Roommate stunned by claims Colo. woman's bogus call triggered FLDS raid

The Denver Post ^ | 20 Apr 2008 | Kirk Mitchell

[mnehring]

Here is the affidavit acquired by the smoking gun that the Texas Rangers submitted in order to get a warrant to have cps come in and take the kids.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0408081texas1.html

[mnehring]

oops, wrong one. The last one was the CPS report. Here is the Ranger’s affidavit and request for warrant.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0410081polygamy1.html

[Cheburashka]

So is everything “fruit of a poisoned tree”?

---

As long as the LEO’s didn't know who made the calls at the time they first went to the compound, nothing is poisoned. They acted in good faith, saw evidence of criminal activity, and did what they are required by law to do.

[fr_freak]

So, are you saying that anyone who has reservations about the apparent violation of one of our most basic Constitutional rights must be a cult supporter?

[MizSterious]

The court has ordered exactly that. I think they’re taking cheek swabs.

[mnehring]

So, are you saying that anyone who has reservations about the apparent violation of one of our most basic Constitutional rights must be a cult supporter?

Just for clarification as all sides seem to have picked their own part of the Constitution in this case. Are you referring to protecting the children based on first part of the fourth amendment, The right of the people to be secure in their persons, or the thirteenth amendment forbidding slavery (ie, human trafficking). Are you referring to the protection of the States to make their own laws regarding criminal prosecution within the tenth amendment. Or are you referring to the cult leader's protection of search (albeit there was a warrant) in the fourth amendment?

[RightGeek]

Another nutcase for Obama

[Ignatz]

"Oh, you silly freeper you—providing facts? That won’t get you any points with the cult U.S. Constitution supporters, you know. ;)"

Fixed, sadly. I never thought I'd see the day some FReepers would be cheering the subjugation of the Constitution based on religious intolerance. We'll see if you still cheer when it's your church, or your children, or it's YOU that the authorities lie to in order to separate you from your children. We'll see if you cheer when your children are forced to participate in DNA tests under threat of violence.

[fr_freak]

Are you referring to protecting the children based on first part of the fourth amendment, The right of the people to be secure in their persons...yada yada yada

As you well know, all of those rights apply. However, the state of Texas apparently had no proof that any of the other rights were being violated at the time they executed the warrant. They executed that warrant based on a phone call, and sent in law enforcement in armored vehicles.

Once the LEOs went in, reports have surfaced here and there of teenaged girls found pregnant, or some other such thing which would be de facto evidence of a crime, but that was only after they entered private property. You cannot claim evidence as justification for a raid that you didn't have until after the raid. That's not the way the Constitution works. The "evidence" they had to justify the raid was spurious at best. To think that they launched a military assault on a community based on an unsubstantiated phone call that appear to have been a hoax in the first place (that is why you do not rely on unsubstantiated phone calls) should be enough to give anyone pause.

People need to remember that any abuse of the law that occurs on behalf of a good cause can also be used on behalf of a bad cause. The Texas LEOs should have done this properly - either by setting up surveillance to capture evidence of crimes, or sent someone in under cover. Instead, they were doing their damnedest to create Waco, part 2.

[mnehring]

However, the state of Texas apparently had no proof that any of the other rights were being violated at the time they executed the warrant

The initial warrant was on probably cause based on the call to the police. This is given rights under Texas state law. This has already been contested in BARBARA BELL JOHNSON v. THE STATE OF TEXAS. Johnson argued that the Police did not have the right to answer an emergency report call without a warrant. It was found that Texas law does allow for investigating emergency calls (such as the initial call) and in this case would constitute 'implied consent' because it was reasonably assumed that the call came from within the compound. The seizure of the children came after the Texas Rangers investigated the call and through eyewitness reports, did see evidence of aggravated sexual assault of a minor. The Rangers then requested a warrant, received it, and authorized CPS to go in (the infamous 'armored vehicle' entry you referred to.) The affidavits are posted above if you want to look at the evidence the Texas Rangers submitted in order to request a warrant.

[Valpal1]

To think that they launched a military assault on a community based on an unsubstantiated phone call that appear to have been a hoax in the first place (that is why you do not rely on unsubstantiated phone calls)

What exactly do you think the 911 emergency response system is? Every 911 call is an unsubstantiated phone call until whatever response is sent substantiates it. And they send whatever firepower they expect to need based on the information provided by the caller. You call in a hostage situtation and and you will get an armored response.

The fact that most 911 calls are valid and later substantiated means that acting on phone reports is in fact an effective and legetimate procedure.

[TLI]

The initial warrant was on probably cause based on the call to the police.

The calls did not go to the police or to the Texas Rangers or even to CPS. They were made to a NGO volunteer organization.

[mnehring]

That organization notified the police.

[org.whodat]

Fixed, sadly. I never thought I'd see the day some FReepers would be cheering the subjugation of the Constitution based on religious intolerance.

And your proof of that fell out a black helicopter didn't it.

[commonguymd]

There are a small bunch, a small bunch that pats each other on the back and brings each other from thread to thread to villify anyone that believes in the constitution, liberty, freedom, and due process. If you disagree, you are a pedophile in their eyes. Or a heretic to the new government religion.

[fr_freak]

What exactly do you think the 911 emergency response system is?

I highly doubt that someone could call in to 911 from Colorado and claim a crime is occurring in Texas, and have the police kick in doors without question, although, after this and other debacles, I could easily be wrong. In case you were not aware of this, the 911 board can immediately see the origin of the phone call. It is quite a different thing to receive a call from, say, within a house that claims a crime is occurring in the house than it would be to receive a call from Colorado that claims a crime is happening in Texas.

[Ignatz]

And your proof of that fell out a black helicopter didn't it.

Only if you, and by that I do mean you in particular, are posting here from a black helicopter. You are among the most vocal in supporting the suspension of these people's rights based upon your disagreement with their religious beliefs. Why don't you just be honest and admit that you do not believe the U.S. Constituiton applies equally to every U. S. Citizen? That it's not the evidence but the "seriousness of the charge" that matters, and due process be damned? Maybe then you'd quit attacking people who disagree with you.

Oh, wait, it's "for the children" isn't it? Do you not think that separating these children from their mothers (lying to BOTH as they went about it) is also abuse?

[ktscarlett66]

Not all places have enhanced 911 service (which shows the call’s origins). We got it here a few years ago and all the roads had to be named, everyone got an actual house number not a RD Box #. Where we vacation every summer still doesn’t have it though. Additionally, calls made by cell phones sometimes still aren’t shown with a location in many areas. They can be tracked with GPS or tower ‘pinging’ but not as the call is taking place.

[Valpal1]

My point is that the 911 system is built completely around responding to phoned in reports.

There is nothing wrong or unconstitutional about responding to a phoned in report even if the phoned in report later turns out to be a hoax. Which in this case is a media speculation at this point, not a fact.

And I think it’s useful for the investigators to let the story float, since it might cause carelessness on the part of the targets if they think the warrants might get invalidated.

[MizSterious]

No, not US Constitution supporters (since these were valid warrants and thus legal), but you're right--not everyone who rails against this raid is a cult supporter. In fact, quite a few resemble the "Truthers" from DU, failing to see anything that doesn't fit in with their "the government is evil" conspiracy theories. Guess what? George Bush didn't actually blow up the WTC on 9/11--and the Texas Rangers entered the ranch with full authority of the laws of that state.