Posted on 10/06/2011 10:16:19 PM PDT by Borough Park
And a good defense attorney will question their motives. Is there proof that the CD’s came from his home?
Not applicable. The State was not involved in the initial illegal seizure of evidence, according to the story. Had the State prompted the burglars, maybe. This is akin to a civilian trespasser reporting a pot plantation, not an unwarranted intrusion by law enforcement.
And a good defense attorney will question their motives. Is there proof that the CD’s came from his home?
******************************
The first point is irrelevant. Chain of custody is relevant, which is why I said that if the seized materials are clean the defendant has a case.
In the event of an illegal act itself? One could argue it for days, but no matter—the perv has been outed and will rightly be shunned.
Look, as a retired police officer, I have watched how a good defense attorney can sink a prosecuting attorney over something like this. The fact that they let the burgers off for their testimony is a start.
As for chain of custody, the miscreants that gave the CD’s to the police doesn’t give credence to any chain of custody.
“Yep, I can tell you’re a college “perfesser” alright, by the punctuation and questionable ethics!”
Really. So you think I was defending the guy? I just wondered why the police would believe the robbers.
OK, by the same reasoning I infer that you are a Ron Paul supporter, right?
“In the event of an illegal act itself?”
It depends on who did the illegal act. For the Exclusionary Rule and so on to apply, “illegally seized” means specifically that a government actor or proxy violated the law to obtain the evidence, not that the evidence was obtained in the course of a crime by a private citizen.
All of this is rooted in court decisions on the workings of the Fourth Amendment, which puts a curb on -government- actions. It was not even applied to the states until 1961, but only to the US government. It does not apply to private persons.
“The Huffington Post reports that the Merced County Sheriff’s Department decided not to arrest the two burglars.”
Excellent decision. Let them go. They could have saved themselves by staying quiet.
Those must have been some really poor prosecutors you watched, more than the defense attorneys being good.
This is not a hard case to win if the seized materials are inculpatory as well. If the ONLY incriminating evidence is what the two burglars brought in, then a case could be made that there is reasonable doubt that it was ever in the defendant’s possession.
I have more problems with the approach to possession of child porn as a status crime in itself, without proof of intent. It is too easy to be planted, even remotely.
Excuse me all to hell for getting too fast on the fingers. You and I know what I meant to say! Burglars, ashat, burglars.
My point exactly.
He can’t stay in the community and wherever he lives, somebody will look him up for his sexual offender status and try and chase him out of the community.
Lots of potential for mischief on this one. I know it’s really a problem, but whenever “child porn” is brought against someone, my BS flag goes up. Especially when it’s ‘discovered’ by questionable means.
"We burglarized a house, officer, and stole these CD-ROMs of all unlikely things and we took them straight home and looked at them and found that kiddie porn you told us to find... Er, I mean, we found kiddy porn on them so we did the Christian thing and turned ourselves in so you policemen could catch that bad man! So now you're going to look the other way on that illegal chop-shop we were running out of that phony auto repair business where we had all those stolen cars, right?"
Right.
The ATF does stuff like this all the time, as you might have heard recently.
It's not his stuff the kids broke in and put it there.
And the kids say they broke in specifically to steal 'empty' CD ROMS? What made them expect to find a huge stack of CDs in the first place? Sorta like stealing paper plates and leaving the sterling silverware alone.
My first and only thought is that it was foolish for both of them to turn themselves in. It would have been more logical to flip a coin.
NOT even close! I think Ron Paul is a crackpot and wouldn’t even trust him to guard my yard! He would surrender it to a bunch of potheads if they promised to vote for him!
JC
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.