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

That organization notified the police.

The finding of the court in BARBARA BELL JOHNSON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS was based upon a call to the police which carries a reasonable expectation of a response, i.e. a reasonable person would expect the LEO to respond. That is why they record the calls, as evidence and to prove the request was made.

Ok fine, but the call to the police did not come from the YFZ ranch. If came from the Vol. Org.

A volunteer org carries no such authority to authorize a warrant less incursion on the YFZ Ranch and a reasonable person would know they are not the owners of the property.

The basis for this is right there in the case as the court cited…

Brown v. Texas, 856 S.W.2d 177 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993), teaches us that if a crime "is reported to the police by an individual who owns or controls the premises to which the police are summoned, and that individual either states or suggests that it was committed by a third person, he or she implicitly consents to a search of the premises reasonably related to the routine investigation of the offense and the identification of the perpetrator.

The volunteer organization did not own or control the location in question, i.e. the YFZ Ranch, therefore BARBARA BELL JOHNSON v. THE STATE OF TEXAS does not apply.

Don't forget this piece of finding.

Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978), argues that the "emergency aid doctrine" and the prompt "protective sweep" exceptions to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement permit police to seize evidence that was in plain view during the course of these legitimate activities. It asserts that "[i]n this case, the evidence collected at the scene was clearly admissible because it was in the plain view of a law enforcement officer during the course of his legitimate emergency activities, i.e. searching for the victim and securing the safety of the area."

More on the Emergency Aid Doctrine cited:
http://www.fourthamendment.com/certgrants.html
Under the emergency aid, or medical emergency, doctrine, law enforcement officers may enter a dwelling without a warrant. The emergency aid doctrine strikes a balance between the rights protected by the Fourth Amendment and the interests of government to access a dwelling to safeguard the well-being of citizens. The doctrine permits police to make "warrantless entries and searches when they reasonably believe that a person within is in need of immediate aid ... [because] '[t]he need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury is justification for what would be otherwise illegal absent an exigency or emergency.' " Mincey, 437 U.S. at 392, 98 S.Ct. 2408 (quoting Wayne v. United States, 318 F.2d 205, 212 (D.C.Cir.1963)); see also State v. Frankel, 179 N.J. 586, 847 A.2d 561, 568 (2004) ("The emergency aid doctrine is derived from the commonsense understanding that exigent circumstances may require public safety officials, such as the police ... to enter a dwelling without a warrant for the purpose of protecting or preserving life, or preventing serious injury."). The purpose and motivation for actions performed under the emergency aid doctrine distinguish them from conduct subject to constitutional oversight. Officers who render emergency aid are not serving as peacekeepers or in a law enforcement capacity, but rather as caretakers.

The affidavits are posted above if you want to look at the evidence the Texas Rangers submitted in order to request a warrant.

If you are referring to the affidavit on the Smoking Gun site that was in your post #42, that affidavit appears to be for a warrant issued after the initial raid. The initial raid, spurred by the fraudulent phone call, occurred on April 3, whereas this affidavit refers to events that occurred April 4, April 5, and April 6 (look in item #5). In other words, the affidavit you are linking to is the one used for some kind of secondary search. The cause for the first search is not shown.

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.

Yes, that is a fine debating tactic you've got there. Those that believe there should be limits on government are exactly the same as those who think Bush ordered the demolition of the WTC.

It seems to me that people here are all gung-ho to see the FLDS people fried because they are a bunch of kooks. Well, that's all fine and dandy, but the scenario I'm envisioning is one where all of the tactics used against these people will also be used, eventually, against groups of people that don't seem so strange, but the precedent will already have been set: you can throw the Constitution out the window any time you are focused on people who seem "scary".

As far as whether the search was constitutional or not - that is the crux of the debate here. The initial search was apparently based on a fraudulent phone call. The police could not have known that the call was fraudulent, but the fact that they sent the troops in without knowing is the whole point of this discussion.

Calm down. No one wants anyone “fried.” But, some of you folks are every bit as delusional as the “Truthers.” There were valid (legal) warrants, and everything was done according to the law—yet the San Angelo Truthers are ignoring that little fact and moving right on to (nonexistent) rights violations.

It’s not about them “looking strange.” It’s about them breaking the law. Actually, probably several laws, considering that some of the children were brought down from Canada for these perverted sexual purposes.

The phone call—as so many have pointed out—is not known to be fraudulent. There was a SERIES of phone calls prior to the raid by someone they haven’t found. Then, for some probably very weird reason, someone else made a FRAUDULENT phone call (after the raid no less) to add to the confusion. They still have not found the original caller, or if they have, they’re not saying (perhaps for her safety). The phoney baloney was found and turns out she was an Obama delegate. So we’re talking about more than one phone call. The last one (after the raid) we know was phoney. The others are simply anonymous.

