Man Sues Hawthorne Over Web Site Closure

Sep 30, 2005 10:00 am US/Pacific
HAWTHORNE, Calif. (AP) A man is claiming the city of Hawthorne violated his civil rights by shutting down his Web site, which purported to document police abuse.

In a $200 million lawsuit filed this week, Jeron Maklanron alleges that Hawthorne and its police department conspired to get a judge to shut down HawthornePD.com. Maklanron says it's a Web site he launched in 2004 after seeing police harass minorities. The site allegedly showed two sergeants' home addresses and prompted the city to seek a restraining order against the site.

Police say Maklanron's site implicitly threatened officers by posting their addresses and urging people to go talk to them. After winning the restraining order, officers searched Maklanron's house and seized his computer.

Hawthorne is a working-class community located east of Los Angeles International Airport.

They better shutdown zabasearch aswell, or whitepages.com!

The cruiser parked out front might of been a giveaway also.

Quoted: Man Sues Hawthorne Over Web Site Closure Hawthorne is a working-class community located east of Los Angeles International Airport.

Guess that's the PC description now.

Quoted: The cruiser parked out front might of been a giveaway also.

For sure.  Which is why most agencies with "take home" cars require they are parked in a locked garage.

In our agency only K9's and Motors take their cars/bikes home, and must be locked in a garage.  Everyone else drives to the station, changes out in the locker room and checks out a car.  Wearing your uniform to or from work is prohibited and can get you fired.

Quoted: Quoted: The cruiser parked out front might of been a giveaway also. For sure.  Which is why most agencies with "take home" cars require they are parked in a locked garage. In our agency only K9's and Motors take their cars/bikes home, and must be locked in a garage.  Everyone else drives to the station, changes out in the locker room and checks out a car.  Wearing your uniform to or from work is prohibited and can get you fired.

That sounds like how Batman works, with the costume and the Bat cave.

We had something similar happening here.

In a nutshell

Guy makes website (www.justicefiles.org) it's gone now.

City and County Sue to stop him and lose

Legislature makes a law which provided that “a person or organization shall not, with the intent to harm or intimidate,” give out identification information for any law enforcement, corrections, or court employee.

Court throws law out for being overbroad.

Judge weighs case against Web site posting officers' personal data Thursday, May 3, 2001 By CANDACE HECKMAN SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER A King County Superior Court judge said yesterday that it might take him a week to decide whether to shut down an Internet site that lists personal information about Western Washington police officers. On behalf of its police force, the city of Kirkland is suing a network administrator in Mill Creek for invasion of privacy. The site, called "The Justice Files," was posted in February and lists the names, salary ranges, home addresses and telephone numbers of officers in 17 local law enforcement agencies. The site specifically lists Social Security numbers for Kirkland police officers. The Kirkland officers say that the information is not only personal, but that it is also private and has nothing to do with their jobs as public authorities. The city is asking Judge Robert Alsdorf to order the site off the Internet permanently or at least until a ruling is made at a civil trial tentatively scheduled for August 2002. William Sheehan and his partner, Aaron Rosenstein, who started the Web site, said the information is not private because they were able to obtain it through legal sources, including public-disclosure requests. Kirkland's private attorney Stephen Smith, said he did not dispute that someone can obtain the information elsewhere. But he said that the mass disclosure satisfies no public interest other than to fulfill a personal vendetta Sheehan and Rosenstein have against police. According to Kirkland's written arguments yesterday, officers said they feel intimidated, particularly at home. One officer wrote that his wife is stressed and does not feel comfortable at home. He wrote that he now brings his gun home on a regular basis and has taught his wife how to use it. In another declaration, a community corrections officer associated with Sheehan and Rosenstein wrote that he has evidence of incidents in which the two, who have criminal records, had threatened to use their computer engineering dexterity to hack into secure systems. Sheehan said that tension between him and some police officers did motivate him to initiate The Justice Files. But he said he believes the site represents his right to political protest. Sheehan said that the information is listed as a way of making law enforcers more accountable to the public. For some officers, civil, criminal and bankruptcy court record numbers are attached to the Web site. Sheehan's attorney, Elena Garella, argued that the court could not protect the officers' information unless all Internet sites and data companies that provide this type of information are shut down. Alsdorf asked how she or her clients might react if their information was published in the same fashion. Garella answered that she did not approve of a Web site created earlier this month that posted a photo of her leaving her home and listed her personal information. "I have to say, it wasn't pleasant," Garella said. The same site was apparently retaliatory and included information about Sheehan, his family and his partner, Aaron Rosenstein.

