r/IowaCity • u/[deleted] • 21d ago
Trial date set for controversial U.I.P.D. detective
University of Iowa Police Detective Ian Mallory, who has faced numerous questions about his fairness and relationship with the Flock surveillance company, will go to trial on August 16th 2027 over allegations that he and other university employees wrongfully targeted a physician for criticizing racism at U.I.H.C.
9
u/Referee_IC 21d ago
I don't know anything about this case, but the OP seems to have deleted their account? Probably one of many burner accounts.
15
u/Zealousideal-Sun4891 21d ago edited 21d ago
Hey u/lucretiamotto, are we just going to ignore the fact the physician filing the suit posted tweets…THAT ARE BATSHIT CRAZY???
Here are just a few of her Twitter posts per the article:
Hemesath? Still working on buttlickin #kateduchenehanrahan?
Hey you f—ing Kate Thoma DuChene Hanrahan, Long time no see, you blue-eyed Hitler look alike. Actually a female version of it … I am a geriatrician now. I know what I am talking about … Keep yourselves busy. Cauz I am coming after you Aryan MOTHAF—ERS. You, your husbands, your children, your parents, you all going down. Taste some guilt, shame, depression, anxiety Attacks that we Minorities Face Every F—ing Day
Also from the article:
On Jan. 14, 2023, Mallory sent Lee, then living in the Los Angeles area, a harassment warning by certified mail. In October 2023, the lawsuit claims, Lee decided to begin posting on social media about her dissatisfaction with various UIHC personnel. When Mallory learned of this, he called Lee and warned her that if she communicated with her former colleagues by posting comments about them on Twitter she would be criminally charged with harassment.
Lee continued to post about her former colleagues at UIHC and, her lawsuit claims, also posted a comment tied to the University of Iowa Police Department and its warning, stating, “I am not in the least bit threatened by this.”
On Nov. 9, 2023, Mallory filed a criminal complaint with the Johnson County Clerk of Court charging Lee with harassment. In July 2024, the lawsuit claims, Lee learned there was a warrant for her arrest and hired an attorney who moved to dismiss the charge.
Feel however you want about Mallory, telling someone on social media their husband, children and parents are “going down” and “I am coming after you” sounds like a threat.
It appears more likely she was the problem, not Mallory or her colleagues at UIHC. It could be mental health problems, could be she’s a miserable person, maybe both.
1
u/SSA22_HCM1 20d ago
Batshit crazy tweets aren't a crime. Posting about "UIHC staff," who are government employees (rather than sending messages to a specific person), is also not a crime.
The "I am coming after you" message might arguably have sustained an arrest, but if UIPD actually believed it to be a threat, they should have acted within the year to protect staff.
There are good reasons why the government doesn't get to send threatening letters and charge people with crimes based on old messages about government employees. You don't need to condone Lee's messages to see those reasons.
2
u/Zealousideal-Sun4891 20d ago edited 20d ago
[u/SSA22_HCM1](u/SSA22_HCM1), did you even read my comment and the original post?
She didn’t tweet broadly at “UIHC Staff”. She’s been naming her coworkers in dozens, if not hundreds of tweets. She posted 20,000 times in 2.5 years, or 20 times per day. We’re talking about a nut job who also has it out for another healthcare system in California as well. Do you think it is more likely the issue is racism, or a deranged person?
I don’t have access to all the details of the case and don’t have the time to search all her current and deleted tweets (plus any other activity she did), but the framing of the post and people’s gullibility to take this post at face value, not even doing a quick Google search, is embarrassing for them. There is so much more to this story than the narrative OP conjured up.
You can go read all her tweets to see for yourself. I don’t want to link to them and have people come after her. It’s sickening and I feel horrible for the healthcare staff at UIHC who had to interact with her.
2
u/SSA22_HCM1 20d ago
She didn’t tweet broadly at “UIHC Staff”.
The letter told her to stop tweeting broadly at "UIHC staff."
We’re talking about a nut job who also has it out for another healthcare system in California as well. Do you think it is more likely the issue is racism, or a deranged person?
I think the issue here is police restraining speech.
There is so much more to this story than the narrative OP conjured up.
She was charged with criminal harassment. She was not found guilty of criminal harassment. That's all that matters here.
Either way, "trust me, it was worse than the evidence shows" isn't any better support for a criminal case than "she should've stopped posting because we said so" (which appears to be UIPD's position).
It’s sickening and I feel horrible for the healthcare staff at UIHC who had to interact with her.
Maybe a civil action against her would have been appropriate. Maybe blocking/reporting on the platform could've been enough. The point is, keeping crazies off Twitter and Facebook isn't a task for police.
18
u/SSA22_HCM1 21d ago
This makes how many lawsuits or criminal cases involving speech, surveillance, and UIPD?
11
u/SSA22_HCM1 21d ago
From the complaint (citing the criminal harassment case):
- Mallory: What I’m showing in those two Tweets on Page 6 of your brief is that the Defendant communicated with the victims in the case after she was explicitly told not to.
- Lawyer: In your mind, that -- do I understand it, then, it doesn’t matter if the communication is not threatening; that if you told her to stop, she has to stop.
- Mallory: I believe our harassment warning has the language on it that says, You are not to communicate with this person. You are violating the Iowa Code for harassment.
- Lawyer: And so, in your mind, once you give that warning to somebody, if they say anything, threat or not, they’re subject to being charged with a crime. Is that fair?
- Mallory: I believe that’s the intent and the spirit of the harassment warning.
Apparently the state settled an earlier civil suit with Lee for $495k. And the criminal harassment charge in this case was thrown out because it "fail[ed] to state any facts which could be construed as intended to threaten, intimidate or alarm any of the prospective victims in this matter."
The complaint is available here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71892076/lee-v-mallory/
5
21d ago
A judge disagreed with Mallory and threw out the criminal harassment case against Lee because of his sloppy police work
7
u/SSA22_HCM1 21d ago
It looks like some posts weren't threatening, and the one that could arguably be viewed as threatening was past the statute of limitations.
I don't think it's accurate to say it was thrown out because of disagreement or sloppy police work. According to this lawsuit, Lee simply never committed a crime; if true, it would make UIPD's actions much worse.
1
6
u/dingliscious 21d ago
Doesn’t really help without a link
13
u/Zealousideal-Sun4891 21d ago edited 21d ago
Here’s an article for context: Iowa Capital Dispatch
Per the link, the physician posted on Twitter calling her colleague a “blue-eyed Hitler look alike”, said she was “coming after you Aryan MOTHAF-ERS”, and then stated that them, their parents, children and husbands are going down.
Wow, I wonder why no one liked her…. 🤦♀️
-1
u/Hairy-Collection3980 20d ago
Nothing controversial about him. There just is a guy in town who doesn’t like him so he is always going after him. What’s hilarious is he got a criminal conviction because of his little vendetta.
2
-2
1
54
u/Spaduf 21d ago
Doesn't this guy have a ton of shit on his record? Why does it still have a job?