Commentary: Judge SLAPPs Down Buzayan Suit Against Newspaper

It was reported last week in the Davis Enterprise that a judge had dismissed the portion of the Buzayan suit that was aimed at sanctioning the Davis Enterprise for posting the audio tapes of the arrest of then 16-year old Halema Buzayan in 2005.

That suit was based on two key factors. First, that the District Attorney’s office had leaked the tapes to the newspaper against the orders of Judge Thomas Warriner. And second, that the Davis Enterprise had failed to edit out specific personal information about the Buzayan children and their family, not to mention also personal information about the victim. The tapes containing that personal information were left up for five days, until the victim emailed Assistant Publisher/Editor Debbie Davis at the Davis Enterprise and the paper pulled down the tapes until they could edit them.

Of the 19 complaints filed in the Buzayan lawsuit, from the beginning this would appear to be the most problematic. Could a paper be sanctioned for knowingly publishing tapes that they had acquired from a government body–in this case the DA–that under most conditions they knew should be confidential by law.

If we think about it from another standpoint, the answer appears to be more obvious. Suppose this were not the District Attorney’s office but rather a whistle-blower leaking this information to the press. Instead of a case against a juvenile, it involved some sort of corporate malfeasance about a major company and their CEO. The whistle-blower illegally leaks the information to the press and the press reports it as a huge expose. Do we want that company to be able to sue the newspaper under those conditions? I think the answer is simply that we do not. Therefore it is difficult for me to fault the ultimate ruling from Judge England.

However, from other angles this ruling is still a bit perplexing.

Judge England decided this case under SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). He writes:

“California’s Anti-SLAPP law is aimed at curtailing civil actions designed to deter private citizens from exercising their rights of free speech.”

SLAPP primarily refers to the suits placed by large corporations or other wealthy entities against individuals who are practicing free speech activities. These large entities can simply use their vast resources to force individuals to defend themselves in the legal arena. The huge discrepancy in resources means that an individual is severely disadvantaged in the fight and therefore such suits create a chilling effect on the free exercise of speech.

In this case, you have a family suing the newspaper for releasing what they deem to be confidential information regarding a juvenile case and negligently posting private information that could end up being used by identity thieves against the family. The Davis Enterprise is not disadvantaged in their resources compared with a private family and so SLAPP in this manner seems to be used to prevent a suit for which it was not intended to be used.

In response to the verdict, Davis Enterprise Editor Debbie Davis proclaimed:

“We’re very pleased with the judge’s ruling. We were sued, basically, for doing our job – for covering a story of intense public interest and for making important audio files available to the public. We’re happy that Judge England affirmed our constitutional right to do so.”

This is a misleading statement by Ms. Davis. The Davis Enterprise was sued because they chose to print and post material from a juvenile case that was supposed to by law and Judge Warrnier’s ruling remain confidential. The Deputy District Attorney in this case, Patty Fong was explicitly told by Judge Warriner that the district attorney’s office could not release information or discuss this matter because it was a juvenile case. The family is always permitted to release information and discuss this matter. As Judge Warriner explained when he denied Fong a motion to gag the defense, the juvenile laws were set up to protect the rights of minors not to protect the government from charges of impropriety.

It does create a burden on the government, but the law was set up to protect minors and juveniles from just the sort of abuse that Ms. Buzayan received from the DA’s office. The DA’s office used the Davis Enterprise to achieve their goals here and I think attorney Whitney Leigh was exactly right when he said that “the reporting and recordings were meant to embarrass, humiliate and cause hardship to the Buzayan family.” They clearly were.

The family was not suing the Davis Enterprise for doing their job. They sued the Davis Enterprise for working with the DA’s office to violate a juvenile’s right to privacy.

In the end, I think the Judge here made a tough ruling. It took him nearly two months from the time of the hearing to the time of his ultimate verdict. That indicates that he felt this was a very close call.

However, what the newspaper failed to note is that 18 of the 19 complaints filed by the Buzayan family have been allowed to go forward for trial. That includes the meat of the case against the Davis Police Department and the District Attorney’s Office. In looking at this case, this complaint against the newspaper seemed to be the most difficult to sustain and proceed to trial because of free speech protections provided to newspapers and the unwillingness of most Judges (and rightfully so) to sanction a paper for reporting on something that they obtained legally (at least on their end).

