Whoa! Polygamist solution is frightening...

[Newman]

Originally Posted by The Mrs

At this time, there are approximately 50 adults of the 175 that have submitted to the DNA testing ordered by the judge.

If they are innocent, they should all be lining up as quickly as possible.

OK.... 2nd response to same issue after learning new information. Authorities now claim there are 462 minors because of the addition of mothers who claimed to be adults but are now thought to be under age of eightteen.

The legal technicality in Texas is that sex between older teenagers (perhaps 16 and 17)? and adults is not legal unless they are married. Of course "spiritual marriages" would not count as legal marriages.

If I was the lawyer for the fathers who had underage wives, I would probably advice them not to take DNA test which could potentially lead to incarceration. I would argue in court that such a "search" is a violation of my client's civil rights because the phone call was a hoax and the rest has been over-reaching on the government's part. They didn't have a valid basis to go in there in the first place.

Unless, CPS is going after all unmarried minor mothers and adult fathers through out the state of Texas; this is religous persecution. (Remember, Texas leads the nation in teenage births and one out of four of those mothers has already had at least one other child).

[Newman]

Originally Posted by Kae

This isn't the first time that this has happened to the FLDS. It is almost like history repeating itself. The Short Creek raid of 1953 resulted in 36 men being arrested and 86 women and 263 children taken into custody. After two years they all went back.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1...269050,00.html

This also happened to the twelve tribes when they were accused of abuse and they did find evidence, but were not allowed to pursue it due to the unconstitutional way they did the raid. They rounded up 112 children and took custody. The judge immediately sent them back.

http://upstreamzine.wordpress.com/20...-vermont-cult/

Kae- This was great reading. Especially the attorneys brief regarding Vermont case. Same scenario but it might be a different result this time given America's increasing hostility towards religion.

We will know alot more on Tuesday when the mothers attorneys are in front of a higher level judge on appeal. Maybe I can stop posting until then and get some work done....

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Newman

They didn't have a valid basis to go in there in the first place.

As long as the Judge who signed the order believed that the warrant was true and it meets the reasonableness standard it remains a valid search.

It doesn't matter if the information turns out to be false.

[Newman]

Originally Posted by SOUNWORTHY

The paper said these children seemed happy, they had in many cases not seen TV. They were very polite. Let's put them in foster homes where they can watch sex and violence on TV, play violent video games and be rebellious like many of our American children. By all means when they become teenagers supply them with condoms, we want them to have a real childhood experience. they can join a few gangs or get into drugs. It is unthinkable to keep our children sheltered. I wonder how many murders, robberies and drunken brawls they had in their compound the past year or more.

[Newman]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

As long as the Judge who signed the order believed that the warrant was true and it meets the reasonableness standard it remains a valid search.

It doesn't matter if the information turns out to be false.

Are you a Texas attorney? Do you think a raid days after the time they could have traced the hoax phone call to Colorado is reasonable? Do you disagree that the DNA search was beyond the scope of their initial search for Sarah?

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Newman

Are you a Texas attorney? Are you talking about the extended search of DNA?

Just talking about 4th Amendment jurisprudence as it relates to search warrants. The information doesn't have to be true as long as it is reasonable and it wasn't "knowingly false."

No I am not licensed in Texas.

[Barb]

Not having followed this thread or the news reports, I must say that as this is your field of expertise, Newman, I trust your experience and judgment.

[Newman]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Just talking about 4th Amendment jurisprudence as it relates to search warrants. The information doesn't have to be true as long as it is reasonable and it wasn't "knowingly false."

No I am not licensed in Texas.

I am not a criminal attorney but based on my reading in this case it appears that Texas has a tighter standard on faulty searches which I can't easily find now nor do I have the time (having spent so much time posting already).

But do you think it reasonable to not have traced the phone call to Colorado before conducting a raid almost a week later?

Whatever the case, we will know alot more on Tuesday.

[Newman]

Originally Posted by Barb

Not having followed this thread or the news reports, I must say that as this is your field of expertise, Newman, I trust your experience and judgment.

Hehehe Thanks friend. But in every case there are usually right and wrong attorneys depending on the judge that day.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Newman

I am not a criminal attorney but based on my reading in this case it appears that Texas has a tighter standard on faulty searches which I can't easily find now nor do I have the time.

But do you think it reasonable to not have traced the phone call to Colorado before conducting a raid a week later?

Whatever the case, we will know alot more on Tuesday.

Texas may indeed have a more limiting standard for warrants. Constitutionally under the Fourth Amendment and the Courts interpretation in Illinois v. Gates...

The rigid "two-pronged test" under Aguilar and Spinelli for determining whether an informant's tip establishes probable cause for issuance of a warrant is abandoned, and the "totality of the circumstances" approach that traditionally has informed probable cause determinations is substituted in its place. The elements under the "two-pronged test" concerning the informant's "veracity," "reliability," and "basis of knowledge" should be understood simply as closely intertwined issues that may usefully illuminate the common sense, practical question whether there is "probable cause" to believe that contraband or evidence is located in a particular place.