Posted on 05/07/2008 9:06:11 AM PDT by Politicalmom
Two prominent Utah legal minds say there is little members of the Fundamentalist LDS Church can do to stop the momentum of Texas' investigation. In other words: The train has left the station.
The main reason is that states typically give broader powers to state officials regarding child welfare than criminal investigations.
"We tend to view this as a criminal investigation, but the authorities down in Texas are involved in a child welfare action," said former federal judge and University of Utah law professor Paul Cassell.
Cassell said when it comes to making sure children are safe, the court will want to review any evidence possible to ensure what it's doing is in the best interest of the children.
Challenging such evidence within a child welfare case is difficult. Unlike a criminal action, the legal standards for throwing out evidence is much lower. "It's the law in many jurisdictions that you cannot suppress evidence in a child protective action," Cassell said.
That's not to say that the case won't turn into a criminal one. If that happens, Cassell said attorneys for FLDS members can then challenge its admission.
One common question surrounding this saga has been the basis for the search warrants. The raid on the YFZ Ranch was prompted by phone calls by someone claiming to be a 16-year-old named Sarah Barlow. The teen said she was pregnant and in an abusive, polygamous marriage to a man.
During the raid, Texas authorities didn't find Sarah, but say they uncovered signs of abuse and a judge ordered all of the children removed and placed in state protective custody.
Authorities in several states are now investigating a Colorado woman, who, they say, has a history of posing as abused young women. They now suspect this woman may have posed as Sarah.
But wouldn't that invalidate the search warrant?
Not necessarily, says Cassell.
"The government doesn't always have to be right with the search warrant, it just has to be reasonable," Cassell said.
Salt Lake defense attorney Greg Skordas agrees, saying as long as law enforcement is acting on "good faith" that the information they are acting on is correct, the warrant is valid.
Cassell said history can also play a part. For example, if police act on information that a man with a court history of drug dealing is dealing out of his home, that can be taken into consideration in supporting their reasons for a warrant even if that information later turns out to be bogus.
In this case, FLDS members have been charged and convicted in the past for arranging underage marriages to young girls. That can play a part in Texas upholding its search warrants as valid.
During its investigation, Texas authorities have said they have uncovered evidence of physical and sexual abuse among children. Cassell said courts have upheld that if law enforcement sees evidence — even if it's evidence of a completely different crime than what the search warrant suspected — that evidence can still be used in court.
"They don't have to avert their eyes of evidence of other wrongdoing," Cassell said. "They have to show probable cause to be pulling up fish, but if they're looking for a bass and they find a salmon, they don't have to throw the salmon back."
Cassell said courts have allowed state agencies to share information, meaning evidence gathered in a child welfare investigation can later be used in a criminal one.
FLDS members will have a chance to challenge the evidence if criminal charges are filed. But Cassell and Skordas both say that will be the last thing to hit the courts. The most immediate thing the courts are concerned about is the safety of the children and establishing some sort of permanency.
"You can't fight city hall," Skordas said. "The FLDS haven't done themselves any favors either because they're so secretive."
Skordas said the best thing FLDS members could do right now is fully cooperate with authorities in their investigation, because that would likely result in getting their children back sooner.
Why would your rights take precedence over a child’s rights?
When they get calls about child abuse for every pregnant teen, ping me.
The Thirteenth Amendment applies to children as well.
Warren Jeffs was investigated by the state of Utah and charged with multiple crimes WITHOUT THE GOVERNMENT SIEZING ALL THE MOTHERS AND CHILDREN involved during the process of their investigation. Why couldn't Texas do this?
If you cannot see the difference between how Utah handled his crimes and the blatantly obvious violations of these people's Constitutional rights done by the state of Texas, that is your ignorance. Don't worry, you have plenty of company. Though it's very clear that you do not care about upholding any citizens 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment rights, just as long as the state is acting to protect children. I got it. Children's right supersede those of other citizens, I understand your misguided position. Believe me, I get it.
Just remember this, when an angry ex/neighbor calls one of these agencies and gets one your grandkids confiscated by the state, IT WAS FOR THEIR OWN GOOD. The state is a better parent and must act to protect those children.
BTW, show me the “Sarah” caller? With both know this person is fictitious and MUST remain anonymous by law. <<<< You seem to not believe this. Therefore, name the caller. Furthermore, if the call was bogus (fake), I GARAUNTEE YOU THIS CALLER WILL NOT BE CHARGED WITH A CRIME STEMMING FROM THIER PHONE CALL TO CPS. I GARUANTEE IT. Also, show me the government employee who blew this anonymous caller's identification. They are in violation of the child protect act.