In the end, the Buzayans will get their day in court. The Davis Enterprise will eventually have to own up to Debbie Davis’ proclamation that the officer “was doing his job and doing it well.” That will be the Buzayan family’s ultimate vindication.

—Doug Paul Davis reporting

Author

  • David Greenwald

    Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Categories:

Civil Rights

60 comments

  1. “We were sued, basically, for doing our job – for covering a story of intense public interest and for making important audio files available to the public.”

    That is what I would expect them to say, but the Enterprise still looks bad. The Enterprise picked one side of a criminal case and ran with that position without regard to normal editorial procedure. The Enterprise accepted an unedited audio tape from the DA’s office and published it because it supported their position. A responsible paper would have listened to the tape and would have removed the confidential information. After all the paper insisted this was a big story and such stories require some attention to detail.

    Another thing I noted was how long the tape remained posted to the web page. I read many on-line papers and of course there are both audio and video recordings posted on a daily basis. However, the normal procedure is to remove the recordings after the readers have a chance to listen/view them. I have never seen a recording remain posted for more than a day or two. In this case the recording was posted, pulled down for editing and reposted so I would have expected the posting to remain longer than normal. However, The Enterprise left this recording up for months – why was it there so long? Were they “basically doing their job” or were they more interested in trying the case in the press. Newspapers should be interested in Due Process of those on both sides of criminal cases. In this case the Enterprise displayed too much bias. In the future I hope they just report the news and record their viewpoints on the editorial page.SAH

  2. “We were sued, basically, for doing our job – for covering a story of intense public interest and for making important audio files available to the public.”

    That is what I would expect them to say, but the Enterprise still looks bad. The Enterprise picked one side of a criminal case and ran with that position without regard to normal editorial procedure. The Enterprise accepted an unedited audio tape from the DA’s office and published it because it supported their position. A responsible paper would have listened to the tape and would have removed the confidential information. After all the paper insisted this was a big story and such stories require some attention to detail.

    Another thing I noted was how long the tape remained posted to the web page. I read many on-line papers and of course there are both audio and video recordings posted on a daily basis. However, the normal procedure is to remove the recordings after the readers have a chance to listen/view them. I have never seen a recording remain posted for more than a day or two. In this case the recording was posted, pulled down for editing and reposted so I would have expected the posting to remain longer than normal. However, The Enterprise left this recording up for months – why was it there so long? Were they “basically doing their job” or were they more interested in trying the case in the press. Newspapers should be interested in Due Process of those on both sides of criminal cases. In this case the Enterprise displayed too much bias. In the future I hope they just report the news and record their viewpoints on the editorial page.SAH

  3. “We were sued, basically, for doing our job – for covering a story of intense public interest and for making important audio files available to the public.”

    That is what I would expect them to say, but the Enterprise still looks bad. The Enterprise picked one side of a criminal case and ran with that position without regard to normal editorial procedure. The Enterprise accepted an unedited audio tape from the DA’s office and published it because it supported their position. A responsible paper would have listened to the tape and would have removed the confidential information. After all the paper insisted this was a big story and such stories require some attention to detail.

    Another thing I noted was how long the tape remained posted to the web page. I read many on-line papers and of course there are both audio and video recordings posted on a daily basis. However, the normal procedure is to remove the recordings after the readers have a chance to listen/view them. I have never seen a recording remain posted for more than a day or two. In this case the recording was posted, pulled down for editing and reposted so I would have expected the posting to remain longer than normal. However, The Enterprise left this recording up for months – why was it there so long? Were they “basically doing their job” or were they more interested in trying the case in the press. Newspapers should be interested in Due Process of those on both sides of criminal cases. In this case the Enterprise displayed too much bias. In the future I hope they just report the news and record their viewpoints on the editorial page.SAH

  4. “We were sued, basically, for doing our job – for covering a story of intense public interest and for making important audio files available to the public.”

    That is what I would expect them to say, but the Enterprise still looks bad. The Enterprise picked one side of a criminal case and ran with that position without regard to normal editorial procedure. The Enterprise accepted an unedited audio tape from the DA’s office and published it because it supported their position. A responsible paper would have listened to the tape and would have removed the confidential information. After all the paper insisted this was a big story and such stories require some attention to detail.

