|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events In the News Broken bones and possible boys molested at FLDS compound|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Sorry don't work that way. Read the articles again, the state doesn't have to know it was fake in criminal matters, or not, it just won't count, if it is... The "good faith", only applies in civil matters, which is what child abuse is and molestation is, don't agree with that concept, but hey, I didn't write the laws... Don't argue with me on it, read the articles and take it up with those that did... Respectfully, SUNLINER81 |
|||
|
|
Member |
Some articles from late last night.
Update on the Children Article about the lawyers-- I have alot of respect for these lawyers, most of them are not from family law firms and are working double time to study up. The sad part is one of the biggest problems the lawyers face is finding out if the children they represent are even siblings at all... it's one big mess. Social worker article-- and this is more about the social workers and the mothers of the children. As I've said before, I have no doubt that these mothers love their children, but if the child abuse is true, it scares me to think that these women either let it happen or thought it was ok... and that is in any situation, not just regarding the FLDS. |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
I wonder what people think now, after reading the articles? I guess I was saying most of that, but people still think that these women, are mindless, crucified in the press, in a rush to judgment, that there are Constitutional issues and that the children were "ripped" from their Mothers and that there may in fact be abuse of the children in foster homes and that there was no abuse of the children in their homes. I expressed crudely, as the "cr-p sandwich and we will all have to take a bite", I apologize for that analogy, but I hope that now, some of the folks on here can see that I may have been emotional in my expression of worry, but that what I said was, in fact the reality of the situation...
One more point, please don't confuse the FLDS, with the LDS, they are two different religions... Respectfully, SUNLINER81 |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
SUNLINER81 YOU need to go read up on the SC decisions about evidence gathered in "good faith". Per these decisions and assumming that in ths case LEO acted in good faith (thought the call was real) at the time the evidence for criminal conduct was found the SC rulings will allow the evidence to be used for criminal prosecution. PS read what the SC wrote not an article. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Here's an example...
Say my neighbor is mad b/c a branch from our tree fell onto her car in a storm... so she makes a call to a family violence shelter and pretends to be my 14 year old daughter that says we're beating her. CPS, DFPS, and LE show up at my house with a warrant to search the premises for 14year old Kelly... only there is no 14 year old Kelly, I only have a 2 year old. Upon their search for the 14 year old Kelly, they find marijuana in the shed in our back yard. Now CPS takes my kid away and I'm investigated for drugs... Even though that warrant was based on a bogus call, LE found evidence on my property that was being searched that pertained to another crime, not the girl they were searching for. Because that evidence was found, now a seperate investigation is going on about the drugs, it's not about the 14 year old Kelly any more. That evidence that they found would still be admissable in court because it pertained to another crime and to investigate that crime, they had to get another warrant about that crime. So now in the custody hearing for my child, the judge finds the evidence admissable that my child was in danger and puts her in foster care. Meanwhile, criminal charges are being brought up against me for the drugs... that evidence, because it was admissable in a court room by another judge for a civil case, now becomes that much more legitimate to the criminal charges because now I'm guilty of endangering a child AND possession. Now, my attorney can still come around and challenge the evidence that was found on the bogus warrant, but depending on the evidence that was obtained to support the charges brought against me, the judge may tell my attorney to stuff it... or she may turn around and say "yeah the drugs are inadmissable, but you were still endangering a child". It's all about what the evidence is and how it pertains to the charges brought against me... it also depends on the judge. Texas Judges are sticklers for going by the book, and in this case, the book and the SCotUS say that if that initial warrant is in good faith and the LE are searching on "good faith" any evidence they find for other crimes during that search is still admissable. DISCLAIMER: THIS STORY IS COMPLETELY FABRICATED FOR THE SAKE OF EXPLANATION... Another example, a guy calls the cops on his neighbors for leaving their cat out, when the officers come to the man's house that made the call initially to find out where he saw the cat, blah blah blah, they smell him smokin pot... sorry charlie... if a crime or evidence of a crime is done or found in the presence of an officer, that officer has the right to arrest/detain/seek a warrant/seek an investigation against the person(s) and the crime or evidence that he saw. |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Believe that is "civil" not "criminal" prosecution, that you are referring to... Respectfully, SUNLINER81 |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
