Legal Notice and Disclaimer

What Corrupt Cop Watch Is

Corrupt Cop Watch is a public accountability database that documents the conduct of public officials — law enforcement officers, departments, and prosecutors — acting in their official capacity. The database operates on a three-class publish model: user submissions publish live under § 230; CCW Verified and CCW Authored content is source-verified against primary documentation before those content classes carry the badge or CCW's byline.

The site operates as both a platform (for user-submitted documentation) and a publisher (of first-party entry pages and articles derived from verified submissions). These two functions carry different legal postures, which are described separately below.

User-Submitted Content — Section 230

User-submitted content — documentation submitted through the intake form at /submit — is protected under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230. Corrupt Cop Watch is not the publisher or speaker of user-submitted content and does not incur liability for it as such.

User submissions publish live immediately — no pre-publication review gate. That is the architecture § 230 requires: CCW does not screen or editorially contribute to user content before it posts. CCW review of a user post is reactive — triggered by a correction request or a repeat-offender signal — and results in a CCW Verified badge applied to already-live content, not a hold on publication. When CCW reviews and badges a post, it materially contributes to that content; the § 230 posture for the badged post may thin, and the content then relies on the truth defense described below.

First-Party Content — Truth Defense and Actual Malice

Entry pages formatted and published by Corrupt Cop Watch from verified submissions, and any first-party articles or analysis published on this site, are not user-submitted content. Section 230 does not cover them. They stand on a different legal foundation:

• Truth as an absolute defense. Every factual claim in CCW Verified or CCW Authored content is verified against at least two independent primary sources — before the badge is applied (CCW Verified) or before publication (CCW Authored). Every source citation is published inline on the entry page. The truth of the published claims is documented and auditable by anyone.
• The actual-malice standard. All named subjects of entry pages are public officials acting in their official capacity, as defined by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), and its progeny. A defamation claim arising from documented factual reporting on a public official's official conduct requires proof of actual malice — knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. A source-verified entry, with citations on the page, published after human review against documented primary sources, does not meet that standard.

The two-source verification requirement, the whole-post human review, and the inline citation requirement are not editorial preferences. They are the structural mechanisms by which the truth defense holds.

Official Capacity Scope

Documentation on this site is limited to public officials acting in their official capacity. We do not document private individuals, private conduct, or off-duty activity with no nexus to official responsibilities. This scope is not discretionary — it is the precondition for the applicable legal standard.

A submission that names a private individual, or that concerns entirely private conduct, will not be published. See Publication Standards for the full scope definition.

Not Legal Advice

Nothing on this site constitutes legal advice. Corrupt Cop Watch is not a law firm, does not provide legal counsel, and does not represent any party in any legal proceeding. If you need legal advice about a documented incident, contact an attorney. Organizations with civil rights legal practices include the ACLU, the National Police Accountability Project (NPAP), and local civil rights legal clinics.

Not an Assertion of Criminal Guilt

Documentation of an incident does not constitute an assertion that any individual is criminally guilty of any offense. Entries document what the official record shows — charges filed, outcomes reached, settlements paid, official findings made — in the language of documented reporting. Criminal guilt is determined by courts. What we document is the documented official record of what happened, what was charged, and what the documented outcome was.

Corrections and Removal

Documented corrections and removal requests may be submitted to: corrections@corruptcopwatch.com

See Publication Standards for the full correction process, exoneration update policy, and takedown criteria. We respond to all correction requests in good faith and on the timeline described in those standards.

SLAPP Notice

This site documents public officials' official conduct using primary source verification. Strategic litigation intended to suppress documented factual reporting — commonly called a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) — is recognized for what it is.

We have pre-established relationships with organizations that provide legal support for accountability journalism, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the ACLU, and the National Police Accountability Project. A SLAPP attempt will be responded to with simultaneous public documentation and notification to these organizations. The Streisand effect is a real mechanism.

Jurisdiction

This site is operated from the United States. All content is subject to applicable United States federal and state law.

Effective Date

This notice is effective as of the date of this site's public launch. During the current build phase, this notice is published for transparency and review. It will be reviewed by counsel before the site's public launch.

---

The foregoing is a description of this site's legal posture, not legal advice. The posture described — Section 230 platform status for user submissions, truth-defense and actual-malice posture for first-party entries — is the intended design. Whether it will be upheld in any particular legal proceeding depends on facts not known in advance. This posture is being reviewed by counsel and will not be treated as final until that review is complete.