    Another thing I noted was how long the tape remained posted to the web page. I read many on-line papers and of course there are both audio and video recordings posted on a daily basis. However, the normal procedure is to remove the recordings after the readers have a chance to listen/view them. I have never seen a recording remain posted for more than a day or two. In this case the recording was posted, pulled down for editing and reposted so I would have expected the posting to remain longer than normal. However, The Enterprise left this recording up for months – why was it there so long? Were they “basically doing their job” or were they more interested in trying the case in the press. Newspapers should be interested in Due Process of those on both sides of criminal cases. In this case the Enterprise displayed too much bias. In the future I hope they just report the news and record their viewpoints on the editorial page.SAH

  5. Ir may have been “unedited” with regard to personal information that the court ordered not to be released but, as I recall, it was anything but unedited with regard to the completeness of the audio record.
    The line of between the editorial position of the editor/publisher and
    responsible news reporting is usually very difficult to find in the Enterprise.

  6. Ir may have been “unedited” with regard to personal information that the court ordered not to be released but, as I recall, it was anything but unedited with regard to the completeness of the audio record.
    The line of between the editorial position of the editor/publisher and
    responsible news reporting is usually very difficult to find in the Enterprise.

  7. Ir may have been “unedited” with regard to personal information that the court ordered not to be released but, as I recall, it was anything but unedited with regard to the completeness of the audio record.
    The line of between the editorial position of the editor/publisher and
    responsible news reporting is usually very difficult to find in the Enterprise.

  8. Ir may have been “unedited” with regard to personal information that the court ordered not to be released but, as I recall, it was anything but unedited with regard to the completeness of the audio record.
    The line of between the editorial position of the editor/publisher and
    responsible news reporting is usually very difficult to find in the Enterprise.

  9. The Enterprise says that it was reporting on a matter of public interest and posted the police interview of a juvenile that had no parents or legal representation present. The girls name, her driver’s license number, birth date, address, school was detailed on the tape, along with the names and birth dates of her younger siblings. The Enterprise said that it was important that the community hear the tape so that they could form their own opinion – a large community police oversight board – but clearly was opposed to the civilian police review board recommended by the HRC.

    The Enterprise was just doing the DPD and the DA’s Office a favor. It has tarnished the Enterprise’s reputation as a organization that is protective of our kids. I think that it has backfired. Everything I read in the Enterprise is suspect now.

  10. The Enterprise says that it was reporting on a matter of public interest and posted the police interview of a juvenile that had no parents or legal representation present. The girls name, her driver’s license number, birth date, address, school was detailed on the tape, along with the names and birth dates of her younger siblings. The Enterprise said that it was important that the community hear the tape so that they could form their own opinion – a large community police oversight board – but clearly was opposed to the civilian police review board recommended by the HRC.

    The Enterprise was just doing the DPD and the DA’s Office a favor. It has tarnished the Enterprise’s reputation as a organization that is protective of our kids. I think that it has backfired. Everything I read in the Enterprise is suspect now.

  11. The Enterprise says that it was reporting on a matter of public interest and posted the police interview of a juvenile that had no parents or legal representation present. The girls name, her driver’s license number, birth date, address, school was detailed on the tape, along with the names and birth dates of her younger siblings. The Enterprise said that it was important that the community hear the tape so that they could form their own opinion – a large community police oversight board – but clearly was opposed to the civilian police review board recommended by the HRC.

    The Enterprise was just doing the DPD and the DA’s Office a favor. It has tarnished the Enterprise’s reputation as a organization that is protective of our kids. I think that it has backfired. Everything I read in the Enterprise is suspect now.

  12. The Enterprise says that it was reporting on a matter of public interest and posted the police interview of a juvenile that had no parents or legal representation present. The girls name, her driver’s license number, birth date, address, school was detailed on the tape, along with the names and birth dates of her younger siblings. The Enterprise said that it was important that the community hear the tape so that they could form their own opinion – a large community police oversight board – but clearly was opposed to the civilian police review board recommended by the HRC.

    The Enterprise was just doing the DPD and the DA’s Office a favor. It has tarnished the Enterprise’s reputation as a organization that is protective of our kids. I think that it has backfired. Everything I read in the Enterprise is suspect now.