Quoted: In a $200 million lawsuit filed this week, Jeron Maklanron alleges that Hawthorne and its police department conspired to get a judge to shut down HawthornePD.com. Maklanron says it's a Web site he launched in 2004 after seeing police harass minorities. The site allegedly showed two sergeants' home addresses and prompted the city to seek a restraining order against the site. Police say Maklanron's site implicitly threatened officers by posting their addresses and urging people to go talk to them. After winning the restraining order, officers searched Maklanron's house and seized his computer.

If he wants to post purported abuses, as long as they aren't libelous, fine.  But once he put personal information on the website, and if he refused to remove them, then shut him down.

I've had to change my pager/home phone #'s several times because of crazy stalker patients who lie to the hospital operator pretending to be a doctor.  

Quoted: Quoted: In a $200 million lawsuit filed this week, Jeron Maklanron alleges that Hawthorne and its police department conspired to get a judge to shut down HawthornePD.com. Maklanron says it's a Web site he launched in 2004 after seeing police harass minorities. The site allegedly showed two sergeants' home addresses and prompted the city to seek a restraining order against the site. Police say Maklanron's site implicitly threatened officers by posting their addresses and urging people to go talk to them. After winning the restraining order, officers searched Maklanron's house and seized his computer. If he wants to post purported abuses, as long as they aren't libelous, fine.  But once he put personal information on the website, and if he refused to remove them, then shut him down. I've had to change my pager/home phone #'s several times because of crazy stalker patients who lie to the hospital operator pretending to be a doctor.

why is this different from the anti abortion folk posting doctors who perform abortions  names and addresses?
(the army of god or some such group)

Or have those sites been closed as well?

If a person's address is not listed publicly, I think it would be reasonable to prohibit posting his name/address/phone number without being authorized by that person.

If your address is in the white pages, then tough shit on you.

Around here the "take home" cars are often left parked on the street.  A short drive around town will tell you where most of the city cops live.

I don't see how having the address posted online is any different than finding a guy in the phone book, or public records office, or simply driving around town, UNLESS the asshole is actually making a threat.  "Go talk to him" is not a threat.  "Go kick his ass" is a threat.

IF all he actually said was "go talk to them" I hope he wins.

Hawthorne is a working-class community located east of Los Angeles International Airport.

I think I flew over that neighborhood while landing at LAX in late '92.  Most of it was burned.

Eddie

Quoted: Maklanron says it's a Web site he launched in 2004 after seeing police harass minorities. The site allegedly showed two sergeants' home addresses and prompted the city to seek a restraining order against the site.

That's because minorities are committing the crimes that attract police attention.

A restraining order agains tthe website? Don't go near the website!

Maybe a cease and desist?

Names and badge numbers should be okay, but home addresses and phone numbers should remain confidential.

Quoted: Quoted: The cruiser parked out front might of been a giveaway also. For sure.  Which is why most agencies with "take home" cars require they are parked in a locked garage. In our agency only K9's and Motors take their cars/bikes home, and must be locked in a garage.  Everyone else drives to the station, changes out in the locker room and checks out a car.  Wearing your uniform to or from work is prohibited and can get you fired.

Interesting difference in philosophies/policies.
Here, ALL LEO's have take home cars and they drive them everywhere. No locked garage policy and most don't. Many apartment complexes offer LEO's "discounts" to attract them so there will be patrol cars parked around the complex.

It is irritating to see officers out of uniform, with girlfriend/wife/family, paying no attention to speed limits, etc.

Quoted: A restraining order agains tthe website? Don't go near the website! Maybe a cease and desist?

I hate to say, but I think that is intentional.  People know what a restraining order is, but many probably wouldn't understand if reported as a 'cease and desist' order.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The cruiser parked out front might of been a giveaway also. For sure.  Which is why most agencies with "take home" cars require they are parked in a locked garage. In our agency only K9's and Motors take their cars/bikes home, and must be locked in a garage.  Everyone else drives to the station, changes out in the locker room and checks out a car.  Wearing your uniform to or from work is prohibited and can get you fired. Interesting difference in philosophies/policies. Here, ALL LEO's have take home cars and they drive them everywhere. No locked garage policy and most don't. Many apartment complexes offer LEO's "discounts" to attract them so there will be patrol cars parked around the complex.

