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.
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.
Not when you find kaboodles of pregnant minors. Not likely.
I don’t think the “warrant” matters at this point. An investigation will take place and hopefully, the truth will out.
Cite a case.
The same Judges that let murderers and rapists walk because a warrant was improperly styled, executed improperly, or based on flawed sources.
Cite a case, similar in example to this case. Thanks a ton!
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.
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!!
Place: The ranch
Person: Her
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.
Very good post.
http://law.jrank.org/pages/7042/Fruit-Poisonous-Tree.html is a good read.
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.
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:
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.
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).
I see your real agenda here. It’s a courtesy to ping FReepers if you wish to insult them.
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.