  13. Has the Buzayan family requested that the State Attorney General’s office investigate the Yolo County District Attorney for the leaking of private confidential information related to their daughter and their family from a juvenile court case file?

    Something to consider. Meanwhile, one can only hope that the court and the State Bar take appropriate action.

    –Richard Estes

  14. Has the Buzayan family requested that the State Attorney General’s office investigate the Yolo County District Attorney for the leaking of private confidential information related to their daughter and their family from a juvenile court case file?

    Something to consider. Meanwhile, one can only hope that the court and the State Bar take appropriate action.

    –Richard Estes

  15. Has the Buzayan family requested that the State Attorney General’s office investigate the Yolo County District Attorney for the leaking of private confidential information related to their daughter and their family from a juvenile court case file?

    Something to consider. Meanwhile, one can only hope that the court and the State Bar take appropriate action.

    –Richard Estes

  16. Has the Buzayan family requested that the State Attorney General’s office investigate the Yolo County District Attorney for the leaking of private confidential information related to their daughter and their family from a juvenile court case file?

    Something to consider. Meanwhile, one can only hope that the court and the State Bar take appropriate action.

    –Richard Estes

  17. “Of the 19 complaints filed in the Buzayan lawsuit, from the beginning this would appear to be the most problematic.”

    I strongly disagree. This entire lawsuit is problematic. It may well go to trial — many weak lawsuits go to trial — but it stands no chance to succeed.

    “In the end, the Buzayans will get their day in court. The Davis Enterprise will eventually have to own up to Debbie Davis’ proclamation that the officer “was doing his job and doing it well.” That will be the Buzayan family’s ultimate vindication.”

    It will be some vindication when a jury laughs the Buzayans out of court.

  18. “Of the 19 complaints filed in the Buzayan lawsuit, from the beginning this would appear to be the most problematic.”

    I strongly disagree. This entire lawsuit is problematic. It may well go to trial — many weak lawsuits go to trial — but it stands no chance to succeed.

    “In the end, the Buzayans will get their day in court. The Davis Enterprise will eventually have to own up to Debbie Davis’ proclamation that the officer “was doing his job and doing it well.” That will be the Buzayan family’s ultimate vindication.”

    It will be some vindication when a jury laughs the Buzayans out of court.

  19. “Of the 19 complaints filed in the Buzayan lawsuit, from the beginning this would appear to be the most problematic.”

    I strongly disagree. This entire lawsuit is problematic. It may well go to trial — many weak lawsuits go to trial — but it stands no chance to succeed.

    “In the end, the Buzayans will get their day in court. The Davis Enterprise will eventually have to own up to Debbie Davis’ proclamation that the officer “was doing his job and doing it well.” That will be the Buzayan family’s ultimate vindication.”

    It will be some vindication when a jury laughs the Buzayans out of court.

  20. “Of the 19 complaints filed in the Buzayan lawsuit, from the beginning this would appear to be the most problematic.”

    I strongly disagree. This entire lawsuit is problematic. It may well go to trial — many weak lawsuits go to trial — but it stands no chance to succeed.

    “In the end, the Buzayans will get their day in court. The Davis Enterprise will eventually have to own up to Debbie Davis’ proclamation that the officer “was doing his job and doing it well.” That will be the Buzayan family’s ultimate vindication.”

    It will be some vindication when a jury laughs the Buzayans out of court.

  21. Excellent work DPD and thanks to the Vanguard for the update on the Buzayan Case as well as keeping a close watch on the Davis Enterprise’s so called “reporting” on it. The Enterprise has shown from the beginning of this case an overwhelming bias against the Buzayan family all the while favoring of the actions of the authorities that includes defending the misconduct of the Davis police and the Yolo DA’s office in this needless and unnecessary arrest and malicious prosecution.

    When the DA’s office and in particular Deputy DA Patti Fong decided to violate the judge’s order and the law against revealing confidential information in a juvenile case the only paper to collude with them was the Davis Enterprise. No other newspaper chose to help the DA’s office violate the law by revealing confidential and protected information. The Enterprise’s bias in support of the misconduct of the Davis police and the Yolo County’s DA’s office will become very clear once the trial begins.

