Privacy Violation Good for Buck in Primary?

12 Comments

by: Colorado Pols

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled Monday that a 2008 raid of a local tax preparer’s office aimed at building identity-theft cases against hundreds of suspected illegal immigrants violated their Fourth Amendment right to privacy.

The 4-3 ruling was the latest and most devastating legal blow against Operation Numbers Game, an investigation launched by Weld County Sheriff John Cooke and District Attorney Ken Buck that aimed to use tax returns to identify and prosecute illegal immigrants.

The raid on Amalia’s Tax and Translation, a business that caters to Spanish-speaking clients, led to the seizure and review of some 4,900 tax returns. Deputies said they found about 1,300 suspects in identity-theft and criminal-impersonation cases.

More than 100 suspected illegal immigrants were arrested because of the raid, and charges were formally filed against 70 of them. About 60 cases were then dismissed after Weld District Judge James Hartmann, ruling in one of the criminal cases, tossed evidence investigators had seized during their search of Amalia’s…

…On Monday, Buck conceded Operation Numbers Game “is over,” adding he will not appeal the decision. A Colorado prosecutor can appeal a case only as far as the state high court, according to Colorado law, but a defendant can appeal to a higher court.

But Buck felt the raid was justified.

“I feel the court made its decision and then later developed rationale for this decision,” Buck said.

Prosecutors around the country have been watching the case closely, reportedly the first in the United States in which law enforcement sought to use tax returns – generally considered confidential under federal law – to take suspected illegal immigrants to criminal court.

Obviously this isn’t altogether positive news for GOP Senate candidate Ken Buck, and it would certainly hinder his chances of winning a statewide general election. But you could make the case that this decision and subsequent media coverage actually helps Buck in a primary. If Buck can raise enough money to stay in a three-way race with Tom Wiens and Jane Norton, this is the kind of “us against the federal government” battle that Tea Party types like to identify with. And it certainly doesn’t hurt his chances to raise money nationally from the same type of anti-immigrant enthusiasts that funded Tom Tancredo for so many years.

12 thoughts on “Privacy Violation Good for Buck in Primary?”

Gray in Mountains says:

December 15, 2009 at 9:06 pm

gets Buck 10-15% votes in a primary. Especially if he continues to defend he raid. More especially if he and Teabagger blogs both defend his raid and castigate the court.

Log in to Reply
Danny the Red (hair) says:

December 15, 2009 at 9:17 pm

two of teabagger’s articles of faith are distrust of government and support of originalist constitutional intent, yet they support the government exceeding its rights to search private businesses and violate constitutional protections?

I have conflicted views, but these folks are beyond conflicted, they live in a world of delusion.

Log in to Reply
1. themonk77 says:
  
  December 16, 2009 at 9:52 pm
  
  Still have lots of friends that are now part of the Tea Party movement. I think that their basis is somewhat “social contract” related. As long as one is a law abiding citizen, you have no need to worry about harmless intrusions into privacy. (their ideas not mine) So by this basis, investigating the statistical probability that a hispanic person is more likely to be an illegal alien means good investigative technique. If you are here legally, you have nothing to worry about.
  
  Now I see that there is a huge flaw here. Most of the people that agree with this don’t. They don’t see this as racism, just as statistical analysis. When you’ve broken the law, there are some in the Tea Party movement that have no problem saying that you should be prosecuted in any way that leads to your conviction.
  
  Log in to Reply
Danny the Red (hair) says:

December 15, 2009 at 9:17 pm

two of teabagger’s articles of faith are distrust of government and support of originalist constitutional intent, yet they support the government exceeding its rights to search private businesses and violate constitutional protections?

I have conflicted views, but these folks are beyond conflicted, they live in a world of delusion.

Log in to Reply
1. MADCO says:
  
  December 15, 2009 at 9:19 pm
  
  those Constitutional rights only belong to ‘mericans. Not the illegals See? And if one or two good ‘mericans have their inf reviewed as part of a larger sweep for them illegals, what’s the harm? Good citizens got nothin’ to hide, right?
  
  The real conflict for the Tea Party here is that the IRS already has all the filiers’ information.
  
  Log in to Reply
Early Worm says:

December 15, 2009 at 9:23 pm

How does a public office holder, a prosecutor no less, violating personal privacy interests, feed a narrative of us v. them? I understand the illegal immigrant angle, but aren’t the tea parties, above all else, anti-government. Everyone is entitled to their own conflicted belief system, but it seems ridiculous for a bunch of people who probably consider income taxes unconstitutional in the first place, to rally behind a cop that violates privacy laws to access information on the federally compelled filings. The only way this is “us v. them” is when it is translated to the Tancredo-esque “white v. brown.”

Log in to Reply
1. Colorado Pols says:
  
  December 15, 2009 at 10:16 pm
  
  “I tried to slow illegal immigration and the activist liberal courts stopped me,” or something like that. Plays great among certain segments in a GOP primary.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. divad says:
    
    December 15, 2009 at 10:50 pm
    
    …the platform for failure? Two for one–like those double sized Lipton teabags.
    
    Log in to Reply
elpresidente says:

December 15, 2009 at 10:25 pm

For thoughtful commentary from the other side–

http://www.peoplespresscollect…

Log in to Reply
1. Colorado Pols says:
  
  December 15, 2009 at 11:00 pm
  
  We don’t disagree with the ruling, but Colorado Pols is about politics over policy, and therefore looking at what this means for Buck.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. elpresidente says:
    
    December 15, 2009 at 11:39 pm
    
    Just pointing out that “the other side”–i.e. conservatives/Republicans etc. aren’t all “tea partiers” or lined up against this particular ruling.
    
    Log in to Reply
OneEyedOwl says:

December 16, 2009 at 6:58 am

is the close 4-3 vote. I had hoped that this would be an open-and-shut case of a Fourth Amendment violation, but clearly the state Supreme Court has three justices who are ready to trash the Bill of Rights.

Log in to Reply