posted 12-09-2005 11:54 AM            

Colorado Statutes : TITLE 18 CRIMINAL CODE : ARTICLE 9 OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC PEACE, ORDER, AND DECENCY : PART 3 OFFENSES INVOLVING COMMUNICATIONS : 18-9-313. Peace officer personal information on the internet.
18-9-313. Peace officer personal information on the internet.
(1) As used in this section:
(a) "Immediate family" means a peace officer's spouse, child, or parent or any other blood relative who lives in the same residence as the peace officer.
(b) "Personal information" means a peace officer's home address, home telephone number, pager number, personal photograph, directions to the peace officer's home, or photographs of the peace officer's home or vehicle.
(2) It is unlawful for a person knowingly to make available on the internet personal information about a peace officer as described in section 16-2.5-101, C.R.S., if the dissemination of the personal information poses an imminent and serious threat to the peace officer's safety or the safety of the peace officer's immediate family and the person making the information available on the internet knows or reasonably should know of the imminent and serious threat.
(3) A violation of subsection (2) of this section is a class 1 misdemeanor.
Source: L. 2002: Entire section added, p. 1139, § 1, effective July 1. L. 2003: (2) amended, p. 1616, § 14, effective August 6.

posted 12-10-2005 07:57 AM            

Those statutes get talked about all the time, but few enact them because it's a waste of ink. I like them just because they scare the uninformed.

posted 12-11-2005 08:15 PM            

I would think given the date of this law’s enactment, the United States’ current abroad peace keeping status, and fight against terrorism it could easily be established that “imminent and serious threat” to the safety of those persons whose addresses are listed on his site is afoot. George didn't post just names. He posted the home addresses of some of these individuals and the source of how he obtained them (which may not have been known by certain hostile entities).

Then again, one can argue anything to the point of proof. It is usually the better argument or arguer that wins.

The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines imminent:

Main Entry: im•mi•nent
Pronunciation: 'i-m&-n&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin imminent-, imminens, present participle of imminEre to project, threaten, from in- + -minEre (akin to Latin mont-, mons mountain) -- more at MOUNT
: ready to take place; especially : hanging threateningly over one's head
- im•mi•nent•ly adverb

Note the portion of the definition that says “hanging threateningly over one’s head”. Given George’s history and current status, I think we find something quite applicable to the current actions.

posted 12-11-2005 09:51 PM            

Moreover, the real definition would be the one given by the court (absent a legislative definition, which doesn't appear in the statute) in the given jurisdicition. Black's tries to give you the generally accepted meaning in all or most jurisdictions.

Your point of who argues the best wins is exactly what they teach in law school. You should be able to argue either side of a case regardless of what you believe personally. You'll recall George's Bush's attorney was a democrat who likely would have liked to have seen Al Gore win the election.

The best defense George would have is to show none of the people he named was fearful enough to do anything (my guess, and only a guess) to protect himself from an apparent danger.

We all need to realize that in this day and age, anybody with a computer and about 25 cents can get anything on anybody, and there isn't one of us who is completely insulated from that.

Until it's a crime to tell people the names of their public officials, George is likely going to have a First Amendment right to do so. He's still a far cry from yelling "FIRE" in a crowed theater.

posted 12-12-2005 12:13 AM            

Sorry, I didn't know you were in law school. If I had, I wouldn't have called for someone else to interject.

BTW, James Addison Baker III was originally a Democrat but he switched in 1970 to the Republican party. At that time he unsuccessfully helped George Herbert Walker Bush run for Senate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Baker

posted 12-13-2005 11:29 AM            

I'd forget the semantics!

I believe most Courts will allow some latitude depending on specific circumstances. I seriously doubt a Misdemeanor of this type in CO or anywhere else will get far into the prosecution process. Very likely a plea would be negotiated, if for no other reason than to prevent further release of the officers personal information.

The issue is not the number of sources available to access the data in question but release of the specific data. Also, I don't believe, in a law enforcement situation, the families of officers are considered part of the "public official" designation.

posted 12-13-2005 01:26 PM            

Yes, you only need PC to make an arrest, but a DA must believe he can prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, or he can't ethically charge the person, so charge today and hope the case goes away without being challenged is not the real world, at least not in an ethical world.

If this law applied to George, there's no way he could reasonbly know doing so would in fact endanger the agents, nor does it seem to have caused them any (imminent) danger.

The courts don't allow any latitude. If they have to, the law is too vague. When a plea is accepted, the judge has to find there would have been enough evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, if not, he can't accept the plea.

I agree, there would be some circumstances that would clearly violate this law, but you'll almost never see them. Instead, you'll end up with cases like this (if it applied here).

posted 12-13-2005 03:29 PM            

A "reasonable person" would probably not release this type of information but this is besides the point. I don't know of anyone who would make an arrest without some type of indication the elements of this crime were met. Only the DA can decide whether or not to file the Complaint. Again, I'm confident some latitude would be given in a case of this type to favor the officer. Like it or not this happens. I don't know of any cases that are filed believing they can be "dealt" for a disposition. For the reason cited I don't think a case of this type would make it to Court.

I haven't followed "George's" case so I can't comment about it. If information about you is released; a suspect is known, I'll push for all information indicating they met the elements of this crime. Again, specific circumstances will help/hinder in making this determination. I'm sure everyone would do their best to get the case filed. I can't get too worked up about what the DA will or won't do even if I/we believe the elements of the crime were met.

The CO case and those I refer to would be Misdemeanor issues. From my experience latitude has been given in dealing with Misdemeanor type issues. Realistically, no one, prosecution or defense, would want to push an issue of this type if a reasonable "deal" is agreed upon.

In order to enter into a plea agreement there must first be an admission of guilt
to a specific crime. If an arrestee pleads guilty to a crime all the Judge should do, and I believe all they can do, is accept the terms of the agreement. If not accepted by the Judge either a new agreement acceptable to the Judge is drafted or the case goes to trial.

Once in trial there is no latitude. Evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is presented or the person goes free. Even then, what about "OJ?" Question not intended to elicit a response - just a thought.

END.....

posted 12-13-2005 04:24 PM            

I ask you under what circumstances would releasing what is likely otherwise public information (not the family names of course) likely to put an officer in IMMINENT danger? Could the press write a story about an officer and list his name and address? (That's a constitutional issue.) Is the listing of sex offenders' info on the internet likely to bring them harm? Almost all states do it. If not, then how could simply listing the info about an officer be any more dangerous?

Again, you could find facts to make it clear, but the law doesn't differentiate between felonies and misdemeanors when it comes to how legal something is.

The bottom line is if a reasonable person can't be sure that his activity would be illegal , then the statute is no good (and there's lots of case law on that subject). If the defendant doesn't challenge the law, then yes, the judge will accept the plea if he believes the case can be proven.

We have a statute on the books here that the lawyers are scared would be easily ruled unconstitutional, so they deal on it in hopes that it will not get challenged. If an attorney pushes it, they dump the case so there is no basis for a challenge. That doesn't make it good law. Legislatures do it all the time. Like I said earlier, I like the law because it keeps the uninformed in line.

How many peopld plead to cases only to see others fight and get the laws found to be unconstitutional later.