Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Medicine

Fired COVID-19 Data Manager Rebekah Jones Sues FDLE Over Raid On Her Home (tallahassee.com) 144

Posted by BeauHD from the latest-developments dept.
Former Department of Health data manager Rebekah Jones has filed a lawsuit (PDF) against the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, saying the Dec. 7 morning raid on her house was a "sham" to retaliate against her for not altering COVID-19 data. Tallahassee.com reports: Jones was fired in May for failing to change COVID-19 data, and soon launched her own online data dashboard. Gov. Ron DeSantis said her firing was because she disobeyed superiors; she said it was because she wouldn't alter data to cast Florida in a more favorable light to justify the governor's plans to reopen the state's economy. In the lawsuit filed Sunday night against FDLE Commissioner Rick Swearingen, the department and several agents in Leon County Circuit Civil Court, Jones claims her constitutional rights were violated, including against unlawful search and seizure. She is seeking in excess of $100,000, according to the lawsuit's cover sheet.

She also claims she was unnecessarily roughed up. "We are trying to achieve some kind of redress," said Rick Johnson, the lead attorney in both the civil suit and a separate whistleblower case. "This is still America. This is the kind of thing that happens in tinhorn dictatorships in third world countries." Swearingen has defended the actions of the agents he said were "vilified" by the media. He blamed Jones for any risk of danger to herself or her family. He reiterated those comments in a statement released later Monday. "As I have said before, I am proud of the professionalism shown by our FDLE agents as they served a legal search warrant on the residence of Rebekah Jones. Our criminal investigation continues, and while I have not seen this lawsuit, I believe the facts will come out in court," Swearingen said.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Fired COVID-19 Data Manager Rebekah Jones Sues FDLE Over Raid On Her Home More

Fired COVID-19 Data Manager Rebekah Jones Sues FDLE Over Raid On Her Home

Comments Filter:

  • Doubling down on stupid (Score:4, Insightful)

    by GigaplexNZ ( 1233886 ) on Monday December 21, 2020 @10:22PM (#60855610)

    He blamed Jones for any risk of danger to herself or her family.

    Blaming the unarmed victim? The allegations against her were for non-violent actions.

    As I have said before, I am proud of the professionalism shown by our FDLE agents as they served a legal search warrant on the residence of Rebekah Jones.

    Proud of the agents pointing their guns at unarmed children?

    • Re:Doubling down on stupid (Score:5, Insightful)

      by backslashdot ( 95548 ) on Monday December 21, 2020 @11:16PM (#60855712)

      The organizer of the raid basically SWATted her.

    • He blamed Jones for any risk of danger to herself or her family.

      Blaming the unarmed victim? The allegations against her were for non-violent actions.

      As I have said before, I am proud of the professionalism shown by our FDLE agents as they served a legal search warrant on the residence of Rebekah Jones.

      Proud of the agents pointing their guns at unarmed children?

      One thing I haven't seen heavily reported or even commented upon comes out of the press release that USA Today fully reported here: https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com] This article also has links to the body cam video from the incident. Now to quote the article

      During the initial approach, agents tried to minimize disruption to the children, attempting to speak with Ms. Jones at the door to explain the search warrant. At approximately 8:31, agentswent to the back of the house and saw Ms. Jones’ husband going upstairs. The situation continued for 23 minutes without cooperation of Ms. Jones, including several phone calls to her.

      So, in response to your comments, maybe the blame they are placing on her was her apparent non-cooperation. 23 minutes seems like a long time to essentially ignore the LEOs at your door with a warrant. Maybe they would not have gone in with guns draw

      • Re:Doubling down on stupid (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Petrini ( 49261 ) on Tuesday December 22, 2020 @11:24AM (#60856682)

        So, in response to your comments, maybe the blame they are placing on her was her apparent non-cooperation. 23 minutes seems like a long time to essentially ignore the LEOs at your door with a warrant. Maybe they would not have gone in with guns drawn if she had cooperated. That may also factor in the professionalism, as the agents were very patient in their waiting. I will admit that I haven't sat down and watched 30 min of video, but I clicked through it enough that it does appear to be a long wait for her to open up.

        I look at this and see problems on both sides. She seemed to be happy to resist until it looked like agents were starting to consider breaking her door down. Then the agents manhandled her and went in with their guns drawn.

        Police don't get to have different levels of professionalism based on how long they've been waiting. They're armed, they're executing the states' authority. Their level of patience is not something citizenry should have to gauge and measure their justice around. For crying out loud, cops don't get to arrest someone for the crime of "making me wait."

