Citizen journalist’s lawsuit heard by federal appeals court
JAN 25, 2023 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: JAN 26, 2023
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — An online citizen journalist from Texas asked federal appeals court judges Wednesday to revive her lawsuit against authorities who her arrested for seeking and obtaining nonpublic information from police — a case that has drawn attention from national media organizations and free speech advocates.
A state judge dismissed the criminal case against Priscilla Villarreal in 2018, saying the law used to arrested her in 2017 was deemed unconstitutionally vague, according to court briefs.
Villarreal, known online as “La Gordiloca,” then filed a lawsuit against the city of Laredo, Webb County and the police officers and prosecutors involved in her arrest. She said she’s entitled to damages because she never should have been arrested for posting information on her Facebook page, “ Lagordiloca News LaredoTx. ”
“I had to make the point that it’s not right to get arrested for my freedom of speech and freedom of the press,”
Villarreal said outside the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals building where arguments were heard Wednesday by the court’s 16 active judges.
Among those on her side in the case are the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists and the Society of Professional Journalists.
Priscilla Villarreal, an online journalist from Laredo, Texas, stands outside the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals building in New Orleans on Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2023, with her attorney, J.T. Morris, after the court heard arguments in Villarreal’s lawsuit against Laredo and Webb County, Texas, authorities. Her suit says she was wrongfully arrested by Laredo and Webb County authorities in 2017 for seeking information from police. The criminal charge against her was dismissed by a Texas judge in 2018. (AP Photo/Kevin McGill)
“If the First Amendment stands for anything, it is the fundamental truth that the people, and the press on behalf of the people, must be able to ask questions of government officials without fear of harassment, prosecution, or imprisonment,”
they say in a brief filed with Texas news outlets and media organizations.
In a competing brief, the state of Texas says the issues are more nuanced and rejects the notion that the woman known as La Gordiloca was arrested for simply asking a question.
Villarreal has not shown that the officials who had her arrested knew there was no probable cause to do so, the Texas brief states.
It also says a magistrate judge issued the warrant and “the officers reasonably relied upon the neutral magistrate’s conclusion that there was probable cause to arrest Villarreal for violating a facially valid statute.”
Some of the judges hearing the case Wednesday asked questions about that point.
“Wouldn’t judges know more than police officers do?” Judge Catharina Haynes asked
Villarreal’s lawyer, J.T. Morris, who said police and prosecutors had no probable cause to investigate or seek the warrant in the first place.
The law, according to court records, defines the criminal “misuse of official information” as using information that “has not been made public … with intent to obtain a benefit or with intent to harm or defraud another.”
Authorities had argued that Villarreal could benefit from using the information — the identities of a person who killed himself and a family involved in a car accident — to gain fame on her Facebook page.
A 5th Circuit panel revived Villarreal’s lawsuit in a 2-1 decision in November 2021.
But the full court vacated that ruling, deciding to grant Wednesday’s rehearing before all 16 active judges.
In that decision,
Judge James Ho wrote that Villarreal’s arrest was “an obvious violation of the Constitution.”
Ho questioned lawyers for Texas and Laredo on Wednesday about scenarios in which seeking information from public officials can be criminalized.
Court revives lawsuit filed over Texas journalist’s arrest
NOV 1, 2021 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: JAN 26, 2023
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — A federal appeals court on Monday revived a lawsuit filed by an online freelance journalist in Texas who says she was arrested for merely seeking information from the police.
Priscilla Villarreal goes by the name La Gordiloca on Facebook and Twitter. Monday’s opinion from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals describes her as a non-traditional journalist who posts livestreamed video and information on crime scenes in the Laredo area, along with “often unfiltered” commentary that is sometimes critical of local authorities.
Her lawsuit, revived in a 2-1 decision by the appeals court panel, said she was arrested in 2017 and accused of violating a little-known Texas law that a judge later found unconstitutional.
Monday’s opinion said the law made it a crime for a person to solicit information from public officials that has not been made public if the person seeking the information intends to benefit from it in some way.
Villarreal had sought — and obtained from a police officer — the identities of a person who killed himself and a family involved in a car accident and published the information on her Facebook.
The arrest affidavit said she sought the information to gain Facebook followers.
The charges against Villarreal were thrown out by a judge who ruled that the state law was unconstitutionally vague. Villarreal sued Laredo officials, alleging her constitutional rights to free speech and protection from unlawful seizure were violated when police arrested her.
In district court filings, the Laredo officials’ lawyers said the police acted in good faith and had no reason to believe the law under which Villarreal was arrested would later be found unconstitutional.
A federal district judge in Texas found the officials were protected by “qualified immunity” — meaning the law largely protects them for actions they take as part of their official duties.
But two of the three judges for the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit disagreed, reversing much of the district court’s ruling.
“Priscilla Villarreal was put in jail for asking a police officer a question,”
Judge James Ho, who was nominated by former President Donald Trump, wrote for the majority.
“If that is not an obvious violation of the Constitution, it’s hard to imagine what would be. And as the Supreme Court has repeatedly held, public officials are not entitled to qualified immunity for obvious violations of the Constitution.”
Ho was joined by Judge James Graves, who was nominated by former President Barack Obama.
Judge Priscilla Owen, nominated by former President George W. Bush, dissented. The court said her reasons would be posted later.
Roman Catholic Church Sexual Abuse Case: Catholic Judges’ Harmless Error Protects Sexual Predators
As with the Boy Scouts, where practically every judge sends their kids, the Catholic Church is another protected legal community.
Texas Legislators Anticipate Adoptin’ Putin’s Plan into the Judicial Branch
Often seen at Federalist Society gigs, the Old Justice Hecht want to join his new wife, 5th Circus Chief Judge Hecht and expand Ochlocracy.
Glossin’ Opinions: Texas Lawyer Mary Lou Serafine Still Labeled a Vexatious Litigant in 2023
Mary Lou Serafine is a lawyer in Austin who’s been actively contesting her vexatious litigant label by Texas Courts. She loses to Glossin’.
