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.
PING!!
Some good legal stuff in this one.
FReepmail to be added to the FLDS Eldorado Legal Case Ping List
The fact it has taken a month for this to come out just shows how incompetent the reporting has been on this story.
Ping
Donny and Marie may need to do a fund raiser...
The legal fees are going to get big fast...
So the only problem now is convincing the state of Texas that they are co-operating with honesty and integrity, something they’re not known for doing and something they haven’t done in the past.
Have you noticed the similarities between them, who advocate and encourage their followers to lie to the outside world which they teach is of the devil, and other groups? That sure sounds awfully familiar. I wonder where I could have heard that from? (Yeah, right)
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.
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. No where does the U.S. Constitution state that you have a right not to incrminate yourself. No where does it state that you cannot have your property searched and your children kidnapped by the governement based on fraud. No where does it state that you have the right to face your accussors. No where does it state that you have a right to a speedy trial.
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. Ah, now I feel better. So glad the government is here to protect me from myself, what a relief knowing this.
If you abuse your children, you don’t deserve to have them.
I shake my head in wonder at those who opine thus from their safe academic stronghold. I recall a scene from the original “Airport” movie in which a stewardess had succeeded in wresting an exploding briefcase from a deranged passenger, only to have an officious, sniffy-nosed woman snatch it back from the stewardess and restore it to the mad bomber.
Acting absent the facts is never a really good idea.
P.S. My idea would be to hand back the boys and keep the girls in care. If they are really such an attractive religion, they will soon attract more eager wimminfolk and since the eye is now upon them, might possibly treat them somewhat better.
So Texas takes EVERY pregnant 14-year old from their family? Or just the polygamous ones?
When Texas starts doing what they did to the the FLDS to every pregnant teen-ager, ping me. When they break-up every 16-year old shackup situation, ping me. When Texas prosecutes non-polygamous guys sleeping with more than one woman, ping me.
so long as some murderers walk free, no murderer can be apprehended. yeah, that makes sense.
“Ah, now I feel better. So glad the government is here to protect me from myself, what a relief knowing this.”
The government could care less about protecting you from yourself. The government cares about protecting your children from you. And the evidence of need for that is ample.
The mark of a great religion-—
If you open the gates, do people pour in or walk out?
The call wasn’t “anonymous”.
Checking out a report of an abused child by using a legal warrant is not “a mistake”.
There are no criminal charges yet, so your burbling about “facing accusers” and “speedy trials” don’t really apply.
Just because you don’t like the outcome doesn’t mean these people have not had “due process”. The laws regarding the removal of children were followed. Go whine to the Texas government if you don’t like their laws.
Children are not property. Their right not to be abused trumps the rights of their parents to run a brothel.
There’s some rule that the police have to get every other rapist before they can get the flds rapists?
Wow, that’s a new one on me.
If any partner in any above scenario wasn’t there by free will, yes, the onus is on removal.
I don’t think they’d take pregnant girls involved in consensuous, non-statutory rape relationships.
The argument here is that the pregnant teens are in non-consensual relationships with men above the statutory rape limit.
Having worked in a CPC for three years, allow me to say that any pregnant teens who claim the baby daddy is above the statutory rape line (varies from state to state) MUST be reported to the police - it’s the law.
In three years, we had two men we had to report. Virtually all the pregnant girls claimed the baby daddy was at or near their age.
When they keep on making babies to put on welfare for the money, that is fraud, and we the tax payers have to foot the bill.
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.