Posted on 01/04/2008 4:58:32 PM PST by repinwi
The two brothers injured in the Christmas Day tiger attack at the San Francisco Zoo have refused to let police examine photos on their cell phones that authorities believe were taken the day they were mauled and their friend was killed.
< snip >
"We also understand that police officers requested permission from your clients to examine any images and other contents of the cell phone. Your clients refused to cooperate with this request; consequently, no one has yet examined this potentially critical evidence."
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
If cell phone memory is anything like computer memory, deleting the image doesn’t necessarily remove the information.
If the phones are in police custody I don’t understand why they can’t get a court order to examine any evidence they might contain.
Fourth Amendment – Search and Seizure
In order to be valid under the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant must, inter alia, "particularly describe the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." U.S. Const. Amend. IV. The purpose of this particularity requirement is to avoid "a general, exploratory rummaging in a person's belongings." Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 480, 49 L. Ed. 2d 627, 96 S. Ct. 2737 (1976) (internal quotation marks omitted); Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 467, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2038, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971); see generally Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 476, 481-85, 13 L. Ed. 2d 431, 85 S. Ct. 506 (1965) (describing history and purpose of particularity requirement). A sufficiently particular warrant describes the items to be seized in such a manner that it leaves nothing to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant. See Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192, 196, 72 L. Ed. 231, 48 S. Ct. 74 (1927). Although the Court ordinarily would begin its review of the decision of the district court by determining whether it erred in concluding the warrant failed to adequately particularize the items to be seized, the Court need not address that question even if the warrant was invalid where the evidence obtained during the search nevertheless was admissible pursuant to the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. See United States v
You are forgetting who has possession of the cellphones! As the investigation continues, probable cause and a search warrant is all that’s needed. Stay tuned.
Taunt a Tiger
Win a Darwin Award
Do think I support what is being talked about here, that these young men may have done? Not hardly. Fines. Jail Time yes. Killed by the tiger...no.
Hmm, is that the same as saying “If they're innocent, why do they need a lawyer?”
I also can not for the life of me figure out how stupid the Zoo “experts” could have put these rare and beautiful animals in danger and caged up?
and these Zoo experts can not do better than this? i say fire the Zoo director and anyone else who set up these animal displays this stupidly!! I am really upset about this whole story , but the stupidity and lack of proper zoo set up for the animals gets me the most!
What were these zoo experts thinking? If these jerks got that close to the animals, you could easily have someone come in with a weapon and kill the zoo animals.
The cell phones and the car are currently being held by the San Francisco Police Department but have not been searched, according to Herrera.
http://www.nbc11.com/news/14982701/detail.html
This is over with all the speculation based on rummer and gossip. And no fact! The boys might have done something and they might have just been at the wrong place at the wrong time.
^^^^
The San Francisco Zoo’s tiger ‘grotto’ was built in the 1940’s. It is hard to call the zoo negligible for a moat wall that has successfully worked for nearly 70 years
Don’t forget, we’re talking about San Fransicko -— the city that allows and celebrates homosexual sex acts on the public streets under police protection during an event each year called the Fulton Street Fair...
It’s really tough to get prosecuted for peculiar crimes.... in that city where peculiar is normal...
If the pic id deleted off the phone it is gone. Same with the/a simcard or memory stick. It's not like a computer where there is a kernel that could be data mined to recover it.
An unsubstantiated statement is simply a guess.
Now this is not a guess ~ the zoo had a responsibility to make sure the animals could not readily escape.
See # 24
You are so right.
I do not understand those who switch responsibility for the escape from the zoo to those who got chewed on.
“Taunting” the tiger might make give her more incentive to get at them. This is irrelevant to the prime issue: The zoo’s responsibility is to keep the animals away from the customers no matter how badly the animals want out.
If the guys in question behaved badly, they should be punished appropriately, but it doesn’t mitigate the zoo’s screwup in the least.
Could that possibly be on account of their having cooperated ~ maybe to the extent they've "Framed" the tiger~!!!!!
Oh the horror!!!!!
Pardon my ignorance.
Is this the same type of memory as a Compact Flash card in a digital camera? Because I've recovered "deleted" images from them successfully.
BTW, they just had a period of high winds up and down the California coast. No surprise to find some limbs and stuff inside the enclosures.
Did you catch that the zoo director was paid over 300k per year, not including benefits?
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.