Posted on 12/21/2006 1:03:41 PM PST by SmithL
Port Arthur, Texas -- In the middle of Joshua Bush's forehead, two inches above his eyes, lies the evidence that prosecutors say could send the teenager to prison for attempted murder: a 9 mm bullet, lodged just under the skin.
Prosecutors say it will prove that Bush, 17, tried to kill the owner of a used-car lot after a robbery in July. And they have obtained a search warrant to extract the slug.
But Bush and his lawyer are fighting the removal, in a legal and medical oddity that raises questions about patient privacy and how far the government can go to solve crimes without running afoul of the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
"It's unfortunate this arguably important piece of evidence is in a place where it can't be easily retrieved," said Seth Chandler, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center. "You have to balance our desire to convict the guilty against the government not poking around our bodies on a supposition."
Investigators say that Bush was part of a group of gang members who broke into a used car lot and tried to steal vehicles. According to police, Bush tried to shoot businessman Alan Olive, and when Olive returned fire, a bullet struck the teenager and borrowed into the soft, fatty tissue of his forehead.
Prosecutor Ramon Rodriguez said gang members who took part in the robbery identified Bush as one of those involved. When he was questioned about a week later, Bush admitted taking part in the robbery but not the shooting, police said.
"The officers noticed the guy looks like hell. One of his eyes is black and he has a big old knot on his forehead," Rodriguez said. "He tells police he got hurt playing basketball."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Yeah, it is. 'Can't happen here,' somebody says. 'Why not?' somebody else says.
It would be another protection crossed out of our already considerably pared back 5A restriction. Beneath our skin is about the only thing the govt. can't get into or usurp control over, or sell for tax revenue.......yet.
A search warrant can issue just as a conscious DUI suspect can be required to give a blood sample. The Supt. Ct. said that years ago in a case coming up from Calif. I believe it's: Shemel v. Calf.(or something like that). If probable cause exists, a warrant can issue. Alternatively, he can be ordered to surrender the bullet and be held in civil contempt, a contempt where he is said to hold the key to the jailhouse in his pocket, and that he has only to comply with the court's order; a mandatory injunction, and he can walk out of the lock-up. A mandatory injunction is one that says, essentially, that '' you shall not fail to do [something].''
They could establish whether or not there is a metallic object in his head with a simple metal detector. A search warrant should be easy enough to obtain.
Because when it comes the the War On Drugs there is NO SUCH THING AS CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS and anything goes because "it's for the safety of our children"
This is an easy one.
Simple. Offer to replace it wiith something in a higher caliber.
If the precedent is set that a person who is shot cannot be forced to allow the bullet to be removed from his person for examination, I don't really see what harm that could do. Realistically, are crooks going to fear getting shot any less if they're told they can forbid forensic analysis on any bullets that come to rest in their body?
By contrast, giving the state more power to force people to submit to intrusive surgical examinations is apt to have dangerous consequences down the road.
Yes it does so I'm fine with this kid walking, it would be a lot harder to be ok with that if he had killed they guy or maimed him or something. My liberties are a lot more important than getting the case to stick to this thug. Besides, he'll end up in jail within a year anyhow, hopefully nobody will get hurt the next time, except maybe himself.
There's nothing precedent-setting about this. If the bullet can be removed without general anesthesia, the suspect loses. If general anesthesia is required, the suspect wins. Considering that the bullet is just under the skin, I suspect it can be removed fairly easily using nothing but a local anesthetic. If so, the suspect doesn't stand a chance.
Hopefully? And if he ends up murdering someone, let's say a family member of yours, what then?
Lack of a search warrant would stop them.
Thank you for posting the relevant precedent - very interesting! I guess with all the crime that goes on I was a little naive to assume this sort of thing hadn't happened before...
Then he'd better hope I'm not around with one of my guns. I assume the main responsibility to protect myself, my family and my possessions. I don't look to the nanny state for security, the government isn't so good at providing security without the help of a police state.
Would you trade my liberty in the hope of protecting your wife and kids? Would you trade the liberty of 300 million people for this false sense of security?
My life and the life of my family members isn't worth taking away the liberty of millions of Americans. That's one of the major problems with this country, the focus is so conceited and myopic that we forget Liberty and Freedom come at a price. That's why we can't stand to see our soldiers suffer even a few thousand casualties and tie thier hands to prevent collateral damage while prosecuting a "War on Terror".
Why would this be an unreasonable search when the kid has admitted a role in the robbery?
Also, the kid admitted taking part in the robbery, but not the shooting. Um, wasn't the shooting part of the robbery?
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.