My question from my first post on this topic has always been whether or not this raid was conducted in a Constitutional manner.
As more and more time passes it begins to look more and more like it was not.
Yes. As the attorneys present their cases, I'll be quite interested in their constitutional arguments. Certainly you've have said that it's important for the state to get it right or they also jeopardize future cases where authorities need to respond to real "cries of wolf!"
Beyond that, tho, I simply find it odd that the overwhelming slew of responses from some posters sounds like they are affiliates of the regional ACLU.
My point, in this regard, is that if I had a neighbor who trespassed onto my property because he sincerely believed that one or multiple rapes had occurred and that continued such violence could recur...and he was attempting ot pre-empt further said actions...my first, second, third, fourth, fifth, etc. kneejerk reactions would NOT be to pull out the private property protections as found in the Fifth Amendment, or civil & criminal codes which speak on criminal trespass or espouse private property protections.
My first impulse would be to protect the alleged victims. And, if my property was trespassed upon to protect them (a pure motivation), I'm not going to get all ACLU-like as my initial response. (Even if it came out later that the neighbor had incomplete information, I still would not automatically ascribe "bad faith" to him like I've seen a number of FReeper posters do).