Print This Post

You may also like...

34 Responses

  1. Mannie says:

    I am Spartacus.

    Come and get me too, Fuckers. Cowards.

  2. McNugget says:

    I actually live very close to Renton, and ,amusingly enough, I know Ryan Rutledge- or knew him about 10 years ago before he became a police officer. We worked together at a crappy job. I can assure you all that back then he was a gigantic douche of galactus proportions. And his ego was even bigger. So I guess he hasn't changed much.

  3. Ken says:

    I emailed Judge Cayce a link to the post. Howdy, judge!

  4. nrasmuss13 says:

    As irritating and outrageous as I frequently find them, I would probably rue a world entirely lacking in the sort of small-intellect, no-account d-bags exemplified by Officer Rutledge, District Attorney Arthur. Who then to amuse me? Far sadder that Judge Cayce was apparently unable or unwilling to properly review the demands of such "Authoritah!" wielding jerk-offs.

  5. ArthurKC says:

    Actually, prosecutors do not have absolute immunity for whatever they do. The Supreme Court has used a functionality test. If the prosecutor is acting as an investigator, as an arm of law enforcement, he does not have full immunity, only qualified immunity. If he is acting in the function of prosecuting someone, filing charges, presenting evidence, he has full immunity.

    The gray line between the two was before the Supreme Court in 2009, involving Iowa prosecutors who "investigated" a murder and then prosecuted two African-Americans from Omaha and they served something like twenty years before they were exonerated. The two guys won in the lower courts, and the Supreme Court took the case to review the prosecutors' argument that there was no constitutional right not to be framed for murder. Just before the case was argued, the prosecutors' insurance companies settled for well into eight figures, it was reported.

  6. Goober says:

    Ken – I really, really like you. Possibly even love. Your blog rocks the house.

    Hopefully I didn't make you uncomfortable in saying those things, because I also live in Washington (although on the dry side of the state, thank God – Renton is just south of Seattle, where you tell the seasons have changed by whether the rain falling is warm or cold) and thus, i could also be held to stand before a judge for my cyber-stalking of you. Although it isn't stalking, because my love for you is pure – not bad like some stalker-love. You can tell, can't you? Can't you feel how pure my love is? I will make you feel it, ken. I will make you feel my love…

    Okay, i just creeped myself out now. Sorry about that.

  7. Dan Weber says:

    Where are the rest of the videos? C'mon, Streisand Effect!

  8. R. Raymond says:

    If only Jonathon Swift were still alive, he could give them "A Modest Proposal" as to where they could put this. Another example of poorly written laws used well out of the spirit and only to salve fragile egos of public employees who "run to the violence" but ignore that sometimes they are the only violence at the scene. In this case to the Constitution and the American civic religion.

    Satire and parody of the Government and its representatives is the hallmark of a free society, but, evidently, only in Civics classes.

  9. Seamus Ruah says:

    No surprise, Renton is kind of a shithole. Although they do at least have a Frys.

  10. R. Raymond says:

    That explains it. PFS (police frustration syndrome caused by no Walmart, thus no septuagenarian greeters to assault, thus frustration). Just in case they're listening at the RPD, it was satire guys. Really, it was. Trust me.

  11. This may be my favorite title for a blog post this year.

  12. Ignatius says:

    I am now embarrassed to live in Washington.

    Love the blog – nothing clever to say, but FWIW, it's King County (no "s").

  13. RoboSamurai says:

    I , (redact), believe that judge James Cayce has flagrantly and knowingly misconstrued the spirit of law with reference to RCW 9.61.260. The judge has signed off on a search warrant to expose the identity of a unknown person or persons who created numerous parody videos lambasting an unnamed Police Department. The videos are believed to be about the Renton Police Department yet provide little more than allusion to said department.

    The search warrant was filed as warrant #11-1172, filed on July 28th, 2011 at 14:27 with the King County Superior Court. My assertion is that this warrant was filed not to expose any possible acts of cyberbullying but rather to expose a possible departmental employee to censure and departmental discipline. The spirit of the law is being egregiously twisted in this situation and I believe the matter deserves due oversight.

