This seems...insane.
A masked on-duty officer covered his badge while acting chummy with anti-BLM protesters.
Someone posted his picture on twitter to find out who he is.
Prosecutors are now charging the tweeter, and 5 RTers, with an 18 month felony.🧵
washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/08…
A masked on-duty officer covered his badge while acting chummy with anti-BLM protesters.
Someone posted his picture on twitter to find out who he is.
Prosecutors are now charging the tweeter, and 5 RTers, with an 18 month felony.🧵
washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/08…
The tweeters are charged under the NJ cyber harassment statute. I've never looked at it before. But on its face it doesn't seem to even plausibly cover the tweet. 
Indeed, the tweet doesn't even invite anyone to dox the officer, at least not as the word "doxing" is typically defined. The tweet could easily be read to seek public, nonsensitive information, like the officer's name.
And crucially, people have a First Amendment *right* to take pictures of the police precisely because doing so helps to hold officers accountable -- which requires figuring out who the officer is. Cf. Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 2017).
(This is why everyone is concerned about unidentified officers in the first place. cc: @pbump) washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/…
Here's the craziest part: No one ever replied to the tweet. But we now know the pictured officer is Detective Peter Sandomenico -- because the prosecutors themselves named him in their complaint!
(Would a prosecutor be charged for posting the complaint as a reply to the tweet?)
(Would a prosecutor be charged for posting the complaint as a reply to the tweet?)
"Malicious prosecution" isn't just a catchy phrase. It's a cause of action.
UPDATE: I initially keyed off the tweeter's lawyer's saying that "prosecutors are going after the five co-defendants." But Eugene Volokh notes that in NJ prosecutors don't decide to file charges until the hearing on a summons, which can be issued by anyone, including an officer.
So, I may have been premature in criticizing prosecutors for filing charges here, rather than focusing on the officer himself. Frankly, I struggle to imagine an officer filing a complaint based on on-the-job activity without consulting a prosecutor first. But I guess we'll see...
Eugene's full post on the case is thorough and worth a read.
