Federal judge stays out of laptop fight

A federal judge has refused to intervene in the battle over seized laptops and cell phones arising from a case involving a Terrebonne Parish website.

U.S. District Judge Jay Zainey denied a request for an emergency injunction alleging that Wayne and Jennifer Anderson’s constitutional rights were violated when Terrebonne Parish deputies executed a warrant. It was issued by State District Court Judge Randy Bethancourt, after insurance broker Tony Alford made a formal complaint under Louisiana’s criminal defamation statute.

Bethancourt’s refusal to have the warrant vacated and return the devices has yet to be reviewed by the Louisiana 1st Circuit Court of Appeal, to which Zainey deferred in his decision.

Alford’s complaint alleges that the Exposedat website, which is administered by unknown persons and linked to a Facebook page in the fictitious name of John Turner, caused him embarrassment and financial loss, because it states that hs business dealings with Terrebonne Parish and Sheriff Jerry Larpenter’s office are suspect.

Larpenter is no longer investigating the case, having turned it over to Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry’s office to eliminate perceptions of a conflict. Larpenter’s wife, Priscilla, works for Alford.

Zainey’s decision is not a declaration that the Anderson’s rights were not violated, merely a statement that the argument for federal intervention by their legal team, led by Houma lawyer Jerri Smitko, is not ripe. Federal court doctrine is to generally allow such matters as the warrant question to take their course in state courts before being considered. Smitko attempted to show that the alleged violation was so egregious as to warrant immediate involvement of the federal court.

“The ‘irreparable’ injury that Plaintiffs allege in support of emergency relief pertains directly to the seizure that occurred pursuant to a warrant issued by a state court judge,” Zainey’s decision states. “Thus, even though a criminal case is not pending, the actions of the state judicial system are being challenged. Importantly, Plaintiffs have raised their constitutional challenges to the legality of the seizure in the state court system.”

Neither the Andersons nor anyone else has been charged with a crime. Deputies wanted the computers in order to learn who had made the allegedly defamatory postings. No argument, Zainey noted, has been made to indicate that detectives falsified information in the affidavit seeking the warrant.

“Plaintiffs take the position that it was clear that they had not committed a crime yet a judicial officer issued a warrant based on an affidavit that Larpenter is not accused of fabricating,” Zainey’s decision states. “In other words, the judge could very well have erred in concluding that probable cause existed to believe that a crime was committed but unless Larpenter lied

to obtain the warrant an error of law is not attributable to him. Likewise, if charges are eventually brought, that decision would be made by the district attorney or state attorney general, neither of whom will be amenable to suit and neither of whose conduct is Larpenter’s responsibility.”

The argument later made to Bethancourt that the defamation law does not apply in this case because Alford is a public official and that the matter in question is one of public concern, since it involves government contracts, will likely still be presented to the state appeals court.

The Andersons nonetheless now have their foot in the door of the New Orleans federal courthouse. While Smitko has not indicated what legal course she will take in the future, the circumstances indicate that further action based on the potential that civil rights were violated is likely.

Even though the computers linked to it are now in a safe at the Terrebonne Parish Clerk of Court’s office, the Exposedat site continues to allege and suggest unholy alliances between Terrebonne Parish officials and people they do business with, including Alford.

A post on the fictitious John Turner’s Facebook page Tuesday notes that Priscilla Larpenter and Alford “have a second business together … A&L Property and Casualty was formed in March of this year.”

Alford acknowledged in a recent interview that he and Mrs. Larpenter were preparing to launch a separate insurance business which would not have any ties to the Sheriff’s Office. The broker has said that a business associate handles the writing that the firm does for the Sheriff’s Office employees and that Priscilla Larpenter, who was employed by Alford before she and the sheriff married, draws no income from the venture.

The appeal in state court was expected to be filed Tuesday.

Jerry Larpenter