All the other warrants were issued after they entered the compound and they were all warrants that will be prosecuted under "civil" statutes, which they can be, the SCOTUS has ruled such, however any "criminal" complaints, the ones with the stiffer penalties, can't be. I am not saying they can't be prosecuted, they can be, just on the civil warrants, not the criminal warrants, I think that is the point you are not understanding. That the more stiffer penalties and fines cannot be handed down that you would have gotten from criminal prosecution versus civil prosecution... Also the articles that have been referenced, so far, have alluded to the fact that the children do not appear to have been abused, neglected or harmed in any way. They have also alluded to the possibility that some of the children may have been harmed in foster care and that siblings have been separated and no records of where they went after separation has been kept. Not only have the mothers, when they have been interviewed, according to the articles, not been brainwashed robots, but have been observed to be intelligent, well informed and apparently caring and concerned mothers, that's from the articles that other posters on this thread have supplied. My point is, now that the dust has begun to settle, it appears, that some may have acted in haste and jeopardized the criminal prosecution aspect of the case, provided evidence of wrong doing is found. Also, these "spiritual marriages" between women and men of legal age, may not be prosecutable, because, there has only been one man to one woman legally married to each other, in the eyes of the state of Texas, in these plural marriages and that the "spiritual marriages" of legal adults, did not have any marriage licenses or were in no way conducted in a manner to be legally recognized as a marriage. In other words, it was a case of a man and a wife, legally married, having shack ups with multiple women in their home, between the man and the other women. There was no law broken, since there was no attempt to legalize the "spiritual marriages" with the state of Texas. Where law was broken, is if the females were under aged, then the crime is not bigamy, but statutory rape. Those allegations of statutory rape, have yet to be substantiated. The crime of statutory rape will have to be prosecute civilly, not criminally, because the original warrants, two, for the arrest of Barlow and the search warrant for Sarah Barlow, were on fictitious data and the doctrine of "fair discovery" doesn't apply to criminal prosecution, only to the crimes, if any, that will be prosecuted "civilly"... Respectfully, SUNLINER81 |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
This is the criminal application of the "good faith exception" per SCOTUS: US v. Leon: Facts of the Case The exclusionary rule requires that evidence illegally seized must be excluded from criminal trials. Leon was the target of police surveillance based on an anonymous informant's tip. The police applied to a judge for a search warrant of Leon's home based on the evidence from their surveillance. A judge issued the warrant and the police recovered large quantities of illegal drugs. Leon was indicted for violating federal drug laws. A judge concluded that the affadavit for the search warrant was insufficient; it did not establish the probable cause necessary to issue the warrant. Thus, the evidence obtained under the warrant could not be introduced at Leon's trial. Question Is there a "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule? Conclusion Yes, there is such an exception. The justices held that evidence seized on the basis of a mistakenly issued search warrant could be introduced at trial. The exclusionary rule, argued the majority, is not a right but a remedy justified by its ability to deter illegal police conduct. In Leon, the costs of the exclusionary rule outweighed the benefits. The exclusionary rule is costly to society: Guilty defendants go unpunished and people lose respect for the law. The benefits of the exclusionary rule are uncertain: The rule cannot deter police in a case like Leon, where they act in good faith on a warrant issued by a judge. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_82_1771/ |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Leon was issued on the issuance of a valid warrant. Hudson v Michigan was ruled on the "knock before enter". The decision stated that police did not have to knock before entering, for the warrant to be valid and that anything observed was admissible in a court of law, the exclusionary rule did not apply. Now, what does both of these sited cases have to do with Eldorado? Both cases, involve warrants issued by informants, on correct data, not false data. The "good faith" doctrine applies to officers being held responsible for the serving of a warrant on false data, in that they acted on "good faith" and had no criminal intent. The exclusionary rule still applies, when a warrant is issued on false data, that any observed evidence can be used, but under civil statute, not criminal, because the burden of proof for a criminal prosecution is a higher standard than for a civil prosecution. Even though during a search evidence of other crimes is observed, they cannot be held to the higher but the lesser of the standards, thus the exclusionary rule applies for the purpose of criminal prosecution only. Civil prosecution standards still apply... Respectfully, SUNLINER81 ADDED NOTE: There are four exclusionary rules to the "Good Faith Exception", in this case, rules two and three apply and a sharp lawyer will in all probability use them to get the "Good Faith Exception" to the initial arrest warrant for Barlow and the search warrant for "Sarah" thrown out... Respectfully, SUNLINER81 This message has been edited. Last edited by: SUNLINER81, |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
