Interesting.  CBS Channel 5 had their flunkies call all the phone numbers on the list, apparently just to harass people who haven't been arrested nor charged with anything.

Excuse me--phone numbers???  The list that's now all over the Internet doesn't have any phone numbers or addresses on it (minus a few ledger entry errors), so how the hell do media outlets like CBS have them?

Furthermore, how dare MCSO give out such personal info to the media?  If it's all a matter of public record, then there wouldn't be anything to stop CBS or other media outlets from publishing a "revised" list with everyone's phone numbers and/or addresses on it.

But not surprising that the media would stoop so low.....talk about now having any conscience!!    

Congress can screw over the entire country with their "pay to play" shenanigans, but, oh nevermind....this soap boz has a few loose nails!

I remember one time when I was in Phoenix and I wanted to see one of the ladies on the DD site.  I emailed to try to set it up, but it didn't get very far because the DD staff insisted on knowing my real name and I refused to give it to them.  I'm glad I stuck to my guns.  It was tempting because I really wanted to see that particular provider.

First of all, MCSO has no role in the Desert Divas matter (other than jailing the accused,) but I've done some research, and it appears that the unedited list (containing the addresses and phone numbers) was not given to KPHO by Phoenix PD.  (And for everyone's info, PPD released the edited list reluctantly, pursuant to a Public Records Law demand that they could not ignore.)

Every one of the 50 defendants in the DD case has a lawyer, and each of those lawyers received a copy of the unedited list.  I think that someone in one of those 50 offices probably gave the Channel 5 reporters this private information.

KPHO did not get the phone numbers from the original list. They simply used the same list that anyone can see on their web site, looked up those people' names in the phone book, and called them up.

Many of the names on the list are of recognizable people in the Phoenix community. Desert Diva had a policy of asking for people's real names - so KPHO is calling them up and asking them about it.

Maybe it is time to end the hypocrisy about anti-lobbying laws when it involves two consenting adults behind closed doors.

I have first-hand information that they showed up on the doorstep of at least one hobbyist whose address and phone number are unlisted, and whose name is fairly common, and I've heard stories of several others.  You're overlooking how many people have the same name in Phoenix...a reporter wouldn't dare pick one randomly and call (or worse, show up with a camera crew) accusing him of soliciting.  They definitely have the unedited list.

Then in that case someone leaked the list to them which would be violation of the record release law.

Now all we have to do is find a guy whose name, address and phone number were given to the reporters, and persuade him to admit that he is the same guy listed in the Divas database alongside the name of a provider, and we can sue them, right?  NO!  PHX PD and the county attorney were REQUIRED to release the unedited copy to the defense attorneys as part of disclosure rules, and there's no way of knowing which defense attorney's office gave a copy to Channel 5.

The press is permitted under the First Amendment to utilize information they have, even if they aren't supposed to have it (confidential sources are a perfect example...you can't make a report hold back such info, and you can't make her disclose where she got it.)  

So even though you're correct that it was a blatant violation of privacy laws, I can't figure out what can be done about it (and believe me, I've thought about it a lot!)

is if the PD did indeed release the unedited list to Channel 5, et al., then why didn't those media outlets post the list with the phone numbers and addresses on line?  They only posted the one with client names, providers seen, and dates.  That bullshit about public record does clash with privacy laws--but you know well how much respect both MCSO and Phoenix news outlets have for the law of the land.

And if the full list had been leaked to the media some time ago, why did they start to have a field day with it only in the past week?  The PD were this close to "releasing" the unedited list just hours before the edited version appeared all over Phoenix's corner of the Internet.

I'd like to see a class action lawsuit too, but I don't think it would fly.  Arpaio, Thomas, Hill, & Co. are very proud of routinely beating "frivolous" lawsuits against them, such bastions of public safety they are.  Makes you wonder why they keep getting sued so often.

I can think of about 42 million reasons:
http://maricopacountyjail.net/sheriff-joe-arpaio/

Not sure why you think they routinely beat plaintiffs. Sheriff Joke's cruelty and publicity antics cost us a lot more than his tough-guy policies have saved.

To answer your first question, I believe that the release of the unedited list to defense attorneys occurred at about the same time as the official release of the edited list to the press.  But you're right...Phoenix PD did almost accidentally release the unedited list.

Out East here they have the quaint name of "operating a bawdy house." Lobbying means something completly different -- the lobbyist gets paid big bucks and all the taxpayers get screwed.

I'm being sincere, so please excuse my ignorance in this matter, I simply do not know the rules.

In part of that news brief,  The Lt. mentions that they will probably not be able to nab the 'johns' due to the statue of limitations being a year for a misdo meaner.

My question is, what about the providers they have targeted who used to work for that agency.   If, by the time, this comes to see the light of a court room, and it's been more than a year since the girls worked for the agency, will/could they still be charged?