let's compare.

What you posted about the police is right 1% of the time. The majority of officers park their squad car in their driveway. Photos of them and their address, while annoying, aren't a huge deal. But there are the select few who are truly undercover, and exposing their ID would get them killed.

What you posted about CHP holders is right 99% of the time. It's annoying when they post your address, but like you said if you OC people can easily follow you home if they were so inclined. But there is also the 1% of CHP holders where it is a life and death situation. Some of these people have permits because their lives are literally in danger from an abusive ex who will kill them if they find out where they live.

So I'd say the two situations are about on par. They don't truly affect 99% of the group. But the 1% that is affected, is in truly in danger.

Thanks for providing my success rate. Is it a unbiased scientific poll or is there a -/+ of 99% margin of error?? :lol:

OK... for that 1% of CC holders that need to "hide" from an ex who is out to get them... I know many sites where you can pay to get their current information.

But let's not get side tracked..... We are talking about a girl posting photos and details on cops working undercover.

Those that post CC holder data are not trying to expose that 1% who wish to hide. There is no malicious intent.

Now don't get me wrong... I am completely against posting a CC holder list. There is no need for this to be given out.

ProShooter · Jul 31, 2009

imported post

oh brother...

KBCraig · Jul 31, 2009

imported post

Sheriff wrote:

They might as well have signs on their backs in big red letters that read, "Hey, look at me. I am in plain clothes, but make no mistake.. I am still a cop!"

VA Lawyer · Jul 31, 2009

imported post

The Freelance Star publishes the names and addresses of CHP holders?!?! The only reason that I can think of for a newspaper to do this would be some sort of attempt to discourage people from exercising their rights. Way to go Freelance Star. :banghead:

Citizen · Jul 31, 2009

imported post

VA Lawyer wrote:

The Freelance Star publishes the names and addresses of CHP holders?!?! The only reason that I can think of for a newspaper to do this would be some sort of attempt to discourage people from exercising their rights. Way to go Freelance Star. :banghead:

Welcome to OCDO!!!!!

You got the motive pegged.

ChinChin · Aug 2, 2009

imported post

Police say, since most JADE officers do undercover work, posting their names, pictures, and possibly home addresses could put the officers in danger.

As opposed to their normal police duties which never poses any danger in the least.

To me the question isn't if this is right or wrong; its more a question of how did Sally Homemaker get such detailed police intel as to publicly identify an entire UC division of a local PD?

Somebody in the department had to be providing her some level of information. THAT is the person the local cops need to be focusing on.

TexasNative · Aug 2, 2009

imported post

JADE is a joint team with members from several LE agencies, both local and state. It's not a division of a single department.

Further, she says all the information was publicly available. She could be lying, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if that's the truth.

~ Boyd

Sheriff · Aug 2, 2009

imported post

Guys, the task force doesn't like what she is doing, and they have asked her to stop. She didn't stop. They finally charged her after she went to online tax records and posted the actual physical address of one of them. They claim it has endangered the family with actual physical address being posted.

The question is.... did she really do anything wrong? Their members names are no big secret around here. Their names are offered in testimony in court in every trial. Anybody can take their names and check online taxes to get their home address.

It's not like these guys are really undercover. There's nothing "Secret Squirrel" about them whatsoever. If they want to claim to be deep undercover, they're amatuers at best.

IamMick · Aug 2, 2009

imported post

I do agree that the information shouldn't be available especially about police officers families and what not, but she shouldn't be penalized for something she found on the net. My roommate years back in the Air Force made a website about our deployment to Diego Garcia and when he did put pictures he found FROM THE INTERNET on his site. Well needless to say they were classified and the FBI snagged him while we were at work. They took him to a room and asked him a billion questions so he said lemme see a computer. They let him sit down at a computer and he showed him all the sites he went to to find them. He also showed them a site that had Top Secret B-2 Stealth Bomber schematics so they commended him for it and let him go.:lol:

I vote Not Guilty!! But also recommend a slap on the wrist for accelerating the information that didn't need to be revealed. Happy carrying!!!

Mick

Virginia woman arrested for blogging about the police

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member