Posted on 04/09/2008 9:33:38 AM PDT by Domandred
Texas authorities named the wrong man in search and arrest warrants used to enter the YFZ Ranch near Eldorado and begin questioning FLDS children, two opponents of the sect said Tuesday.
The warrant issued Thursday evening named 50-year-old Dale Barlow, alleging he had married and impregnated a 16-year-old girl. Officials, who later sought a second search warrant, have removed 419 children.
But Joni Holm, who has helped children leave the FLDS, said the teenager who called officials on March 29 and 30 and claimed she was abused is married to a different, younger man. The girl's husband is in his late 30s, is related to Dale Barlow, shares his surname and has a similar sounding first name, Holm said.
"I know they're looking into the wrong one," Holm said.
Tela Mange, a spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Public Safety, on Tuesday said police were continuing to serve warrants and attempt to locate "the person that we are looking for."
When asked if that person was still Dale Barlow, she said, "As far as I know."
But Flora Jessop, who left the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints at age 16 and now helps others do the same, also said the wrong man was named in the initial warrants.
Texas authorities have made no effort to apprehend Dale Barlow at his address in Colorado City, Ariz. He reported to his Arizona probation officer on Friday - less than 24 hours after the raid began to tell the officer he was under investigation.
His probation officer has said Dale Barlow claimed to not know the teenager making the abuse accusations. Later Friday, Arizona authorities questioned him and searched his home.
The Salt Lake Tribune, which generally does not name alleged victims of sexual abuse, and other media outlets have not published the girl's name.
But Holm said the girl's identity, and the correct identity of her husband, is "common knowledge" in Colorado City, Ariz., and Hildale, Utah, where the sect has traditionally been based.
The Tribune is not naming the man identified by Holm as the girl's husband because he has not been named as a suspect or in court filings.
Holm, who is married to a former FLDS member, said she has spoken with people who know the teenager. She thinks Texas officials confused the two Barlows.
She believes it is possible the teenager did not know her husband's correct age and told authorities he is about 50. Also, she noted, Dale Barlow has a 2007 conviction in Arizona for criminal charges related to marrying and impregnating a different 16-year-old girl, which may have contributed to confusion.
The first warrant identified Dale Barlow by name and his birth date. The copy on file in court does not list the name of the investigator who petitioned for it.
A second and more expanded warrant, signed Sunday night, was based on observations and evidence found by law enforcement and child services workers inside the compound, according to court documents.
“I do not want to see the case screwed up because the police are being their usual incompetent selves.”
Are you telling me if at a jury trial you had the victim ID the perp as to sexual and physical abuse and you’d vote to acquit because the cops got the man’s wrong on a search warrant?
I am also amazed that a search warrant was apparently issued on the basis of a phone call. Maybe I missed a posted copy of the affidavit or some other detail but so far it’s just a phone call.
The “entire wrong person” who just happens to have the same last name, nad be a member of the same comparatively small religious group, AND has a conviction for sexual abuse of a 16 year old girl . . .
The Judge would throw out all of the evidence long before it ever got to a jury.
How exactly is our Constitution and search and seizure laws being violated?
A victim called LE. LE went in and protected her.
Without a witness/complainant to justify the police even being there, this case could blow up big time.
What judge is gonna throw out that case before it gets to trial?
warrents are the governments key into your home.
Essentially a manual overide to enter into a “man’s castle”.
If this is correct that they executed on a wrong person then this is a major legal error and not just a typo scrivner error.
THere is a HUGE sentiment by judges to not allow police to not all execution on just anyone regardless of warrent in the absence of a specific request for a john doe warrent. Otherwise the police WILL be asking for a warrent on one person and go fishing for evidence on the person they really want and allow cases to be screwed up.
You are correct then they could have taken the girl with them and obtained a “john doe” warrent based on a name recolection issue. They did not do that and now their case is in major crisis.
At the very least something is going to get surpressed.
You seem to be misunderstanding the issues here so I'll spell them out in small words:
1. A warrant was issued on the basis of a phone call
2. The warrant named the wrong guy.
3. So Mr. Wrong Guy has the full force of the government down on him
4. And the right guy hasn't been arrested yet because the police have screwed up the warrant.
5. And you are okay with all of this.
I'm certain that who ever saw her in the hospital will be able to identify her. If they can find her.
Too bad the real story is almost completely buried and the truth was the first casualty on the assault on our God given freedoms
Criminals walk every day because of improperly documented search warrants.
I’m not a lawyer. I believe this falls under the doctrine of “Plain View”. As long as you are in a place that you are legally allowed to be in, you can seize what is in plain view.
What evidence will suppressed? What judge will suppress sexual and physical evidence just cause a minor didn’t know the true legal name of her perpretrator?
BTW, its “warrant.”
There was probably an affidavit from one or more of the people who took her calls at the domestic violence hotline.
Yes, a phone call to a state child welfare agancy from a person in dire straights. Usually such a person dials 911 and doesn't sit a the phone yacking away about it. The push to obtain the time an dcircumatances of resue.
Yep, I’m completely okay with it. Because now a full investigation will take place.
that will be a NEW warrent to arrest the correct person.
as for this warrent, it is going to be a ground to toss all the stuff on this arrest.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
What judge will allow a criminal in this kind of case to walk?
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.