Yes, I remember that from law school. It won’t be an issue in this case. The authorities conducted their initial, cursory search of the compound under a lawfully issued warrant. They found plenty of evidence during that search to get warrants for further searches and for the removal of the children. The identity or location of the initial caller became moot as soon as they went in and spotted several obviously pregnant minors.
I disagree. I think it is a major issue that will be exploited to the largest extent possible. Everything they saw, heard or found could be thrown out.
Bingo!!!
***The identity or location of the initial caller became moot as soon as they went in and spotted several obviously pregnant minors.***
After consideration, I agree. Furthermore, the actual name on the warrant is irrelevant. There is NO poisoned tree. Authorities, acting on the good faith of an informant executed a warrant, where they clearly saw evidence of crimes with their own eyes. They were perfectly free to act with additional warrants. A warrant is not “proof” of a crime or evidence of a man’s guilt. Furthermore, no one can simply say that the warrant named the wrong man. That, I believe, is up to a jury at trial to decide should evidence collected from the warrants lead to an arrest.
I must wonder if people think that the original warrant was improper WHAT exactly they think authorities should have done with the phone calls? Simply ignore them?