leoaffairs
06-25-2006, 07:54 PM
Oral arguments were heard before the 2nd District Court of Appeals in Lakeland on Tuesday, June 20th. The HCSO hired private attorney Tom Gonzalez to represent them while LEOAFFAIRS.COM was represented by First Amendment Attorney Luke Lirot. LEOAFFAIRS.COM co-founder Chip DeBlock was in attendance as well.
In short, the HCSO has filed a lawsuit against anonymous John and Jane Does deputies who posted messages they interpreted as unsupportive towards their administration. By taking this case to the 2nd DCA, the HCSO is attempting to reverse the decisions of Judge William Levens and Judge Marva Crenshaw who ruled against them.
Attorney Tom Gonzalez argued to the panel of 3 judges for the 2nd DCA that deputies with the HCSO do not have the same First Amendment protections that citizens do because they are a para-military organization. He continued by saying users who post messages on the LEOAFFAIRS.COM HCSO Message Board are representing themselves as deputies and, because of this, the HCSO has the right to subpoena and ultimately obtain the IP addresses and identities of the posters. Attorney Tom Gonzalez conceded that the postings in question were not defaming or libelous (criminal) in nature, but that they constituted internal policy violations by deputies at the HCSO. When questioned by one of the justices about the posibility of civilian identies being given up in the process, Attorney Gonzalez maintained his position that it was acceptable because they were representing themselves as law enforcement officers.
Attorney Luke Lirot countered well and in a manner that seemed to be understood by the justices. Attorney Lirot pointed out that we were not talking about a criminal situation where libelous or defaming comments were being made about individuals (in which case the requested poster identities should be made available), but about possible internal policy violations. The justices seemed to agree that the HCSO has the right to enforce internal policy violations against their employees, but they need to be able to identify the poster first. The big question, of course, is how far can they go. Attorney Lirot also pointed out that we have no way of knowing if the posters actually are employees at the HCSO or private citizens accessing the site. Also, since a number of the posters are posting anonymously, we have to assume that they wish to remain anonymous for a reason. The very purpose of the First Amendment addresses this and protects citizens (both private and LEOs) from repercussions for doing so. Also, since the HCSO is alleging that the postings occur while employees are off-duty, they have even less of a legal stance in demanding poster identities.
Although no decision was handed down on Tuesday, we are confident that the 2nd DCA will do the right thing and (in our humble opinion) not strip away the constitutional rights of deputies just because they chose to become public servants via a career in law enforcement.
We'll let you know as soon as a decision is handed down.
In short, the HCSO has filed a lawsuit against anonymous John and Jane Does deputies who posted messages they interpreted as unsupportive towards their administration. By taking this case to the 2nd DCA, the HCSO is attempting to reverse the decisions of Judge William Levens and Judge Marva Crenshaw who ruled against them.
Attorney Tom Gonzalez argued to the panel of 3 judges for the 2nd DCA that deputies with the HCSO do not have the same First Amendment protections that citizens do because they are a para-military organization. He continued by saying users who post messages on the LEOAFFAIRS.COM HCSO Message Board are representing themselves as deputies and, because of this, the HCSO has the right to subpoena and ultimately obtain the IP addresses and identities of the posters. Attorney Tom Gonzalez conceded that the postings in question were not defaming or libelous (criminal) in nature, but that they constituted internal policy violations by deputies at the HCSO. When questioned by one of the justices about the posibility of civilian identies being given up in the process, Attorney Gonzalez maintained his position that it was acceptable because they were representing themselves as law enforcement officers.
Attorney Luke Lirot countered well and in a manner that seemed to be understood by the justices. Attorney Lirot pointed out that we were not talking about a criminal situation where libelous or defaming comments were being made about individuals (in which case the requested poster identities should be made available), but about possible internal policy violations. The justices seemed to agree that the HCSO has the right to enforce internal policy violations against their employees, but they need to be able to identify the poster first. The big question, of course, is how far can they go. Attorney Lirot also pointed out that we have no way of knowing if the posters actually are employees at the HCSO or private citizens accessing the site. Also, since a number of the posters are posting anonymously, we have to assume that they wish to remain anonymous for a reason. The very purpose of the First Amendment addresses this and protects citizens (both private and LEOs) from repercussions for doing so. Also, since the HCSO is alleging that the postings occur while employees are off-duty, they have even less of a legal stance in demanding poster identities.
Although no decision was handed down on Tuesday, we are confident that the 2nd DCA will do the right thing and (in our humble opinion) not strip away the constitutional rights of deputies just because they chose to become public servants via a career in law enforcement.
We'll let you know as soon as a decision is handed down.