If men are charged with sex crimes against underage girls, the rule of "inevitable discovery" will apply, given the DNA testing. Underage girl (and her DNA) with infant (and the baby's DNA) + DNA from a man more than four years older = statutory rape. |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
There have yet to be any warrants issued for that AND it will be applied civilly, not criminally... I believe I already brought up the fact of statutory rape... Respectfully, SUNLINER81 |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Since when is statutory rape a civil complaint? Exceptions to the rule: Even when the Exclusionary Rule does apply, the rule excludes the illegally obtained evidence only on the issue of the defendant's guilt for the particular crime charged. The evidence can still be admitted to impeach the credibility of the defendant's trial testimony; however, this exception applies only if the defendant testifies, and the evidence is relevant to call into question the truthfulness of the defendant's testimony. The inevitable discovery doctrine is a direct exception to the exclusionary rule, in that it allows the admission of evidence on the issue of the defendant's guilt where the evidence would otherwise have been excluded. This doctrine was adopted first by the United States Supreme Court in Nix v. Williams in 1984. It holds that evidence obtained through an unlawful search or seizure is admissible in court if it can be established, to a very high degree of probability, that normal police investigation would have inevitably led to the discovery of the evidence. This decision was upheld because given the fact that the exclusionary rule was created specifically to deter police and state misconduct, excluding evidence that would inevitably (hypothetically) have been discovered otherwise would not serve to deter police misconduct. In People v. Stith, the Court stated that this doctrine may not be used to admit primary evidence but only secondary evidence, i.e. evidence found as a result of the primary evidence. The attenuation exception to the exclusionary rule is that evidence may be suppressed only if there is a clear causal connection between the illegal police action and the evidence. The evidence must result from the unlawful conduct. A three-pronged test was created in People v. Martinez to determine whether there was sufficient attenuation of this connection ( i.e. the lack of connection between the disputed evidence and the unlawful conduct): (1) the time period between the illegal arrest and the ensuing confession or consensual search; (2) the presence of intervening factors or event; and (3) the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct. The independent source exception allows evidence to be admitted in court if knowledge of the evidence is gained from a separate, or independent, source that is completely unrelated to the illegality at hand. This rule was formally accepted in People v. Arnau. The good-faith exception may allow some evidence gathered in violation of the Constitution if the violation results in only a minor or technical error. If a magistrate is erroneous in granting a police officer a warrant, and the officer acts on the warrant in good faith, then the evidence resulting in the execution of the warrant is not suppressible. However, there are a number of situations in which the good faith exception will not apply: 1. No reasonable judicial officer would have relied on the affidavit underlying the warrant. 2. The warrant is defective on its face for failing to state the place to be searched or things to be seized. 3. The warrant was obtained based on an affidavit which, intentionally or recklessly, includes material falsehoods. 4. The magistrate has "wholly abandoned his judicial role." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Believe what you wish, but if you had bothered read the court decisions others posted on this subject you would know that the FACTS contradict what you want to believe. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Question about that... Does the state have the "leeway" to make the charges against the man if statutory rape is proven or do they have to give the option of pressing charges to the girl or her parents since she is/was a minor? |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
The state CAN press charges, and I suspect they will, now that all the children are in state custody. Therefore, the children are "wards of the courts", and Texas is their guardian. Criminal charges are more probable if there is a "pattern of abuse" and if the parents are reluctant to see such situations as a crime against a child. |
|||
|
|
Member |
|