    Hopefully the Buzayan family will get the justice they deserve against the lawlessness of those rogues in the law enforcement community and some sense of satisfaction due to the poor reporting, misleading columns and editorials of the Davis Enterprise.

  22. Excellent work DPD and thanks to the Vanguard for the update on the Buzayan Case as well as keeping a close watch on the Davis Enterprise’s so called “reporting” on it. The Enterprise has shown from the beginning of this case an overwhelming bias against the Buzayan family all the while favoring of the actions of the authorities that includes defending the misconduct of the Davis police and the Yolo DA’s office in this needless and unnecessary arrest and malicious prosecution.

    When the DA’s office and in particular Deputy DA Patti Fong decided to violate the judge’s order and the law against revealing confidential information in a juvenile case the only paper to collude with them was the Davis Enterprise. No other newspaper chose to help the DA’s office violate the law by revealing confidential and protected information. The Enterprise’s bias in support of the misconduct of the Davis police and the Yolo County’s DA’s office will become very clear once the trial begins.

    Hopefully the Buzayan family will get the justice they deserve against the lawlessness of those rogues in the law enforcement community and some sense of satisfaction due to the poor reporting, misleading columns and editorials of the Davis Enterprise.

  23. Excellent work DPD and thanks to the Vanguard for the update on the Buzayan Case as well as keeping a close watch on the Davis Enterprise’s so called “reporting” on it. The Enterprise has shown from the beginning of this case an overwhelming bias against the Buzayan family all the while favoring of the actions of the authorities that includes defending the misconduct of the Davis police and the Yolo DA’s office in this needless and unnecessary arrest and malicious prosecution.

    When the DA’s office and in particular Deputy DA Patti Fong decided to violate the judge’s order and the law against revealing confidential information in a juvenile case the only paper to collude with them was the Davis Enterprise. No other newspaper chose to help the DA’s office violate the law by revealing confidential and protected information. The Enterprise’s bias in support of the misconduct of the Davis police and the Yolo County’s DA’s office will become very clear once the trial begins.

    Hopefully the Buzayan family will get the justice they deserve against the lawlessness of those rogues in the law enforcement community and some sense of satisfaction due to the poor reporting, misleading columns and editorials of the Davis Enterprise.

  24. Excellent work DPD and thanks to the Vanguard for the update on the Buzayan Case as well as keeping a close watch on the Davis Enterprise’s so called “reporting” on it. The Enterprise has shown from the beginning of this case an overwhelming bias against the Buzayan family all the while favoring of the actions of the authorities that includes defending the misconduct of the Davis police and the Yolo DA’s office in this needless and unnecessary arrest and malicious prosecution.

    When the DA’s office and in particular Deputy DA Patti Fong decided to violate the judge’s order and the law against revealing confidential information in a juvenile case the only paper to collude with them was the Davis Enterprise. No other newspaper chose to help the DA’s office violate the law by revealing confidential and protected information. The Enterprise’s bias in support of the misconduct of the Davis police and the Yolo County’s DA’s office will become very clear once the trial begins.

    Hopefully the Buzayan family will get the justice they deserve against the lawlessness of those rogues in the law enforcement community and some sense of satisfaction due to the poor reporting, misleading columns and editorials of the Davis Enterprise.

  25. “It will be some vindication when a jury laughs the Buzayans out of court.”

    Whatever the outcome, the DA’s Office will find it hard to convince the community that it is acting in a child’s best interest ever again. This was a misdemeanor juvenile case and DA Patti Fong failed in caring for the child in this instance. There was no public safety issue present when she released the tapes. The last thing I heard is that she is handling juvenile drug court cases. These are kids who are high risk and look who the DA assigns to care for them. How inappropriate?

    It may happen that the Court dismisses the civil case, but Patti Fong screwed up and she needs to be held accountable for her actions, just like she states about the kids she prosecutes. We should demand no less from the DA’s Office than we do from the kids in juvenile court. She minimumly needs to be reassigned to non-juvenile cases. She really should be fired. The community knows this.

  26. “It will be some vindication when a jury laughs the Buzayans out of court.”