    Thank you.

    — I sent it to the Washington Commision on Judicial Conduct :)

    PS. Love the blog.

    PPS. I know I confused the term cyberstalking with cyberbullying.

  14. marco73 says:

    This is surely the Streisand effect in spades. I am in Florida. How many people in Washington had even heard of this case, let alone looked at the cartoons?
    One of our guys put one of the cartoons up on the big screen at work, and the room just roared with laughter.
    Please, please Shawn, throw Mr Fiddlesticks into the briar patch.
    Do you really want to stand up in open court, and declare that a cartoon parody of a female detective having an affair with a suspect is a "cybercrime?"

  15. Eddie says:

    Love the cartoons!! A couple more of them have surfaced here:

  16. delurking says:

    Ken et al. who follow these sorts of things:
    Do you have an educated guess about how common this is. In other words, in this particular case it mostly backfired on the city and police department, making them look bad to a small fraction of the population who is interested in such things. But, what fraction of the time is such conduct by public officials caught and publicized? 50%, 10%, 1%, 0.1%? I assume consequences beyond bad publicity are very rare.

  17. Dan Weber says:

    Is it too late to just carpet bomb youtube with xtranormal videos about Renton, so that Renton can't figure out just who to harass?

  18. This is a flagrant abuse of power by a collection of cowardly chickenshits. These guys just surpassed the gold standard for judicial asshattery.

  19. John Q. Galt says:

    "Come get me, fuckers."

    A tag line for these strange days.

  20. Karl says:

    If truly the Department and Officers are not named why would you want to stand up in court and declare that you are the ones being parodied?

  21. Karl says:

    If you are not specifically named in the cartoon, why would one want to declare in court that you are the one being parodied? Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt

  22. Patrick H says:

    You can find all of the videos at this site:
    There are a few visible, just click See All underneath those to view the rest. Spread them far and wide!

  23. Trent says:

    Ironically if anyone has actually caused embarrassment to the people involved it's idiot officer Rutledge who has supplied the actual names behind the parodies in an FOI'able document. Now people all over the world know the names behind the allegations investigated – maybe now they can come after Rutledge for specifically linking this embarrassing information to them!

    What I get from reading the affadavit is that they are really investigating is someone leaking details of internal investigations that they are publicising as parody videos. Rutledge is quite improperly using investigative powers for a cyber stalking offence to get a warrant for something that he has no legal power to demand if he honestly presented the facts. If it's not actually lying in a sworn document it's a quite dishonest misrepresentation that the judge was obviously not diligent enough to spot.

    Oh yes, I should add that I am a police officer with twelve years service, half of them as a plain clothes investigator so I have some idea of what I am talking about.

  24. Hal_10000 says:

    I'm sensing that stuff like his will be among the first uses of the Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act.

  25. mojo says:

    Well, Kings county IS just about the poorest of the poor in the California county sweepstakes. They probably couldn't afford a better judge.

  26. BS Footprint says:

    This takes the cake. Is there no limit to human stupidity?

  27. UhOh says:

    If the Renton Officials had not made a big deal, an obvious admission of guilt, no one would care since the dept was not identified. Personally, I live in renton and am afraid of the para-military police and their embeddedness with the prosecutors office.

  28. Rliyen says:

    Well, the Judge who issued the order has backtracked and issued a stay on the original warrant.

    Looks like he read it this time…

  1. August 4, 2011

    […] Ken at Popehat names the names. Digg it |  reddit | |  […]

  2. August 5, 2011

    […] No, no that one. The one that happened this week. […]

  3. August 5, 2011

    […] The story everyone's talking about: if you wanted a definitive example of the dangers of overbroad "cyber-stalking" statutes, here you go. [WSJ Law Blog, Balko, Volokh, Reason, Popehat] […]

  4. August 5, 2011

    […] From Popehat:  […]

  5. August 5, 2011

    […] have covered the story in depth [See Overlawyered; WSJ Law Blog; Balko; Volokh; Reason; Popehat], so I see now reason to rehash it here. But I will quote the venerable Ken of Popehat, and I […]

  6. August 5, 2011

    […] From Popehat:  […]