Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/92397054/State-v-Buhl-Franks-Motion-3
Timestamp: 2015-05-27 17:07:26
Document Index: 256521672

Matched Legal Cases: ['§4', 'art 3', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 2', 'art 2']

P. 1State v. Buhl Franks Motion (3)State v. Buhl Franks Motion (3)Ratings: (0)|Views: 2,682|Likes: 0Published by Teri BuhlOn June 4th 2012 in Norwalk, CT court there will be a hearing to argue the information that was or wasn't put in the request for a warrant by the New Canaan Police. This is the first look in 18 months to Teri Buhl's defense of the charges the State brought against her while working as a jouranlist on a story about the NCPD turning a blind eye to wall street parents that encourage underage drinking. On June 4th 2012 in Norwalk, CT court there will be a hearing to argue the information that was or wasn't put in the request for a warrant by the New Canaan Police. This is the first look in 18 months to Teri Buhl's defense of the charges the State brought against her while working as a jouranlist on a story about the NCPD turning a blind eye to wall street parents that encourage underage drinking. More info:Categories:Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsPublished by: Teri Buhl on May 04, 2012Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/92397054/State-v-Buhl-Franks-Motion-303/30/2014pdftextoriginal DOCKET NO.
S20N-CR10-0127478-S
SUPERIOR COURTSTATE OF CONNECTICUT:JUDICIAL DISTRICT OFSTAMFORD/NORWALK V.:AT NORWALK TERI BUHL:Tuesday, May 1, 2012 MOTION TO DISMISS (FRANKS V. DELAWARE)
Teri Buhl (the "Defendant"), pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book §4l- the Fourth andFourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, Article One, Section Seven of theState Constitution, and the holdings of Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), State v.Weinberg, 215 Conn. 231, 237, cert denied, 498 U.S. 967 (1990), and State v. Bergin, 214 Conn.657, 666, n.8 (1990), moves this Court to enter an Order dismissing the Information.As this Motion will show, the affidavit in support of the arrest warrant (the "Affidavit") thatwas executed by Sergeant Carol Ogrinc of the New Canaan Police Department dated 10/18/10,and subscribed and sworn to before New Canaan Police Lieutenant (name illegible) of the NewCanaan Police Department, contains false statements that were made knowingly andintentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth, and also omits material facts, thatcollectively were necessary to the determination that probable cause existed to arrest theDefendant. The affidavit, fails to reveal for the judicial authority important facts which wouldhave given the Honorable, Judge Bruce Huddock an opportunity to fully understand the events,and if he believed probable cause existed, potentially require prosecuting authorities to followstatutory protocol for compelling an investigative reporter (an established member of the newsmedia community) to disclose the “sources” and the “posters” of the Facebook Profile entitled
“Tasha Moore”, known also as “Gossip Girl.” Instead the affidavit focusses on collaboratingevidence ignoring salient facts, admissions and realities which would tend to exonerate and protect Buhl and her status as an investigative reporter.The complaining witness, Meagan Brody, told the police the Defendant was aninvestigative reporter. The Defendant herself told the investigating New Canaan police officer Dan Gulino and explains that she is investigating under age drinking in New Canaan and that the police where turning a blind eye to it. The arrest warrant affidavit, while mentioning that shestated she was an investigative reporter, did not state that Buhl
knew but would not identityher informant.