    Whatever the outcome, the DA’s Office will find it hard to convince the community that it is acting in a child’s best interest ever again. This was a misdemeanor juvenile case and DA Patti Fong failed in caring for the child in this instance. There was no public safety issue present when she released the tapes. The last thing I heard is that she is handling juvenile drug court cases. These are kids who are high risk and look who the DA assigns to care for them. How inappropriate?

    It may happen that the Court dismisses the civil case, but Patti Fong screwed up and she needs to be held accountable for her actions, just like she states about the kids she prosecutes. We should demand no less from the DA’s Office than we do from the kids in juvenile court. She minimumly needs to be reassigned to non-juvenile cases. She really should be fired. The community knows this.

  27. “It will be some vindication when a jury laughs the Buzayans out of court.”

    Whatever the outcome, the DA’s Office will find it hard to convince the community that it is acting in a child’s best interest ever again. This was a misdemeanor juvenile case and DA Patti Fong failed in caring for the child in this instance. There was no public safety issue present when she released the tapes. The last thing I heard is that she is handling juvenile drug court cases. These are kids who are high risk and look who the DA assigns to care for them. How inappropriate?

    It may happen that the Court dismisses the civil case, but Patti Fong screwed up and she needs to be held accountable for her actions, just like she states about the kids she prosecutes. We should demand no less from the DA’s Office than we do from the kids in juvenile court. She minimumly needs to be reassigned to non-juvenile cases. She really should be fired. The community knows this.

  28. “It will be some vindication when a jury laughs the Buzayans out of court.”

    Whatever the outcome, the DA’s Office will find it hard to convince the community that it is acting in a child’s best interest ever again. This was a misdemeanor juvenile case and DA Patti Fong failed in caring for the child in this instance. There was no public safety issue present when she released the tapes. The last thing I heard is that she is handling juvenile drug court cases. These are kids who are high risk and look who the DA assigns to care for them. How inappropriate?

    It may happen that the Court dismisses the civil case, but Patti Fong screwed up and she needs to be held accountable for her actions, just like she states about the kids she prosecutes. We should demand no less from the DA’s Office than we do from the kids in juvenile court. She minimumly needs to be reassigned to non-juvenile cases. She really should be fired. The community knows this.

  29. ironically, enough, Englund’s reasoning, if taken to an extreme, would not only constitute a defense to any legal action taken by Bob Dunning (remember when he was going to sue the Vanguard and unspecified commenters here?), but would additinally permit the Vanguard to publish private information as to his children on the site

    of course, that’s ridiculous, it would be a preposterous, obscene kind of thing to do, which is why only a paper like the Davis Enterprise does it

    meanwhile, Debbie Davis celebrates pyrrhic victories such as this, a “victory” that can only have a negative effect on the paper’s circulation

    after all, there are plenty of ways of reading the Enterprise without paying for it

    –Richard Estes

  30. ironically, enough, Englund’s reasoning, if taken to an extreme, would not only constitute a defense to any legal action taken by Bob Dunning (remember when he was going to sue the Vanguard and unspecified commenters here?), but would additinally permit the Vanguard to publish private information as to his children on the site

    of course, that’s ridiculous, it would be a preposterous, obscene kind of thing to do, which is why only a paper like the Davis Enterprise does it

    meanwhile, Debbie Davis celebrates pyrrhic victories such as this, a “victory” that can only have a negative effect on the paper’s circulation

    after all, there are plenty of ways of reading the Enterprise without paying for it

    –Richard Estes

  31. ironically, enough, Englund’s reasoning, if taken to an extreme, would not only constitute a defense to any legal action taken by Bob Dunning (remember when he was going to sue the Vanguard and unspecified commenters here?), but would additinally permit the Vanguard to publish private information as to his children on the site

    of course, that’s ridiculous, it would be a preposterous, obscene kind of thing to do, which is why only a paper like the Davis Enterprise does it

    meanwhile, Debbie Davis celebrates pyrrhic victories such as this, a “victory” that can only have a negative effect on the paper’s circulation

    after all, there are plenty of ways of reading the Enterprise without paying for it

    –Richard Estes

  32. ironically, enough, Englund’s reasoning, if taken to an extreme, would not only constitute a defense to any legal action taken by Bob Dunning (remember when he was going to sue the Vanguard and unspecified commenters here?), but would additinally permit the Vanguard to publish private information as to his children on the site

    of course, that’s ridiculous, it would be a preposterous, obscene kind of thing to do, which is why only a paper like the Davis Enterprise does it

    meanwhile, Debbie Davis celebrates pyrrhic victories such as this, a “victory” that can only have a negative effect on the paper’s circulation

    after all, there are plenty of ways of reading the Enterprise without paying for it