Strange.  Any con-wise crook could certainly tell the difference between a patrol car parked at a cops apartment complex from one actively patrolling the complex. Here the patrol car would have the tires slashed and be burglarized looking for body armor, weapons, and radios if left unattended overnight.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The cruiser parked out front might of been a giveaway also. For sure.  Which is why most agencies with "take home" cars require they are parked in a locked garage. In our agency only K9's and Motors take their cars/bikes home, and must be locked in a garage.  Everyone else drives to the station, changes out in the locker room and checks out a car.  Wearing your uniform to or from work is prohibited and can get you fired. Interesting difference in philosophies/policies. Here, ALL LEO's have take home cars and they drive them everywhere. No locked garage policy and most don't. Many apartment complexes offer LEO's "discounts" to attract them so there will be patrol cars parked around the complex. Strange.  Any con-wise crook could certainly tell the difference between a patrol car parked at a cops apartment complex from one actively patrolling the complex. Here the patrol car would have the tires slashed and be burglarized looking for body armor, weapons, and radios if left unattended overnight.

WOW! We always had the same "Community Policing" policy. I grew up with a police car parked in my front yard because dad was a street cop for almost 30 years and then I had a car parked out front until I got assigned to detectives unit. The PD always figured that the cars on the streets and in the neighborhoods were a deterent.

Just goes to show the difference between metro areas and semi-rural areas.

He should have paid the $10 per month or whatever to have it hosted, rather than having the site on his own computer.  I'd imagine any hosting company out there would tell the judge to piss up a rope.

Quoted: He should have paid the $10 per month or whatever to have it hosted, rather than having the site on his own computer.  I'd imagine any hosting company out there would tell the judge to piss up a rope.

Nope, they tend to be very compliant with c-a-d orders....

There are a number of issues here - not just the names/addys part, but the name: 'hawthornepd.com' could have been taken up with ICANN, as a case of domain camping....

Quoted: Nope, they tend to be very compliant with c-a-d orders....

That sucks, what about a hosting service in a foreign country?

There are a number of issues here - not just the names/addys part, but the name: 'hawthornepd.com' could have been taken up with ICANN, as a case of domain camping....

That seems a little far fetched, but he could always buy hawthornepdabuse.com or something.  Hell, it would cost the PD thousands of dollars paying someone to wait on hold with the registrar or ICANN

* The guy may be a scum or upstanding guy...I dunno
* The practice of doing it may be wrong
* Legislating it may be the way to go

But here's where I'm wondering about the response:
Suppose I have a little video rental store and some LEOs sometimes stop by and rent a movie or two...not wild movies or anything, they're just customers.  Then I post their personal information on the internet.  Is this breaking laws and can the city (or other government entity) shut down my web host and/or take personal property over it?

Lots of laws address different types of privacy issues, even by profession (such as the thing that made the news about the CIA guy being outed in the press a few months ago).  

I'm just wondering if the guy broke the law and if the city is legal in doing what they did.

Last I looked, the 1st Amendment didn't contain a "good purpose" clause. I would not like it one bit if my personal information were posted on the web, but I have to say "too damned bad." I suspect that the city is going to find its budget a little light next year.

Quoted: If a person's address is not listed publicly, I think it would be reasonable to prohibit posting his name/address/phone number without being authorized by that person. If your address is in the white pages, then tough shit on you.

Well if your name is on the county property tax records it is part of the public record and can be reposted anywhere at anytime.

News papers Post the names and addresses of delinquent property tax home owners all the time.
If they tried to stop the news papers from posting the guys home address they would be in federal court in a heart beat.
The towns & cities across American use this tactic to intimidate delinquent tax payers all the time.

Quoted: Around here the "take home" cars are often left parked on the street.  A short drive around town will tell you where most of the city cops live. I don't see how having the address posted online is any different than finding a guy in the phone book, or public records office, or simply driving around town, UNLESS the asshole is actually making a threat.  "Go talk to him" is not a threat.  "Go kick his ass" is a threat. IF all he actually said was "go talk to them" I hope he wins.

Geat real.

"Go talk to him" about police abuse is an outright threat.

Quoted: * The guy may be a scum or upstanding guy...I dunno * The practice of doing it may be wrong * Legislating it may be the way to go But here's where I'm wondering about the response: Suppose I have a little video rental store and some LEOs sometimes stop by and rent a movie or two...not wild movies or anything, they're just customers.  Then I post their personal information on the internet.  Is this breaking laws and can the city (or other government entity) shut down my web host and/or take personal property over it? Lots of laws address different types of privacy issues, even by profession (such as the thing that made the news about the CIA guy being outed in the press a few months ago).   I'm just wondering if the guy broke the law and if the city is legal in doing what they did.

