Aug 27, 2005
Constitution Trumps Request By Sheriff's
Office For Names
By THOMAS
W. KRAUSE
tkrause@tampatrib.com
At the close of an hourlong hearing Friday, Judge William Levens
determined the Web site www.leoaffairs.com
does not have to provide the sheriff's office with Internet protocol addresses
for people who posted anonymously. Sheriff's officials had served subpoenas on
the owners of the Web site, arguing they were allowed access to the addresses
as part of gathering information in a civil lawsuit.
``It is my belief that
the Constitution trumps the rules of civil procedure,'' Levens
said. ``Historically, we have had a number of unpopular ideas put out in the
mainstream by anonymous writers.''
Levens called it one of the ``messy
parts'' of constitutional rights.
Friday's ruling negates
one of two attempts by the sheriff's office to identify anonymous deputies who
post messages on the site.
A separate lawsuit, filed
by the sheriff's office against several anonymous deputies, remains pending.
In Friday's case,
attorneys for the Web site owners were arguing to quash subpoenas served on the
owners.
Sheriff's attorneys
defended the subpoenas, saying a person claiming to be a female deputy posted a
message on www.leo affairs.com affairs.comthat said detectives ``screwed up'' the
investigation into the disappearance of Steven and Marlene Aisenberg's
baby. The message, attributed to the pseudonym She Devil, also said the
investigation was a ``fiasco'' and the sheriff's office will have to write a
big check to the Aisenbergs.
The Aisenbergs
have an ongoing malicious-prosecution lawsuit against the sheriff's office.
Christopher Sabella, an attorney for the sheriff's office, said the
person who posted the message appears to have knowledge of the case and should
be identified. He said he wanted the identity so he could take her sworn
statement to be used as evidence in the lawsuit.
The sheriff's office, Sabella said, has the right to seek evidence that might be
relevant to the case.
Luke Lirot,
an attorney representing the Web site, said the site owners should not have to
reveal addresses of anonymous posters. The sheriff's office cannot say why the
name is relevant to the lawsuit and cannot say what information she might have,
Lirot said.
There is no proof the
anonymous message was posted by someone in the sheriff's office, Lirot said.
``It says, `We screwed
up,' '' he said. ``I think that is a matter of public knowledge at this
point.''
The sheriff's office has
records of everyone involved in the Aisenberg
investigation, Lirot said. If the lawyers interview
all of those people, there would be no need to seek out the person who posted
the Internet message.
``Anonymous speech has
been held to be highly protected by the First Amendment,'' he said.
Levens said the person who posted the
message intentionally hid his or her name. The Constitution, he said, gives
anyone that right.
Sheriff's officials said
they will appeal the ruling.
This week, a judge in a
different lawsuit ruled that the sheriff's office could issue subpoenas seeking
similar information from www.leoaffairs.com.
In that suit, the sheriff's office is seeking to identify deputies it says made
racist and sexist remarks, against policy.
Lirot said that when his clients are
served with those subpoenas, he will fight them and expects to win again.
``I think it's going to
carry the day on that, as well,'' he said. ``They are identical issues.''
Reporter
Thomas W. Krause can be reached at (813) 259-7698.
This story can be found at: http://tampatrib.com/floridametronews/MGBYR8RAVCE.html