The point of the post wasn't that a public official was involved but that specific information obtained by monitoring police frequencies is being published by an admitted "professional", which must mean he is profiting from revealing this information in some way., if by nothing more than enhancing his "professional "image. Revealing monitored information for gain is specifically prohibited by the rules so liberally quoted within the last few days........ Quoting a newspaper article about these events doesn't break any laws, but repeating what you are hearing on your scanner seems to be skirting the edge of legality.
Note the " IMHO" in my first post, same here in my last one on this subject...