Acting on an anonymous tip should NEVER be considered a “GOOD FAITH,” nor reasonable for obtaining a search warrant. But that is where we are here today. Why shouldn't it be, because those who are charged with crimes have the RIGHT TO FACE THEIR ACCUSSORS AT TRAIL. Except, the Child Protect Act laws guarantee the anonymity of this caller. Hence the catch-22 situation.
Do you believe a person should be allowed to commit fraud and not be held to account by force of law? Apparently you do when it comes to children.
And once again, why was Utah able to investigate and charge Warren Jeffs without seizing hundreds of mothers and children, for their own protection, mind you?
Is Texas charging these men with slavery? Why haven’t they done so? They are being held by the state, against their will, while the state interviews these people searching for crimes. That is not due process, that if state sponsered kidnapping. The state of Texas is violating these women’s 13th amendment rights, but I suppose that is OK because “it’s for the good of the children.”
When does Texas get charged with holding these people against their will? hahahaha, like that could happen. America has become the movie “Brazil” and it’s for our own good.
Please read my prior post and eplain how Utah was able to prosecute Warren Jeffs without seizing and holding every mother and child involved, but Texas couldn’t do likewise? Were these people in Texas not doing the exact same vile crap Jeffs was? >>> We all believe and presume that they were. <<< Some seem to have the misguided notion that upholding the Constitutional rights of ALL Americans implies one must therefore support polygamy. That’s absurd.
My Constitutional rights are equal to those of my children. However, as is evidenced by this case, Texas certainly doesn’t see it that way, nor apparently do many posters on this thread.
So had Jeffs been with these women, that would have required the state of Utah to seize these women too and hold them against their will? Utter b.s. and you know it.
Um, actually, Texas DOES take nearly every pregnant 14 year old from their family until they complete their investigation.
Which part of “It was NOT an anonymous call.” do you not understand? You just continue basing your ridiculous arguments on lies.
Which part of “They knew this cult had encouraged the rape of girls before, so that gave weight to the complaint.” do you not understand?
The woman is already facing charges for several other hoax calls she made. They have not definitively connected her to every call made. If they do, they’ll charge her.
The fact that you think that Texas is somehow conspiring with some criminal in Colorado is just laughable.
When Texas prosecutes non-polygamous guys sleeping with more than one woman, ping me.
Adult women and women not subject to deceptive bigamists can generally fend for themselves, thank you...minors can't...or you offer up your own 12 yo daughters and nieces, Auntie, to "walk down the aisle" in a mock wedding, somewhere?
When Texas starts doing what they did to the the FLDS to every pregnant teen-ager, ping me.
Ding-a-ling. Ding-a-ling. Hello? "Teen-agers" = 19 & below. Texas law already recognizes your "every pregnant teen-ager" rhetoric doesn't apply as it says 17-19 yo can fend for themselves and that the bulk of 16 & under pregnancies involve juvenile males.
When they break-up every 16-year old shackup situation, ping me.
What is this, a commercial for 16-yo "shackup situations" with 50 yo married men? (Or even 16- yo "shack-up situations" with younger adult men?) If you want to the law to "look the other way" then just advocate that family, friends & neighbors of "16 yo shack-up situations" to "look the other way" and not report anything.
So Texas takes EVERY pregnant 14-year old from their family? Or just the polygamous ones?
As mentioned above, the bulk of 14 yo pregnancies (which would mean some of these 14 yo were pregnated at age 13) in normal situations involve juvenile males, not adult already-married men.
But, boy with your kind of non-sequitors, maybe the porn film industry has an opening for somebody who could defend their age-of-consent law change lobbying efforts???
I have no idea what you’re talking about. The ‘women’ being ‘held’ are or were underage when they had babies. There are no ‘women’ being held.
Assuming they are going back. What has changed from the initial situation they were removed from?
>>”Donny and Marie may need to do a fund raiser...”<<
The Osmonds aren’t members of the Flds. WHy would they have to raise money?
The children has temporarily been placed in custody because they have found credible evidence of abuse.
The hearing as to if they will be permanently placed in the custody of the state hasn't occurred yet.
The court first needs to identify all the children and do it's best to make sure their parents are notified and have a chance to respond before the hearing.
The government isn't responsible for thier mistakes because by god acting on an anonymous phone call, one which by law must remain anonymous, is acting in good faith.
