Friday, November 16, 2007

Police Brass After Abdul

Abdul Hakim-Shabazz has a must-read post this evening about how IMPD nearly executed a search warrant on his downtown apartment today to seize his home computer. He speculates IMPD brass believe he's behind the Indy Undercover blogspot. You'll learn his role in starting the popular law enforcement blog. Shabazz further speculates IMPD police may be trying to squelch child abuse allegations against a very prominent and wealthy local Democrat. Shabazz has been researching the story and has confirmed the Department of Children Services has opened an investigation into the allegations.

As I earlier reported, someone anonymously sent me e-mails last year, which were allegedly exchanged between Shabazz and Ike Randolph discussing their work on the blog. I couldn't determine whether the e-mails were spoofed or real. I showed them to both men, who denied they were behind the blog, although both knew law enforcement officials were behind the blog. In light of today's development, Shabazz is concerned IMPD may have been conducting surveillance on him for some time. "Have local law enforcement officials been monitoring my Internet usage, phone calls and engaging in other surveillance?," he asks. "And if it would be done to a very public and vocal person like me, what about your average citizen who doesn’t have a radio show, blog, newspaper column or television access?"

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

Local Democrats are obsessed over the IndyU blog.

Several elected Democrats I know have told me they read that blog. I asked if they knew who was behind it.

They all said they didn't, but sure wanted to find out who's responsible.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Does anyone know what is up with indyu. There have been zero posts all day. They also took down the entire open forum.

Seemed like things were falling apart for the last 3 days over there. All the postings seemed strange. Something is afoot.

Anonymous said...

I don't care who's behind IndyU. It stopped being relevant long ago. Shrill and obnoxious rants.

wrnprnt said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

wrnprnt:

I don't know who posted at IndyU, but if the mission was to discredit: Mission Accomplished.

All they had to do was moderate comments, and the silly stuff would've stayed off.

And I'm not just talking about the readers' posts--I'm talking about the blogmaster's original posts. Way too many of them were just stupid.

Nonetheless, if anyone at IMPD is spending any city time whatsoever, trying to determine who the blogmaster is, that person(s) should be rooted out and fired now.

Anonymous said...

Shabazz is concerned IMPD may have been surveilling him for some time. "Have local law enforcement officials been monitoring my Internet usage, phone calls and engaging in other surveillance?," he asks. "And if it would be done to a very public and vocal person like me, what about your average citizen who doesn’t have a radio show, blog, newspaper column or television access?"

Silly Abdul. . . if local law enforcement didn't mind going after an even more widely known television reporter in retaliation for showing Jack Cottey drinking, they sure as hell won't mind nailing some relatively unknown-to-the-masses AM radio personality.

Abdul would do well to read up about what Jeremy Rogalski had to endure. After his expose on Cottey, he was locked up on drunk driving charges (which were ultimately dismissed). Around a dozen officers were involved in his arrest, including a surveillance van. A breath test operator was nearby and had marked out to perform the breath test, but the officers on scene waved him off because they had a specific breath test operator coming from the other side of the city to perform the test. Other WTHR staff members were followed and spied-on as well.

Anonymous said...

With all the corruption and crime surrounding the city of Indianapolis and a microscope being put on a local radio guy? Someone not only needs their head examined and should lose their job. Yet another reason the Dems lost.

Anonymous said...

Based on some of the posts over at IndyUndercover, somebody's office has to be bugged or else someone very high up in the pecking order is blabbing everything to them.

Anonymous said...

Who's the local Democrat being investigated for child abuse?

Anonymous said...

What does "nearly executed a search warrant" mean? Did law enforcement actually have a signed search warrant and then chose not to serve it? Or did they attempt to obtain a search warrant and it was denied by the reviewing judge? Or was there merely talk of trying to obtain a search warrant and it was abandoned? If in fact a search warrant was applied for and obtained then the search warrant and it's supporting affidavit must be filed with the judge that signed it and is therefore public record. All one needs to do is find out which judge and then make a public records request to obtain a copy. On the other hand, if a judge denied a search warrant it is still possible that a copy was filed with the judge but perhaps not, although technically it probably should have been. And how does one find out that a search warrant was "nearly served"? Did the officers that obtained any purported search warrant show up at Abdul's home and then tell him "we changed our mind"? Seems unlikely. Without more detail it is impossible to tell whether this story has any real credibility to it or not.

Anonymous said...

Gary,
the blogs made it possible to elect a new mayor. i would not think any agency would want to attack us. it would be a political nightmare if they try

Anonymous said...

Exactly, 9:20. I call BS.

Anonymous said...