In your video rental senario were you talking about identifying them as customers or as LE/customer? If the later you probably would have an issue if AZ prohibits it.

In FL it is unlawful to publish the address or phone number of LE. The media is also restricted from broadcasting a report from outside an officers house if the report displays the address of any other identifying feature of the residence.

In many states officers can elect to change their drivers license and vehicle registration address to that of the police dept. My voter registration card does not have an address listed on it. The legislature enacted a privacy law that allowed LE to have it removed.

Yea, the information is out there if you want to dig for it. Not much I can do if someone posts my info publicly in a different context, but I do have a problem IF they identify me as a police officer and encourage people to drop by.

Quoted: In FL it is unlawful to publish the address or phone number of LE. The media is also restricted from broadcasting a report from outside an officers house if the report displays the address of any other identifying feature of the residence.

Got a citation for that?

Quoted: He should have paid the $10 per month or whatever to have it hosted, rather than having the site on his own computer.  I'd imagine any hosting company out there would tell the judge to piss up a rope.

Nope, they tend to be very compliant with c-a-d orders....

There are a number of issues here - not just the names/addys part, but the name: 'hawthornepd.com' could have been taken up with ICANN, as a case of domain camping....

If the guy was simply exposing things about the dept or officers without giving their personal info I would have no problem with it. The cruiser in the driveway is a big ass clue though.

Here are a couple of sites fellow Floridians may like:
Read the Hillsborough section at the least.
www.leoaffairs.com

This one is from a deputy pal up in Pensacola whose sheriff is the king of crooks. Read the archives, they are hilarious.
www.ronniemacabusespower.com

Quoted: Quoted: He should have paid the $10 per month or whatever to have it hosted, rather than having the site on his own computer.  I'd imagine any hosting company out there would tell the judge to piss up a rope. Nope, they tend to be very compliant with c-a-d orders.... There are a number of issues here - not just the names/addys part, but the name: 'hawthornepd.com' could have been taken up with ICANN, as a case of domain camping....

You posted this on page 1.

Cops sure don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot and someone has the upper hand over them through legal means...so they do everything under handed to get the tables turned back in their favor.  That is all the evidence that I need to know that those cops have a "civilian are scum and should be controlled attitude" vs a "we are here to protect and serve" attitude.  I hope the guy wins big against the police department that has questionable practices and then tries to silence free speech when someone points it out.

Instead of trying to work with the guy and get a positive public relation from it, they get restraining orders, file lawsuits, and raid the guys house....and cops wonder why so many people bash them.

If you have no problem having the fact you have a CCW posted on the web then no problem.

Me? I dont care.

Quoted: Quoted: Around here the "take home" cars are often left parked on the street.  A short drive around town will tell you where most of the city cops live. I don't see how having the address posted online is any different than finding a guy in the phone book, or public records office, or simply driving around town, UNLESS the asshole is actually making a threat.  "Go talk to him" is not a threat.  "Go kick his ass" is a threat. IF all he actually said was "go talk to them" I hope he wins. Geat real. "Go talk to him" about police abuse is an outright threat.

Bull-fucking-shit.  "Go talk to him" to me says "when you see this guy, tell him 'hey, you need to learn to do your job without breaking the law' nothing more.

But whatever, you do your thing, I'll do mine.  You (cops) leave me the fuck alone and I'll mostly overlook the petty and stupid shit that cops do while on the job (speeding, running lights and sirens to blow intersections just to meet their buddies at Wendy's for lunch, things like that) and leave ya'll alone.

Quoted: If you have no problem having the fact you have a CCW posted on the web then no problem. Me? I dont care.

Interesting you mention that about CCW.  Relating to CCW in CA, I was told when I inquired about CCW in a town on the central coast that not only was it very difficult to obtain, but "a lot of personal information becomes public record, which I'm sure you don't want."  Within the context and tone of this reply from a police "information officer" who handles the requests, it was made clear this was borderline blackmail to discourage me from applying.  So, indeed,  tough if the shoe is on the other foot.  

I'm curious about the procedure behind the raid, since this is a civil case.