The phone call was a credible source because the person calling had enough knowledge about the FLDS to make it sound credible, and a number of members of the FLDS have already been successfully prosecuted for similar crimes.
That convinced a judge to issue a warrant. The children were taken into temporary custody, not simply because of a charge made by an anonymous source, but because of evidence found during the raid.
No where does the U.S. Constitution state that you have a right not to incrminate yourself.
I don't understand your basis for this particular part of your rant. These people aren't being forced to testify against themselves.
No where does it state that you cannot have your property searched and your children kidnapped by the government based on fraud.
The FLDS ranch may very well have been searched based at least in part on a fraudulent phone call. However, the police had good reason to consider the call credible. The constitution protects us against unreasonable searches. Given not only the call, but past criminal activities by FLDS members, the search was reasonable.
As I said before the Children were taken into custody based on the evidence they discovered during the raid, not simply based on what appears to be a fraudulent phone call.
No where does it state that you have the right to face your accussors.
How are they being prevented from facing their accusers? Are you suggesting that the government has to invite suspects into court and allow them to face off with anyone making allegations that go towards getting a warrant before a warrant can be issued?
Suspects are entitled to face their accusers in court. They don't have a right to face their accusers before evidence can even be gathered.
No where does it state that you have a right to a speedy trial.
The court isn't needlessly delaying proceedings, and if anything the FLDS is obstructing the proceedings. The court had to order the DNA testing before they could even tell if they were properly notifying the people they needed to before they proceedings could start.
Your right to a speedy trial doesn't mean that the government has to criminally charge someone and try them for a crime immediately after they find an evidence that a crime may have been committed and before they have a chance to properly gather evidence.
Oh wait, it does state all those things. I must have just missed the part of the U.S.Constitution where the government was granted the right to kidnap your kids, without due process, for your childrens for their own good.
Do I need to point out the irony of demanding a speedy trial even before criminal charges have been filed, and the custody issue, which is a civil matter is still in the preliminary hearing stage, and immediately following it with a complaint about due process?
What violations of due process do you think have occurred?
You are doing exactly what you are accusing the government of doing. You're making a bunch of unsubstantiated augments, and stringing them together to make them sound credible because if you make so many claims of constitutional violations there must be some basis to at least one of them.
If any time a witness lied to the police and then that information was used to get a search warrant, all evidence gathered under that search warrant had to be thrown out then crook could avoid being prosecuted for crimes simply by having their friends lie to the police.
If the police catch one suspect in a crime and he rolls on his accomplices, but his testimony is a mixture of lies and truth, the evidence gained through the warrants would be thrown out.
The constitution requires the government to have reasonable suspicion to believe that a crime has been committed before a search can be performed. It doesn't require that the suspicions all turn out to be accurate.
Excellent points, but I fear they will be falling on deaf ears. The FR jury, judges and Mormon-haters have already convicted every man in the compound/s with child rape. They overlook that there were monogamous relationships at YFZ and other “compounds”.
In fact, they have gone as far as to lay guilt on non-affiliated LDS members, as well. Truly sad, but mob-mentality is the rule here. Normally sound-minded conservatives have turned into a zombie-like lynch mob BEFORE ALL THE FACTS ARE IN.
For those of you that have short term memories I will remind you again that I have said “I will buy the rope to hang them with when the alleged perverts are convicted by a jury of their peers”. Some here are so lame that they just don’t get it, even when repeated a hundred+ times.
When they have evidence the parents play a role in arranging for that child to be raped it does.
When they break-up every 16-year old shackup situation, ping me.
So if Texas hasn't already apprehended every other pregnant, 16-year girl, regardless of how the situation differs, they can't apprehend these 16 year old girls? Do I really need to explain how ridicules that argument is?
When Texas prosecutes non-polygamous guys sleeping with more than one woman, ping me.
Polygamy is against the law. Sleeping with multiple women isn't. For there to be polygamy they have to have entered into what would otherwise be legal marriages.
It is quite possible that many of these men aren't legally committing polygamy. It only one of the "marriages" is legal, it's not legally polygamy.
However, regardless of if they are committing polygamy it's still illegal for a significantly older man to have sex with a young girl.
Some might have avoided being prosecuted for rape if they were legally married to the 16 year old girls, though that wouldn't work for the younger ones.
“They overlook that there were monogamous relationships at YFZ...”
Please show the proof and the source. Thanks.
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.