NYPD lied about national security to get journalist info

Chris0nllyn

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Tina Moore, NY Post "Police Bureau Chief", got a hold, and tweeted, crime scene photos of a shooting in the City.

The NYPD decided to go to Twitter and demand they turn over "all device and contact information associated with the user handle @Tinamoorereport, as well as all the handle’s connection history between Oct. 9 and Oct. 14. "
https://nypost.com/2020/02/13/nypd-...rters-twitter-account-citing-anti-terror-law/

Now, NY State has a "shield law" that says,
New York’s Shield Law codifies the privilege, arising under the First Amendment, that protects professional journalists from compulsory disclosure of confidential sources contacted or materials obtained in the course of gathering information for public dissemination.

Under New York law a professional journalist is defined as one who is engaged in “….gathering, preparing, collecting, writing, editing, filming, taping or photographing of news intended for a newspaper, magazine, news agency, press association or wire service or other professional medium or agency which has as one of its regular functions the processing and researching of news intended for dissemination to the public…”
Click to expand...
https://www.nyclu.org/en/legislation/legislative-memo-journalist-shield-law

But more oddly, and more a sign of the times with our modern police force, the NYPD cited two things that would give them the authority to demand that info.
One being a basic law that allows them to issue subpoenas, and the second being.....The Patriot Act.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6776845/Nypd-Subpoena.pdf

The NYPD says the Patriot Act gives them the authority to demand info from a journalist who tweeted leaked pictures of a crime scene that, by all accounts, is in no way related to terrorism.
 
Spitfire

Spitfire

Active Member
Greetings:

So does the NYPD believe this case genuinely has terroristic ties? Or is this just a matter of using terror laws to cover their embarrassment with the leaker of the photos (an NYPD employee)?
 
Chris0nllyn

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Spitfire said:
Greetings:

So does the NYPD believe this case genuinely has terroristic ties? Or is this just a matter of using terror laws to cover their embarrassment with the leaker of the photos (an NYPD employee)?
Click to expand...

Going with the latter. The new Commissioner is cracking down on leakers as mentioned in the NY Post article.
 
M

Makavide

Not too talkative
or they could have just been referencing 47 U.S. Code § 551 Protection of subscriber privacy, as amended by Public Law 107-56 Title II Section 211. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/551


Because in reality, the Patriot Act primarily amended other laws already on the books. So just because the "Patriot Act" was referenced in the law title, the actual law they were basing the warrant on was the "Protection of Subscriber Privacy".

So, the news articles list above can imply the NYPD was attempting to tie this to terrorism, I really don't believe that was the case.

(course I am no expert in the law, and my interpretation may/or may not be the right one, but I am also not a "newspaper with an agenda")
 
Spitfire

Spitfire

Active Member
Makavide said:
or they could have just been referencing 47 U.S. Code § 551 Protection of subscriber privacy, as amended by Public Law 107-56 Title II Section 211. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/551


Because in reality, the Patriot Act primarily amended other laws already on the books. So just because the "Patriot Act" was referenced in the law title, the actual law they were basing the warrant on was the "Protection of Subscriber Privacy".

So, the news articles list above can imply the NYPD was attempting to tie this to terrorism, I really don't believe that was the case.

(course I am no expert in the law, and my interpretation may/or may not be the right one, but I am also not a "newspaper with an agenda")
Click to expand...

Greetings:

That appears to be for cable operators. Can you walk through how this applies in this particular case?
 
Chris0nllyn

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Makavide said:
or they could have just been referencing 47 U.S. Code § 551 Protection of subscriber privacy, as amended by Public Law 107-56 Title II Section 211. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/551


Because in reality, the Patriot Act primarily amended other laws already on the books. So just because the "Patriot Act" was referenced in the law title, the actual law they were basing the warrant on was the "Protection of Subscriber Privacy".

So, the news articles list above can imply the NYPD was attempting to tie this to terrorism, I really don't believe that was the case.

(course I am no expert in the law, and my interpretation may/or may not be the right one, but I am also not a "newspaper with an agenda")
Click to expand...

They could have, but it's not in the subpoena.

The subpoena says:.
Issued under the authority of Section 14-137 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York. See also USA Patriot Act, P.L. 107-56, Section 211 codified at 47 USCS Section 551(c)(2)(D)
Click to expand...
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6776845/Nypd-Subpoena.pdf
 
M

Makavide

Not too talkative
Chris0nllyn said:
They could have, but it's not in the subpoena.

The subpoena says:.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6776845/Nypd-Subpoena.pdf
Click to expand...

Because it makes so much sense to use section 211 of PL 107-56:
SEC. 211. CLARIFICATION OF SCOPE. Section 631 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 551) is amended— (1) in subsection (c)(2)— (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘or’’; (B) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and (C) by inserting at the end the following: VerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:15 Nov 05, 2001 Jkt 099139 PO 00056 Frm 00013 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL056.107 APPS24 PsN: PUBL056 115 STAT. 284 PUBLIC LAW 107–56—OCT. 26, 2001 ‘‘(D) to a government entity as authorized under chapters 119, 121, or 206 of title 18, United States Code, except that such disclosure shall not include records revealing cable subscriber selection of video programming from a cable operator.’’; and (2) in subsection (h), by striking ‘‘A governmental entity’’ and inserting ‘‘Except as provided in subsection (c)(2)(D), a governmental entity’’.
Click to expand...
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-107publ56/pdf/PLAW-107publ56.pdf
 
M

Makavide

Not too talkative
Spitfire said:
Greetings:

That appears to be for cable operators. Can you walk through how this applies in this particular case?
Click to expand...

Truthfully, I can not understand why the NYPD would reference "cable operators". I have not looked into the legal designations of Twitter or if they have been designated as a "Cable Operator" in other areas of New York law.

I was just commenting that just because the Patriot Act is cited, does not mean terrorism is being charged.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top