9:20,

You make several good points. Having seen his ego at work, I wouldn't put it past Abdul to make up a story like this to cover something that was otherwise trivial, such as a disgruntled baby-mama making false allegations.

I couldn't imagine that Abdul wouldn't name the cops that were there, and what exactly they said to him.

Anonymous said...

Why wouldn't WRTV-6 be reporting on this?

Anonymous said...

What does "nearly executed a search warrant" mean?

It could mean everything you said. It could mean that there was talk of filing out a PC based on possible evidence in the sex case. It could mean that in fact a PC was filled out, but never submitted. It could mean a PC was filled out, submitted, and denied by a judge. It could mean a PC was filled out, a warrant obtained, but a decision not to serve it for whatever reason.

It doesn't matter which path it was, the simple fact is that it is ironic that a person who played at least some part in the Dems lose of power is now a "person of interest" in an investigation. If Abdul had info on this suspect in the sex case, I would hope he would turn it over or expose it. That being said, I don't think Abdul is that far off thinking that the sex case incident is actually just a smoke screen to get into his hard drive.

Anonymous said...

10:41

I don't understand. You repeat everything I said and agree with it. Then you say none of it matters because they are out to get Abdul. The whole point of my post was: where is the evidence that they were out to get Abdul? It is easy to say "a search warrant was nearly served" but what is the source of that statement? How did Abdul find out about it? I have been involved in the review of hundreds of search warrants and it is my experience that you don't generally tell the target of a search warrant about it until you serve it. Did somebody else within law enforcement tip Abdul off that they were coming? Or is this whole thing just so much bullshit designed to gain attention? I enjoy reading Abdul's blog, but as a lawyer he should know that such a statement lacks much credibility without some supporting evidence. You are assuming it happened because Abdul said it happened. I require a little more than idle talk to be convinced.

Anonymous said...

oops. I meant 10:14 (not 10:41)

i still need to change some of those clocks from the DST change...

Peter said...

I'm with 9:20 on this - this all sounds very vague to me. The phrase "almost executed a search warrant" - when used by people involved in criminal law - means that police had a search warrant but did not use it.

I am doubtful that this is the case since: (1) you have to get a judge to get a search warrant; and (2) assuming you had enough evidence that a judge would find probable cause to believe that there was evidence relating to a crime in Abdul's apartment, why wouldn't you execute the warrant.

AFAIK, Abdul doesn't practice criminal law, so he may have meant to say something like "Police came close to trying to get a search warrant to search my apartment" when he talked about almost "executing" the warrant. But, as 9:20 points out, this could mean anything from a couple of guys sitting around in a bar saying "We oughta get a warrant to search Abdul's apartment" to having an application for a warrant actually turned down by a court.

Or, maybe they really did get a warrant and decided not to use it. I'm skeptical, but it's possible, i suppose.

[OT: I hate this program's security: I never get the word verification right on my first try.]

Advance Indiana said...

I don't think you should doubt for one moment the validity of Abdul's account on his post. Personally, I think it arose out of Abdul uncovering the child abuse/molestation investigation. As I understand it, it is a very prominent local Democrat and would be an extremely sensitive case. Police may have been concerned someone close to the investigation was leaking sensitive information to the media. I'm not a criminal law expert so I'm not sure about the legality of such a search. Obviously, a reporter would claim confidentiality as to any source. Can they seize a reporter's computer to learn his sources? I'm not sure what the answer to that question is.

Anonymous said...

I didn't know that operating a blog was illegal!

Oh...it was a blog AGAINST democrats. Well, that certainly is illegal!

Anonymous said...

Hmmm. . . aren't we still in the October/November Arbitron sweeps period?

Advance Indiana said...

"Hmmm. . . aren't we still in the October/November Arbitron sweeps period?"

Interesting you should bring that up anon. 3:17. Some of you may recall Abdul's comment the other day about how the Arbitron ratings for black radio stations such as WTLC where Amos' show is broadcast are skewed to make it appear there is a larger audience than what there really is. I've since learned that Arbitron has been in the process of implementing a new way of measuring its radio audience using personal people monitors, which is like a pager you wear and which picks up radio waves you hear. The device stores that information and when the user puts it in a docking station at the end of the day, it automatically uploads the data. The method of people filling out time sheets showing which radio stations they listened to during the day will be no more. In the markets where the PPMs have been rolled out, ratings for some black radio stations have dropped significantly, leading to charges from the minority community the system is meant to drive their stations out of business. That seems to lend some credence to Abdul's claim that the current rating system inflates their actual audience share.

garyj said...

Why delet the comment from "wrnprnt"?