        There is a procedure for entering the premises to execute a search warrant and it has nothing to do with the lead officer's mood. Yes, even when not admitted for 23 minutes, you still expect the police to follow procedure and not point guns at people because they've become impatient.

        And if the individuals there can't handle that, they shouldn't have guns and be cops.

        • There is a procedure for entering the premises to execute a search warrant and it has nothing to do with the lead officer's mood.

          I don't know the procedure. That being said, I would not be surprised to find that the procedure says that if the person appears to be resisting, then the way the police handle it changes. In that aspect, yes her behaviour would change how the police behaved around her without it having anything to do with the office's moods.

  • FLORIDA. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Rick Schumann ( 4662797 ) on Monday December 21, 2020 @10:39PM (#60855644) Journal
    That one word explains everything.

  • GoFundMe for her legal costs (Score:5, Informative)

    by olsmeister ( 1488789 ) on Monday December 21, 2020 @10:42PM (#60855654)
    She has a GoFundMe account [gofundme.com] set up to help pay for her legal costs. If anyone feels like they want to help out.

  • It fits the pattern (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AlanObject ( 3603453 ) on Monday December 21, 2020 @11:15PM (#60855710)

    Remember that Florida is the state where the Governor ordered that all the scientists that work for the state government were forbidden to say the words "Climate Change" or "Global Warming."

    That's the Republican mentality. Junta thug mentality.

    They don't care about the welfare of the state of science or anything. Only keeping themselves in power. Jones stood up to them and that was intolerable. They probably called her a "terrorist."

    I hope Jones gets a mega settlement on this.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by k2dk ( 816114 )

      Remember that Florida is the state where the Governor ordered that all the scientists that work for the state government were forbidden to say the words "Climate Change" or "Global Warming."

      That's the Republican mentality. Junta thug mentality.

      They don't care about the welfare of the state of science or anything. Only keeping themselves in power. Jones stood up to them and that was intolerable. They probably called her a "terrorist."

      I hope Jones gets a mega settlement on this.

      Remember the people who generalises the actions of one member as a trait of all the members of a group? Thats stupid mentality.

      I also hope Jones get a mega settlement of this.

      • >> Remember the people who generalises the actions of one member as a trait of all the members of a group? Thats stupid mentality.

        That's *certainly* true when people have no choice but be a member of a particular group (i.e. gender or racial groups). It's *less* true when we are talking about groups that people join voluntarily.

        "Not all urban heroin dealers carry guns" is a technically true statement (I'm sure you can find at least one counter-example). "Not all members of motorcycle gangs own

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by k2dk ( 816114 )

          >> Remember the people who generalises the actions of one member as a trait of all the members of a group? Thats stupid mentality.

          That's *certainly* true when people have no choice but be a member of a particular group (i.e. gender or racial groups). It's *less* true when we are talking about groups that people join voluntarily.

          "Not all urban heroin dealers carry guns" is a technically true statement (I'm sure you can find at least one counter-example). "Not all members of motorcycle gangs own a motorcycle" is similar.

          And it's also true that "Not all Republicans are racist Junta thugs" but it *is* a group in which that behavior is considered acceptable. There are stereotypical behaviors that you see from members of pretty much any political party. And you can level similarly formatted criticisms at Democrats. But the reality remains that the Republican party does not value our democratic ideals but prefers authoritarianism and so it's very likely that anybody who chooses to be a member of that party, at minimum, doesn't reject that ideology.

          I disagree that it is considered acceptable in the "republican group". But I do agree with your general statement. Thats why I dont like Islam.

      • We're not talking about some random or arbitrary grouping like: "People named Richard", "Ginger kids", or "People don't like pineapple as a pizza topping" We're talking about self-selecting members of an organization.

        When one is talking about an organization whose entire purpose is to take actions to promote and propagate a specific ideology; then yes, it is entirely safe, acceptable, and appropriate to operate under the assumption that the members of said organization believe in the very same actions and

  • $100,000+ from our pockets (Score:3, Interesting)

    by yagmot ( 7519124 ) on Monday December 21, 2020 @11:17PM (#60855716)

    And once again the taxpayers are forced to foot the bill -- not only for potential damages, but legal fees etc -- just because some idiot politician with a grudge can't act like a grown-up. Thanks DuhSantis!

  • They drew weap[ons. No excuse (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gurps_npc ( 621217 ) on Monday December 21, 2020 @11:57PM (#60855782) Homepage

    The only reason to EVER draw a weapon on a search warrant for evidence is if you feel endangered. If a cop draws a weapon and does not arrest someone, they were being paranoid. Paranoid on a traffic stop could theoretically be reasonable. Paranoid when serving an information warrant on a fired employee in the belief they have stolen information from their employer....

