Judge: Court violated state law on Peterson, Sabatino documents

The Modesto Bee ^ | 4-05-2003 | John Cote

[alexandria]

Stanislaus County Superior Court judges acted improperly when, at the request of law enforcement, they sealed search warrants in two Modesto investigations, one of those judges ruled Friday.

"The law says what the law says," declared Judge Roger M. Beauchesne, who had sealed one of the warrants. "The court erred in not providing proper notice to the public with regard to the sealing of all of the search warrants in both of these matters."

[alexandria]

Ok. So here we have a judge telling us that it is NOT legal for the court to keep the document sealed but he's GOING to keep it sealed anyway, until a hearing is done. ?? WTF? By the way. I talked to a friend of mine that is involved with the courthouse and LE happenings all the time. He tells me that, "I saw SP just the other day." Get this, when I ask where he says, "getting out of his truck at Mayor Sabatino's office." So SP was in Modesto this week sometime at the mayor's office for?

[alexandria]

RB can you ping this for me?

[truthkeeper]

Here's a bump.

[goody2shooz]

It seems the Modesto police do not have enough evidence for the DA to convict Scott Peterson of murder.

[runningbear]

I can but I tied this story into yesterday's thread, this morning.... let me know if you still want to ping everyone?

[alexandria]

Nah, that's ok. I did a search for the article but did not see it so I just put it up for update. Check your freepmail. :o)

[STOCKHRSE]

Well Alex the One POSITIVE thing about this decision is that it beats the ALTERNATIVE

"But it was unclear when an appeal would be filed. Harris said outside the courtroom that a decision to appeal would be made after the judge reviewed the warrants and determined what sections, if any, would be made public."

This statement is simply judicial black mail. DA is telling the judge if he/she releases any info not to the liking of state the DA will get a writ and reseal the info pending appeal of the release of the info that should have been released(in most instances) in the first place....MORE LEGAL DOUBLE SPEAK B/S....

"Wasden said the ruling potentially allows SUSPECTS to get information about investigations, thus undercutting law enforcement's ability to do its job."

Hey genius you can't have it both ways...There is no SUSPECT in this case...REMEMBER?....

And if there was a SUSPECT he/she has a well established RIGHT(remember that word?) to DISCOVERY(access to all info DA has) under the LAW. There are no exceptions to discovery(almost no,to be safe).

If evidence and its source are to be used to convict it will have to be be released upon indictment any way. So why would you try so hard to HIDE something if not to cover your DONKEY(against a civil suit) in the event you never make an arrest which leaves your backside wide open..(;-//..

And please don't give me this life threatning stuff, it's getting TRITE...With all the money spent on this case just follow the endangered party and catch the perp in the act...then the case would be open and shut and even MPD could get a conviction.....;-0)

[alexandria]

Yeah! What HE said! Seriously, I agree. The only thing you missed was the fact that if LE had REALLY wanted this sealed they should have just followed the guidelines.

The judge should have immediately unsealed them to promote the importance of the public's right to know and the police's need to follow the law they uphold.

[STOCKHRSE]

"The only thing you missed was the fact that if LE had REALLY wanted this sealed they should have just followed the guidelines"

NO NO LUV...That would have defeated their purpose, me thinks, because Scotch's attorneys would have to be present at the hearing in order for guidelines to be followed,and that is who they are really trying to hide the info from....the public thing is so much BS...IMHO.. I think that is why they did it in Sabatino's case also because he/she probably had a lawyer right from the start... That is what I surmised any way...

I am fairly certain that any hearing before a judge requires all partys concerned to be present for a quorm...

[FreePaul]

This is a "JUDGE" we are talking about. He is the law. After all, what punishment will he receive for his actions. When he ignores the law, does as he pleases and runs roughshod over anyone what is the worst that can happen to him? Some higher court will may tell him that he shouldn't have done it. Naughty, naughty, keep up the good work.