To say the police should not have responded to an anonymous phone call is also ludicrous. There have always been “tip lines” and even 911 doesn’t always identify the caller with some phones—yet the police (or fire dept.) will usually respond, as well they should.

"emergency aid" No one was bleeding, shot, dying, etc and the calls started on March 29th. Yet the raid did not occur until April 3rd. That is five days later. Not exactly an emergency response.

"protective sweep" during “legitimate activities.” A protective sweep search can produce allowable evidence from legitimate activities however you have to actually get the police in the door under the criteria stated in the rest of the case. So again, since the volunteer organization that reported to the police was not an individual who owns or controls the premises, there really is not much in BARBARA BELL JOHNSON v. THE STATE OF TEXAS that can apply to the YFZ case.

Did somebody tell you that it did?

Calm down. No one wants anyone “fried.”

Calm down? Bah. This is still my indoor voice.

Unless you are reading different articles than I have been, the situation is this: a phone call to some services group gets passed to the police, claiming that she is a 16-year old girl who has been raped at the compound. Based upon that, the police get a warrant and send in the troops. Once the troops arrive, the women and children are taken into custody and separated. Evidence of possible sexual abuse that was discovered as a result of the first warrant was used to obtain another warrant to search the premises more fully.

There are details missing here, of course, but that is the gist of the situation. What bothers me, and should bother anyone who does not want to see this country become a police state, is that the first warrant was based on 3rd party hearsay and then, rather than sending in a couple of squad cars, they send in a quasi-military assault. The only reason probably that we didn't have another Waco is because these people rolled over rather than resist (they were mostly women and kids, after all).

Now, we have all kinds of people on these threads getting all lathered up about how child molesters and polygamists are bad. Well, I agree. However, before I see an entire community invaded and rounded up like cattle, I'd like to see some damn proof. It would make me feel a whole lot better if the local LEOs had said "Hey, we've been watching these guys for a while, we've got pictures, we've got audio, so we went in and took them down." Unfortunately, what really happened is that somebody from a private organization logged a call from an unknown party claiming to be abused.

911 serves its purpose, but I doubt that many of us expect to have our doors kicked down as the result of a 911 call by mistake. For instance, if your neighbor hates you, so he calls 911 and tells that that you are beating your wife. I think it is reasonable to expect that a squad car will show up, a couple of uniformed police officers will knock on the door and demand to talk to everyone in the house. If the police arrive, will they simply kick the door down without knocking, guns drawn, safeties off? Unless the police can see evidence of the crime when they arrive, I question both the legality and the morality of that option.

A lot of the lathering is the Nancy Grace crowd that hangs out here on FR. Same ones that got all wrapped up in Nicole Smith or whatever her name was - the big girl that was dumb as a box of rocks.

Anyway, ole sourpuss face, the same Nancy Grace that never apologized to the Duke Lacrosse team had an interview gone bad imo with a former kicked out member. Seems he was never aware of marriages to minors in his years there except for a parental approved “2 weeks before the 18th birthday”. He was kicked to the curb because he drank and didn’t abide by community rules, not because he was a man. She was fishing for the salacious gutter stuff that the Nancy crowd here is looking for, and couldn’t get off the phone fast enough when she was provided some sordid detail. LMAO!

Some here just hope and pray that the children have been victimized because it is juicy and salacious. I ain’t that jaded in life that other’s misery brings me happiness. I pray for them to be found in good health, not abused, happy and fulfilled in life, in good spirits and with good morals so that everyone can move on with their lives. I hope the state gets a huge amount of egg on their face for the sake of the children.

I don’t long for them to be abused brainwashed lost souls being raped by 50 year old men so I can feel better about my own religion. That is much of what is going on here.

I hope the accusations and wild assertions turn out to be false, and the rumors and innuendo are put to bed. I hope that although they have different beliefs, they are following the laws. Wouldn’t that be a better ending? For the children’s sake?

Boy, that’s really conclusive. “Could be.” Are all 4 girls pregnant, and already have an 8-month old child? Were any of them treated at the hospital recently for broken ribs?

This Swinton faker obviously had studied a great deal about the FLDS cult. She knew all about Dale Barlow (Google is your friend). Barlow is a popular name in that cult. So is Jessop, onbiously. So, she picks the name Sarah Jessop Barlow. Bingo! Instant credibility! Then it turns out the inbred polygamists have at least 4 possible “Sarah Jessop Barlows” at the YFZ prison camp.

I’m not sure why you deny that Swinton’s fake call prompted the raid. It’s a good thing it did, because now some horribly abused children will get some badly needed help.

I’m not sure why you deny that Swinton’s fake call prompted the raid. It’s a good thing it did, because now some horribly abused children will get some badly needed help.

First there was no raid, so so stop your hyperbole, and the Texas authorities them selves now say the crazy women call had nothing to do with their investigation.

And where in the world do your get this four girls pregnant stuff. Yesterdays report of the young pregnant girls that had the youngest baby's was a little over 100.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.