Quoted: Quoted: * The guy may be a scum or upstanding guy...I dunno * The practice of doing it may be wrong * Legislating it may be the way to go But here's where I'm wondering about the response: Suppose I have a little video rental store and some LEOs sometimes stop by and rent a movie or two...not wild movies or anything, they're just customers.  Then I post their personal information on the internet.  Is this breaking laws and can the city (or other government entity) shut down my web host and/or take personal property over it? Lots of laws address different types of privacy issues, even by profession (such as the thing that made the news about the CIA guy being outed in the press a few months ago).   I'm just wondering if the guy broke the law and if the city is legal in doing what they did. In your video rental senario were you talking about identifying them as customers or as LE/customer? If the later you probably would have an issue if AZ prohibits it. In FL it is unlawful to publish the address or phone number of LE. The media is also restricted from broadcasting a report from outside an officers house if the report displays the address of any other identifying feature of the residence.

Ah, ok, thanks for the update on FL law.

So in the video scenario, if my video store is in Florida, the video store person could not legally post the personal information and state that they were a LEO?

They ain't got shit on Portland.  Remember the terrorist playing cards?  Check this one out:

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/04/286573.shtml

It's not hot because I don't want those commies to trace the link.

Quoted: Quoted: In FL it is unlawful to publish the address or phone number of LE. The media is also restricted from broadcasting a report from outside an officers house if the report displays the address of any other identifying feature of the residence. Got a citation for that?

FSS 119.07

I won't paste the whole text as it is quite long. But it also covers LE, correction, Child & Family Investigators, firefighters, judges, State Attorneys, human resource, labor relations, code enforecement, guardian ad litem....etc......so it is not just for cops.

The 2005 Florida Statutes

Title X
PUBLIC OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AND RECORDS Chapter 119

119.071  General exemptions from inspection or copying of public records.--


119.071(4)(d)1.  The home addresses, telephone numbers, social security numbers, and photographs of active or former law enforcement personnel, including correctional and correctional probation officers, personnel of the Department of Children and Family Services whose duties include the investigation of abuse, neglect, exploitation, fraud, theft, or other criminal activities, personnel of the Department of Health whose duties are to support the investigation of child abuse or neglect, and personnel of the Department of Revenue or local governments whose responsibilities include revenue collection and enforcement or child support enforcement; the home addresses, telephone numbers, social security numbers, photographs, and places of employment of the spouses and children of such personnel; and the names and locations of schools and day care facilities attended by the children of such personnel are exempt from s. 119.07(1). The home addresses, telephone numbers, and photographs of firefighters certified in compliance with s. 633.35; the home addresses, telephone numbers, photographs, and places of employment of the spouses and children of such firefighters; and the names and locations of schools and day care facilities attended by the children of such firefighters are exempt from s. 119.07(1). The home addresses and telephone numbers of justices of the Supreme Court, district court of appeal judges, circuit court judges, and county court judges; the home addresses, telephone numbers, and places of employment of the spouses and children of justices and judges; and the names and locations of schools and day care facilities attended by the children of justices and judges are exempt from s. 119.07(1). The home addresses, telephone numbers, social security numbers, and photographs of current or former state attorneys, assistant state attorneys, statewide prosecutors, or assistant statewide prosecutors; the home addresses, telephone numbers, social security numbers, photographs, and places of employment of the spouses and children of current or former state attorneys, assistant state attorneys, statewide prosecutors, or assistant statewide prosecutors; and the names and locations of schools and day care facilities attended by the children of current or former state attorneys, assistant state attorneys, statewide prosecutors, or assistant statewide prosecutors are exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution.

If someone posted where I live, listed or not, it would not be  a problem. Whey should it be for anyone else.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: In FL it is unlawful to publish the address or phone number of LE. The media is also restricted from broadcasting a report from outside an officers house if the report displays the address of any other identifying feature of the residence. Got a citation for that? FSS 119.07 I won't paste the whole text as it is quite long. But it also covers LE, correction, Child & Family Investigators, firefighters, judges, State Attorneys, human resource, labor relations, code enforecement, guardian ad litem....etc......so it is not just for cops. The 2005 Florida Statutes Title X PUBLIC OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AND RECORDS Chapter 119 119.071  General exemptions from inspection or copying of public records.--

That statute does not prohibit the publication of the listed information. Chapter 119 establishes a presumption of availability of all public records to the public. Only information which is specifically exempted from that presumption may be withheld from inspection or copying by members of the public or media. Personal information about LEOs and others is exempted from disclosure by the section you cited. However, anyone who has that information can publish it.

So as long as you are employed by a City/State/Fed agency of some sort you are a super citizen
whereas if Joe or Joan Blow gets a stalker digging up stuff to put on a website you can't do crap but file a report with cops who don't give a shit or spend a shit load of money sueing him and having it go to appeals forever
I was not aware someones right to privacy is dependent on where you are employed
what a fucking joke