    Just means the cop was incompetent and can not be trusted in a truly dangerous situation.

    Anyone that would draw a weapon on an e-evidence search will shoot someone that has a cellphone in their hands because they thought it was a gun.

    • Someone made a post to a mailing list encouraging workers to provide honest information to the public. The username and password used for that list was the one everyone used, provided to all employees. It is even indexed by google!

    • The only reason to EVER draw a weapon on a search warrant for evidence is if you feel endangered

      That's true to a degree, but going in weapons drawn is reasonable in some situations. A raid on a drug lab or similar location with armed criminal guards, for instance. However, the problem is that the police cannot be trusted to properly identify those situations when getting the warrant and the judges are not prying enough before allowing such no-knock raids.

      But you're assuming that the terror wasn't the poin

      • Re:They drew weap[ons. No excuse (Score:5, Informative)

        by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Tuesday December 22, 2020 @04:08AM (#60856084) Journal
        That's how it works in many EU countries: the police will draw their weapon only when they actually see a threat, not when they think there might be one. In some cases (UK) the police doesn't even carry firearms. Before shooting at someone, our police must issue a verbal warning, followed by a warning shot, unless there's an immediate threat to life. Even drawing a firearm is subject to rules, and considered to be a use of force. Accidental or unwarranted shootings are very rare here, and that's by design. Even if it comes down to a hard choice between x cop lives lost, or x lives of civilians (even nonviolent "perps"), we choose to protect our citizens. That is what "protect and serve" means.

        There are exceptions: when raiding a drug lab or when arresting a criminal with a violent past they might go in with guns drawn, but these cases are often handled by a SWAT team trained to handle such situations (and operating under the same instructions, by the way).

        • Even if it comes down to a hard choice between x cop lives lost, or x lives of civilians (even nonviolent "perps"), we choose to protect our citizens. That is what "protect and serve" means.

          And part of the design is that the cops are less likely to have their lives threatened in the first place, because the criminals know that they're not at risk of just being assassinated when they show up.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mtmra70 ( 964928 )

          In the US cops being afraid equates to feeling that their life is in danger. If a person runs towards a cop car with a baseball bat they will fear their life is in danger and use deadly force.

          The problem we have in the US is cops use feelings vs actual credible threat.

        • I mean, that's how in theory it works in the US. But cops keep expanding their definition of "imminent threat" to be beyond reasonable.

  • Weren't Western media, at the start of the pandemic, crowing about how Western culture is superior because data fudging cannot happen in democracies and societies that value openness? Turns out not only are they about the same, turns out you freedom loving Republicans are just as bad as the "Chinese".

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      Weren't Western media, at the start of the pandemic, crowing about how Western culture is superior because data fudging cannot happen in democracies and societies that value openness? Turns out not only are they about the same, turns out you freedom loving Republicans are just as bad as the "Chinese".

      And yet, Rebekah Jones proves you wrong. Despite the Florida government wanting to cover it up, she went out and got the real numbers and published them.

      And despite the government trying to cover it up, it gets

      • Rebekah Jones proves you wrong. Despite the Florida government wanting to cover it up, she went out and got the real numbers and published them.

        See that Chinese scientist who attempted to alert the world to COVID-19 back in 2019 when the Chinese government was trying to cover it up.

        I like how you presented what is equivalent outcomes to show one is superior than the other. Both governments wanted to cover things up. Both "dissidents" managed to get the word out. How else did you hear about that Chinese scientist? The fact is both governments "covered things up". Whether or not someone manages to get information out, the fact is both governments did try to cover things up. And Western media was trying to portray it as cultural superiority, when both CULTURES managed to have produced co

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Moloth ( 2793915 )

          Li Wenliang shared his message online, and shortly after he was investigated by police for "spreading rumours" and told to "stop making false comments". So they did try to cover it up.. they just failed this time.

          See:
          Li Wenliang: 'Wailing Wall' for China's virus whistleblowing doctor [bbc.com]
          Inside the Early Days of China’s Coronavirus Cover-Up [wired.com]

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Moloth ( 2793915 )

            If you have a large enough message that is not approved by the Chinese government they will just delete all your posts, and then delete anyone’s posts who have mentioned your post, and make the whole thing disappear. Then you will have to go have 'Tea' with the police and promise not to do it again, otherwise you will be charged. Your friends won’t mention it either otherwise they will be forced to have 'Tea' with the police. The whole thing is a very effective way of covering things up, except

  • this is why we were against tthe iraq war + gitmo (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Don Bright ( 6770394 ) on Tuesday December 22, 2020 @02:32AM (#60855968)

    people like Ron Desantis learned how to be patriotic American law enforcement by learning his craft inside the military in an occupation zone, he worked at both Gitmo and Iraq. thats where his world view comes from.

    we all knew this stuff would come back and be used against civilians. that's what always happens in war.

    nobody listened.