Nor does the affidavit mention that the Defendant told the police she knew thecreators of the Facebook profile Tasha Moore, but would not reveal her sources. Buhl candidlyadmits her involvement in mailing a copy of the subject “personal notes” belonging toComplainant Megan Brody, yet denies that she posted anything or created the Facebook profile.It excluded this important language that
Buhl knew who the creators were
and this should have been stated in paragraph 8., page 2 of 5 on the affidavit.The police knew or should have known, that once Buhl admitted she knew the identity of the individuals responsible for posting but WOULD NOT REVEAL HER SOURCE that shewould be protected under theSection 52-146t of the Connecticut General Statutes, entitled"Protection From Compelled Disclosure of Information Obtained by New Media."Instead, the arrest affidavit glosses over, discounts, and otherwise ignores that Buhl wasadamant in her knowing the identity of the source and her refusal to reveal the person responsiblefor the posting. The Affidavit also fails to stress that Buhl was candid about her participation asan investigative journalist acting in her news gathering capacity working with the sources that
she would not reveal - all of which would tend to exonerate her. The Affidavit states in part thatBuhl denied being Tasha Moore, but does not state that Buhl explained that she knows and knewwho created the fictitious Facebook profile and the reasons the individual, working with a groupcreated “Gossip Girl”. While Buhl admitted her involvement in sending the an anonymous letter to Paul Brody, she clearly explained to New Canaan Police officer Dan Gulino that she did not post the Facebook information. Her explanation that she was an investigative reporter workingon a story about adult-sponsored underage drinking in New Canaan, and that she knew who didcreate the profile should have been verified, investigated, validated. Her stating that she knewthe identity of the persons responsible for posting Meagan Brody’s personal notes should nothave been ignored, especially when Buhl concluded and emphasized, that she would not revealher sources.Instead of compelling Buhl to reveal her source via appropriate statutorily mandatedmethods, the police move forward with the arrest without regard for procedure when dealingwith press. The New Canaan police assumed and jumped to the conclusion that Buhl was the“perpetrator” of some obscure crime and completely disregarded her insistence that she was didnot post the allegedly offense material and that she would not reveal her source. The NewCanaan police intentionally failed to present the balanced and fair portrayal of the facts.The arrest affidavit even goes far enough to make mention of Buhl’s statement that she wasactively investigating a well known and highly publicly scrutinized New Canaan dilemma: the New Canaan Police Department’s failure to control and prevent underage drinking occurring at private homes.
Similar to State v. Buhl Franks Motion (3)CT State Reply Brief to State vs. BuhlTeri BuhlCT State Appeal response in State v. Buhl part 3Teri BuhlCT State Appeal Brief Response part 2Teri BuhlCT State v. Buhl Reply Appeal Brief Teri Buhl
More From This UserState of Mass. Sues SEC over RegA+ RulesTeri BuhlSignature Bank Foreclosure 11 Bostwick Lane Old WestburyTeri BuhlSeven Sages Top 30 EquityLongShort HF Ending Jun 20122Teri BuhlRibotsky Attorney Letter to Judge Over NonpaymentTeri BuhlCorey Ribotsky Bankruptcy CreditorsTeri BuhlHudson Bay Offer Docs Plainfield 2008 Lidquidating LTDTeri BuhlBuhl Appeal Decision 6.12.14 - A win for speechTeri BuhlCT State v. Buhl Reply Appeal Brief Teri BuhlCT State Appeal response in State v. Buhl part 3Teri BuhlCT State Appeal Brief Response part 2Teri BuhlCT State Reply Brief to State vs. BuhlTeri BuhlRuth Jones Arrest WarrantTeri BuhlTeri Buhl Appeal Brief Teri BuhlCT Banking Commission Investigation Letter to Greg ImbruceTeri BuhlOfficer Fred Pickering Case Report Teri BuhlTeri Buhl Appeal Teri BuhlNY State Court RMBS Judge Assign OrderTeri BuhlResCap Salary Letter for CEO Tom Marano Teri BuhlJudge Heitler Letter NYAG v. JPMTeri BuhlBoone Pickens Media Motion Teri BuhlDeclaration of Mike PickensTeri BuhlPickins Family 3rd Amended Compliant against Mike PickensTeri BuhlPam Perkins Original LawsuitTeri BuhlMichael Pickens 'My Story'Teri BuhlAuditor Management Letter for New Canaan, CT June 2012Teri Buhl
RecommendedCT State Reply Brief to State vs. BuhlTeri BuhlThis is the State's argument why Judge Wenzel's verdict should standCT State Appeal response in State v. Buhl part 3Teri BuhlThis is part 3 of the States legal argument on why Judge Wenzel's verdict sho...CT State Appeal Brief Response part 2Teri BuhlPart 2 of the States legal argument why my conviction should stand. The rulin...CT State v. Buhl Reply Appeal Brief Teri BuhlThis is our response to the States legal argument on why Judge Wenzel's erred...