    –Richard Estes

  33. The thing that has always bothered me about the release of these tapes was they were INCOMPLETE.
    If the ENTERPRISE, or anyone, is going to put material on the web, would it not be proper that ALL related material be “published”, for much that is unseen in the ‘tween may be important?
    And finally, why shouldn’t ALL tapes be available (via some release method? The ability to “withhold” may also be the ability to COVER UP (as example- say a person returns home and finds an officer Smith and his partner- Jones?- in his/her residence. said resident makes clear that this is not by permission, then demands to know WHY officers are there.
    Smith, closest, ignores the questions…
    …legal point: it is significant to make clear consent was NOT given (but, of course, the evidence is in police hands;-( …
    …exacerbated, resident finally asks/demands: “are you going to tell me why you are in my home?”
    Smith then says, simply: “No.”
    A tape of that one incident would have gone a long way in ending a couple decades of the same type abuse.
    Even more than the budget, the police are the primary concern in responsibility for ‘civilain’ authority (or -ties).

  34. The thing that has always bothered me about the release of these tapes was they were INCOMPLETE.
    If the ENTERPRISE, or anyone, is going to put material on the web, would it not be proper that ALL related material be “published”, for much that is unseen in the ‘tween may be important?
    And finally, why shouldn’t ALL tapes be available (via some release method? The ability to “withhold” may also be the ability to COVER UP (as example- say a person returns home and finds an officer Smith and his partner- Jones?- in his/her residence. said resident makes clear that this is not by permission, then demands to know WHY officers are there.
    Smith, closest, ignores the questions…
    …legal point: it is significant to make clear consent was NOT given (but, of course, the evidence is in police hands;-( …
    …exacerbated, resident finally asks/demands: “are you going to tell me why you are in my home?”
    Smith then says, simply: “No.”
    A tape of that one incident would have gone a long way in ending a couple decades of the same type abuse.
    Even more than the budget, the police are the primary concern in responsibility for ‘civilain’ authority (or -ties).

  35. The thing that has always bothered me about the release of these tapes was they were INCOMPLETE.
    If the ENTERPRISE, or anyone, is going to put material on the web, would it not be proper that ALL related material be “published”, for much that is unseen in the ‘tween may be important?
    And finally, why shouldn’t ALL tapes be available (via some release method? The ability to “withhold” may also be the ability to COVER UP (as example- say a person returns home and finds an officer Smith and his partner- Jones?- in his/her residence. said resident makes clear that this is not by permission, then demands to know WHY officers are there.
    Smith, closest, ignores the questions…
    …legal point: it is significant to make clear consent was NOT given (but, of course, the evidence is in police hands;-( …
    …exacerbated, resident finally asks/demands: “are you going to tell me why you are in my home?”
    Smith then says, simply: “No.”
    A tape of that one incident would have gone a long way in ending a couple decades of the same type abuse.
    Even more than the budget, the police are the primary concern in responsibility for ‘civilain’ authority (or -ties).

  36. The thing that has always bothered me about the release of these tapes was they were INCOMPLETE.
    If the ENTERPRISE, or anyone, is going to put material on the web, would it not be proper that ALL related material be “published”, for much that is unseen in the ‘tween may be important?
    And finally, why shouldn’t ALL tapes be available (via some release method? The ability to “withhold” may also be the ability to COVER UP (as example- say a person returns home and finds an officer Smith and his partner- Jones?- in his/her residence. said resident makes clear that this is not by permission, then demands to know WHY officers are there.
    Smith, closest, ignores the questions…
    …legal point: it is significant to make clear consent was NOT given (but, of course, the evidence is in police hands;-( …
    …exacerbated, resident finally asks/demands: “are you going to tell me why you are in my home?”
    Smith then says, simply: “No.”
    A tape of that one incident would have gone a long way in ending a couple decades of the same type abuse.
    Even more than the budget, the police are the primary concern in responsibility for ‘civilain’ authority (or -ties).