Lawsuit Settled After Cop Revealed Anonymous Blogger To His Church, Then Destroyed Records To 'Protect Civil Rights'

by Mike Masnick
Techdirt
Nov. 06, 2010

Gabriel Tane alerts us to an interesting story about online anonymity coming out of Jacksonville, Florida. Apparently, a member of the First Baptist Church there had been writing a blog that was critical of the church leadership. A local sheriff's detective, Robert Hinson, who was (in addition to being a sheriff's detective) a member of the same church, a provider of security to the church, a deacon at the church and a member of the church's "disciplinary committee," used his position in the sheriff's office to open an official investigation into the blog, and was able to get Stephen Siegel, an assistant state attorney to issue a subpoena to reveal the blogger.

Once the blogger's name was revealed to Hinson, he revealed the blogger's name to church officials, closed down his "investigation" and (wow) destroyed the files related to the investigation. He claimed that the files were destroyed to "protect the civil rights" of the blogger -- which is pretty funny since the entire investigation appears to have been designed to violate the civil right of anonymity of the blogger. Even more troubling, was that the state records concerning the subpoena were also destroyed -- though the state attorney claims this was "inadvertent." Meanwhile, with the blogger revealed to church leaders, he and his wife were accused of "sin," and then filed a "trespass" warning against him, effectively barring him from the church.

The guy sued the city and the state for the actions of Hinson, and have separately sued the church (they've since joined another church...). The state and the city have now "settled" without admitting guilt, but the lawyer for the blogger points out that the overall situation "speaks for itself." While it definitely sounds like a violation and a conflict of interest by the detective, what's amazing to me is that the state's attorney office was willing to issue that subpoena without realizing that it appeared to be more of a personal vendetta, and without any concern for the First Amendment anonymity rights of the blogger.