Skip to comments.
FLDS opponents say wrong man named in warrant
Salt Lake Tribune ^
| 4/9/2008
| Nate Carlisle
Posted on 04/09/2008 9:33:38 AM PDT by Domandred
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 341-344 next last
To: marajade
What judge is gonna throw out that case before it gets to trial? It happens all the time with improperly executed warrants. It goes like this:
Defense Attorney: The warrant they executed was all wrong. It named the wrong person. They didn't even have a good ID on the person that made the complaint. Please throw out the warrant.
Judge: I agree. The warrant and anything found during the improper search is out. Mr. District Attorney, do you have any other evidence that isn't tainted by this illegal warrant?
District Attorney: Um, no.
Judge: Then I have no choice but to dismiss the charges. Mr. Defense Attorney, tell you client that he can go back to his 14 year old wife.
141
posted on
04/09/2008 12:42:07 PM PDT
by
Knitebane
(Happily Microsoft free since 1999.)
To: beltfed308
Not when you find kaboodles of pregnant minors. Not likely.
142
posted on
04/09/2008 12:42:27 PM PDT
by
Pebcak
To: longtermmemmory
I don’t think the “warrant” matters at this point. An investigation will take place and hopefully, the truth will out.
143
posted on
04/09/2008 12:42:36 PM PDT
by
marajade
(Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
To: Knitebane
144
posted on
04/09/2008 12:43:15 PM PDT
by
marajade
(Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
To: marajade
The same Judges that let murderers and rapists walk because a warrant was improperly styled, executed improperly, or based on flawed sources.
145
posted on
04/09/2008 12:43:32 PM PDT
by
CholeraJoe
(Flatland Warrior: "All your Jap auto plants are belong to us.")
To: CholeraJoe
Cite a case, similar in example to this case. Thanks a ton!
146
posted on
04/09/2008 12:44:08 PM PDT
by
marajade
(Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
To: 1035rep
Im 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. Unless the stuff in Plain View is only seen because you were in the house with a bad warrant. Then that evidence get tossed too.
And most judges won't allow a do-over.
147
posted on
04/09/2008 12:44:26 PM PDT
by
Knitebane
(Happily Microsoft free since 1999.)
To: TLI; Domandred; Vaquero
It seems that a lot of the “facts” spewed on this subject comes from that great knower of all evil things, NANCY GRACE. By the way she still has no idea what a muzzle loader is. You are right in your question the proper handling of the Constitution & Ammendments. I don’t concede any of them!!
148
posted on
04/09/2008 12:44:49 PM PDT
by
GOYAKLA
(My Tee shirt for 2009-2012:" I voted FRED don't you wish you did")
To: beltfed308
Place: The ranch
Person: Her
149
posted on
04/09/2008 12:46:09 PM PDT
by
Pebcak
To: Pebcak
Not when you find kaboodles of pregnant minors. Not likely. But how did they find the kaboodles of pregnant minors? Was there probable cause? Was the probable cause they used to get the warrant and the warrant itself valid? Did it justify the officers being there in the first place? That is the issue.
150
posted on
04/09/2008 12:47:50 PM PDT
by
beltfed308
(Heller: The defining moment of our Republic)
To: CholeraJoe
So in your opinions, a pregnant 13, 14 whatever teen is sufficient justification for a search and seizure of all children within sight? If my neighbors 14 year old daughter looks like she has a bun in the oven, the police can kick down the doors in the middle of the night, roust everyone out and take all 4 kids into foster care?
Or is this just another, It OK because they are Christian Fundies, Its for the Chiiiiiildren deal like Waco?
First, I believe it is standard practice to put all the children in a family into foster care or into the custody of an appointed guardian if one child in the family is suspected of being abused. I've read cases like this near me, but it is state law, so I don't know what they do in Texas.
In this case, since people were unwilling and/or unable to tell who belonged to which person and which family (see the
affidavit about the arrest, determining which families were okay and which were not was almost impossible. However, that's not the reason the kids were taken in this case, though it isn't surprising. (see point 3)
Second, the moment an officer observed, and I quote from the affidavit, "a number of young teenaged girls who appeared to be minors and appeared to be pregnant", there was evidence of a crime under Texas law. You don't like it? Take it up with Texas. This is akin to going over to someone's house for a domestic violence call and seeing 10 crack pipes on the floor. Oh look, evidence of a crime. Time to call in CPS or DPS or w/e you call it.
