74 lines
3.9 KiB
Plaintext
74 lines
3.9 KiB
Plaintext
|
Oct 25th was the second round in the legal situation of the State of Oklahoma
|
|||
|
|
vs Tony Davis and the seizure of the Oklahoma Information Exchange BBS. On
|
|||
|
|
that day the Preliminary Trial took place.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Generally the Prelim is a fairly cut and dry issue. It is a one-sided affair
|
|||
|
|
where the DA calls up the police witnesses to tell their side of the story to
|
|||
|
|
show that there was probable cause that a crime was committed to determine if
|
|||
|
|
the case should be held over for trial.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
There was little doubt of the outcome, and as expected, the case was held
|
|||
|
|
over.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Even though the defense did not present any evidence at the Prelim, a number
|
|||
|
|
of 'facts' were presented by the DA which were extremely surprising.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
1> The original affidavit requesting a search warrant was sworn out by Sgt
|
|||
|
|
Tony Gracey. In that affidavit, he stated that he was acting on information
|
|||
|
|
given him by a confidential informant. When asked about that informant on the
|
|||
|
|
stand, he then contradicted his sworn statement and said that he did not have
|
|||
|
|
an informant, that the information came from his Lieutenant. Then when the
|
|||
|
|
Lieutenant was asked on the stand about his informant, he contradicted Sgt
|
|||
|
|
Gracey and swore that he did not have one, but that Sgt. Gracey initiated the
|
|||
|
|
investigation based on his own informant.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The inconsistent statements of these two officers will create a situation
|
|||
|
|
where the legality of the entire search warrant will be closely scrutinized in
|
|||
|
|
a brief to the trial judge.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
2> Sgt Gracey also stated that he was aware that there was a network located
|
|||
|
|
in the 'back room' at the 1501 SE 66th location prior to the execution of the
|
|||
|
|
search warrant, but failed to place that information about the 'network' in
|
|||
|
|
the affidavit requesting the search warrant or have it placed on the search
|
|||
|
|
warrant itself.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
This will also become an issue in the brief of pre-trial motions to the trial
|
|||
|
|
judge to find if any information about the BBS will be admissable or
|
|||
|
|
suppressible.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
3> In an other unexpected surprise, Sgt Gracey also told the court, that
|
|||
|
|
during his undercover investigation, the defendant had told him that he had
|
|||
|
|
not viewed any of the files on the CDs in question, and the defendant did not
|
|||
|
|
know of the content of the CDs. Although this has no bearing on guilt or
|
|||
|
|
innocence, it certainly sheds some light on the matter of intent.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
4> Although there has been grounds for a civil law suit under two separate
|
|||
|
|
federal laws, no suit had yet been filed because prior to the Prelim there was
|
|||
|
|
questions on if the seizure was actually done by the OCPD acting on it's own
|
|||
|
|
or under direction of the County DA. Since the county DA is indemnified under
|
|||
|
|
law, until the exact responsibility of the seizure was identified, all civil
|
|||
|
|
law suits were delayed.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
When Sgt Wenthal was questioned under oath on who else he had contacted for
|
|||
|
|
help on determining which laws were possibly violated, he stated "no one".
|
|||
|
|
Then when directly asked who made the decision to seize the computer
|
|||
|
|
equipment, he stated "I did".
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The Federal Privacy Protection Act is one of the few Federal statutes that
|
|||
|
|
allow for direct compensation from the acting officer as well as the agency he
|
|||
|
|
was acting for. That 30 seconds of testimony by Sgt Wenthal stopped all road
|
|||
|
|
blocks in the civil suits, and it is expected that a minimum of two federal
|
|||
|
|
law suits against both the City of Oklahoma City, and Sgt Wenthal will be
|
|||
|
|
filed within the next 14 days.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Sgt Wenthal was also asked about the 'Your Busted' TV segment. Under oath, he
|
|||
|
|
stated that he had personably wrote the script for the show. This puts the
|
|||
|
|
responsibility for the 'Your Busted' information directly back to Sgt Wenthal
|
|||
|
|
and the OCPD, not Channel 5, who would have been protected by 1st Amendment
|
|||
|
|
rights.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
A number of other inconsistencies and questions were also raised, but to a non
|
|||
|
|
attorney, these seemed to be the major ones.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Tony
|
|||
|
|
|