So, if there are actually people who believe nothing wrong was done when the 911 recording was released to the public, speak now or forever hold your peace (or piece). Mrs. Gordon was done a disservice. Her subsequent enabling behavior does not change that fact.
However, no such wrong was done to Jim Gordon. He did not place the call. He has no expectation of privacy and it is doubtful he would be dissuaded from calling 911 if need be. The hyper-partisanship on this issue is delightful. Democrats have to stop arguing that making the recording public was justified based on the behavior of the recordings subject. Republicans have to stop acting as if they wouldn't have used this against a Democrat. Hell, they used to fabricate fictional characters for their robo calls and then intimidate county employees to play those characters. Righteous indignation in Troy politics works as well as Chris Christie's lap band.
Moving on....to the crime of the century. We all know that those involved will be doing a stint behind bars. Or do we? In fact, we're unconvinced that anything criminal occurred. This is more likely if the recording was obtained by Millington, for Colaneri, for the purpose of doing their jobs. That they were assigned to look into the events. This just might be a case where the facts walk close to an actual crime but never cross the line. Of course, everything hinges on the details and those are in short supply.
Our first thought was, Computer Related Offenses. This is on the assumption that a 911 call comes in through and is recorded by a computer system. We could be wrong. Lets walk through them. If there's a criminal defense attorney or former prosecutor out there, comments would be appreciated.
Unauthorized Use of a Computer
a person is guilty of unauthorized use of a computer when he or she knowingly uses, causes to be used, or accesses a computer, computer service, or computer network without authorization.
This doesn't fit because it is essentially breaking in to a computer either directly of through another computer.
a person is guilty of computer trespass when that person knowingly uses, causes to be used, or accesses a computer, computer service, or computer network without authorization and he or she thereby knowingly gains access to computer material.
Same as the first, except you see information.
There are a host of Computer Tampering offenses but they don't fit either. They prohibit messing around and changing computers, networks and programs.
There are Unlawful Duplication of Computer Related Material offenses. That sounded hopeful. However, one involved medical records and the other involves material with a value that exceeds $2,500.
One could fit. That is Unlawful Duplication of Computer Related Material with Intent to Commit a Felony. So, you need to find a separate felony to marry to the underlying offense. We'll see if we can find one.
The one with the most promise is Criminal Possession of Computer Related Material.
A person is guilty of criminal possession of computer related material when having no right to do so, that person knowingly possesses, in any form, any copy, reproduction or duplicate of any computer data or computer program which was copied, reproduced or duplicated in violation of law , with intent to benefit himself or herself or a person other than an owner thereof.
We might be on to something here. Except, there is one element that does not fit. One must do the above while depriving the owner of such material of a value in excess of $2,500. No one appropriated material that deprived the County of anything of monetary value.
That really exhausts the computer related offenses. Some elements almost fit, but not quite. Still, it feels like a crime. So lets keep looking.
Offenses Related to Theft do not fit. Most of those are specific to the property (debit cards, automobiles) or require the item taken to have a monetary value.
Then we though, Official Misconduct! That's broad and a lot of shit can fit into those offenses.
Under our law, a public servant is guilty of Official Misconduct when, with intent to obtain a benefit or deprive another person of a benefit, he or she commits an act relating to his or her office but
constituting an unauthorized exercise of his or her official functions, knowing that such act is unauthorized or
he or she knowingly refrains from performing a duty which is imposed upon him or her by law or is clearly inherent in the nature of his or her office.
This is designed to prohibit a building inspector refusing to issue a CO unless paid off and the like. It may fit, but not likely and its only a misdemeanor. The problem is that conspiracy nuts think that if Colaneri did anything wrong it was for his son, who later became a police officer. We've heard statements like "In exchange for the 911 recording Wade got his son a job." Of course, this is all bullshit. Only those who don't understand how the civil service rules work would think a County Chair could get someone a job as a police officer. It's not 1888. If it comes to light that Colaneri Jr. wasn't eligible for the list, did not pass the exam and was rocketed to the top of the heap, you'd have a better argument. Given the departures from the force, does anyone really believe Colaneri fils wasn't a clean hire?
Ironically, if Gary Gordon did receive the recording and then sent it to Brendan Lyons, he is the least likely to have committed any crime.
There's about 900 crimes on the books. We'll keep looking but this is going to be a tough slog on the criminal end.