  • Nice to see the wild-west-cowboy approach hasn't died off.

    Cocksucker.

  • Real Reason For The Raid (Score:5, Informative)

    by ytene ( 4376651 ) on Tuesday December 22, 2020 @04:31AM (#60856108)
    Don't forget, the real reason for the raid against Jones was to obtain the electronic devices that she was using to communicate with insiders within the state government.

    Jones has said (via interview, after the raid) that she had continued to receive information from multiple sources, some high in the ranks of the Florida government.

    The primary purpose of the raid was to confiscate her electronic devices, which obviously would then be subject to search, in order to permit DeSantis and others to determine the identity of other Florida State employees who have continued to provide information and assistance to Jones.

    The entire raid was predicated upon an affadavit from a single FBI official, and was made on the basis that allegedly illegal use of a Florida State computer system was determined to have come from the public IP address of a router in Jones' home. Obviously, the authorization to conduct the raid, granted as it was by a justice appointed by Governor DeSantis, didn't contain any actual proof of the claim being made concerning that IP address. Without sight of that evidence - including proof of end-to-end chain of custody and integrity, we don't know for sure whether the data used as the basis for the search warrant had not been altered in the period of time from when it was provided by Comcast to the moment it was used for that warrant. We don't know if the IP address used to allegedly access the Florida network was spoofed.

    We don't know if the router assigned by Comcast to Jones [or her router, if privately owned] had a wi-fi network integrated with it. Nor do we know, if such a network were present, whether it was adequately secured or if the router was free from security vulnerabilities.

    The scariest problem for Jones is "who do you trust?" The affadavit submitted to the court in request of the search warrant was made by an FBI officer. The FBI is the place you would go if you felt that your local state authorities were abusing the law to come after you. Where does Jones turn now?
    • I like your post but I'm not sure about it. You seem to create a chicken-and-egg problem. There is some evidence (the IP address matches) but not conclusive proof. Hence you *investigate*. And if additional materials are needed for that investigation, you obtain them via search warrant. On the surface, that appears to be what happened here. And if the search warrant limits the scope of investigation into finding out whether or not she accessed the systems, it isn't a terrible warrant (although poorly e

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by ytene ( 4376651 )
        Ed, you make a cogent argument. Entirely fair. However, I still have a problem with it...

        If you were the FBI and were concerned about someone performing an on-going hack of state computer systems [which is entirely an FBI remit by the way, given that the "Computer Fraud and Abuse Act" is a *federal* law, not a state law] then obtaining your suspect's personal devices isn't necessarily going to tell you a whole lot, unless you can somehow build an irrefutable case from log data on the device. If you're th

        • If you were the FBI and were concerned about someone performing an on-going hack of state computer systems [which is entirely an FBI remit by the way, given that the "Computer Fraud and Abuse Act" is a *federal* law, not a state law] then obtaining your suspect's personal devices isn't necessarily going to tell you a whole lot, unless you can somehow build an irrefutable case from log data on the device. If you're the FBI, you can do a better job of that with data you can obtain from Comcast.

          I'm on the lady's side here, and you're making up complete bullshit excuses that a police raid to gather electronic devices can NEVER be justified because "mah logs got haxed". Further, you argue the FBI cannot be trusted in your previous post because ... they were involved?

          There's a lot of questions about this investigation, but computers and personal devices can and should be confiscated in connection with computer crimes. Period.

          And no, the FBI is not your first line of support when a state investigati

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Miser ( 36591 )

      IP address == person is weak argument.

      Plus, she should have been using full drive encryption on anything with data on it that she cared about.

  • It's the future (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jandoe ( 6400032 ) on Tuesday December 22, 2020 @04:55AM (#60856140)

    So when they were making SciFi movies 30 years ago you had the flying cars ones and the ones with bunch of rich people living in fortresses protected by militarized police while the rest fight for food on the streets. I guess we know which vision came true.

    • They can both come true. I never saw a vision of the future where everyone had flying cars. The wealthy already use air taxis to avoid mixing with the plebes.

Slashdot Top Deals

The optimum committee has no members. -- Norman Augustine

Close