Third, another justification used for taking all the children was the, and again I quote, "that an immediate danger exists to the physical health or safety of the children who are residents of the YFZ Ranch and/or that the children who are residents of the YFZ Ranch are the victims of neglect and/or sexual abuse and that continuing to reside on the YFZ Ranch would be contrary to the children's welfare." In other words, it was determined that since a number of young women bore evidence of sexual abuse (in the form of their own pregnancies and babies), there was reason to fear that others were being abused.
If you are in a crack house and the cops come in, you're probably going to be arrested as well. The cops will sort out the innocent from the guilty afterwards. They won't just leave the innocent-looking guy there and take the nasty ones. Everyone goes. Same deal here.
To: beltfed308
This is getting to be a circular arguement. Read above.
152
posted on
04/09/2008 12:49:58 PM PDT
by
Pebcak
To: slightlyovertaxed
153
posted on
04/09/2008 12:50:21 PM PDT
by
marajade
(Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
To: Pebcak
154
posted on
04/09/2008 12:50:31 PM PDT
by
beltfed308
(Heller: The defining moment of our Republic)
To: Knitebane
IF the warrant is found to bad on it’s face then you are correct. BUT the name error would have to change the material facts in the warrant. As long as the search warrant is executed in good faith it will stand.
155
posted on
04/09/2008 12:50:56 PM PDT
by
1035rep
To: slightlyovertaxed
Oh, and one more thing:
My friend is in a plural marriage up here. He is married to a woman and they have two of the most awesome looking kids I've ever seen. The three year old is going to be a handful because she's so goddamn smart.
His wife has a boyfriend. The boyfriend lives out of state, but comes to stay with them on a weekly basis. The boyfriend has his own room and the kids know him as something between an uncle and a roommate. She chooses who she wants to spend time with. My friend doesn't care and in fact, likes the boyfriend quite a bit.
So don't think I'm anti-x or pro-y until you actually, you know, talk with me.
To: marajade
In Berg v. COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY;
The Supreme Court's decision in Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U.S. 560 (1971), as well as our own subsequent decisions, make clear that an erroneously issued warrant cannot provide probable cause for an arrest. In Whiteley, a county sheriff obtained a warrant for Whiteley's arrest based on a conclusory complaint. Police officers in another jurisdiction arrested Whiteley, discovering evidence later introduced at his trial. The state argued that because the arresting officers were unaware of the defect in the warrant, they had probable cause to arrest whether or not the sheriff did. But the Supreme Court held that the arrest was unconstitutional and ordered the evidence excluded:
157
posted on
04/09/2008 12:56:30 PM PDT
by
Knitebane
(Happily Microsoft free since 1999.)
To: Knitebane
And on what grounds do you get to remove children from their families without filing some kind of charges? But first you would need to prove there was a family, as in one adult wife and one adult husband and their children.
A little girl, that looks like she has swallowed a water melon would do for starters for removal. Are a little girl breast feeding a baby. But then I don't know the Texas abuse laws. Other than you need to be 16 teen are older to get a marriage license so it was reported.
158
posted on
04/09/2008 12:57:48 PM PDT
by
org.whodat
(What's the difference between a Democrat and a republican????)
To: Domandred
Before I read this thread, I will predict that people that belong in a cult presently, will maintain a defense for these fellow cult members and will probably defend polygamy.
I’ll start reading the thread now (I hope I’m wrong).
159
posted on
04/09/2008 12:57:55 PM PDT
by
ansel12
(If your profit margin relies on criminality to suppress wages, then you deserve to be out.)
To: TLI; Elsie; colorcountry
I see your real agenda here. It’s a courtesy to ping FReepers if you wish to insult them.
160
posted on
04/09/2008 12:58:11 PM PDT
by
rightazrain
(Stop Obama/Clinton!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 341-344 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson