|
Drolefille,
Are you really saying that you are satisfied with the use of fraudulent phone calls in police obtaining search warrants?
I'm not, and that's the only point I'm really trying to make.
I'm happy the kids are out of there. I hope the case stands up in court. I don't want to see kids remain in abusive situations.
The fact that the police relied on an anonymous call which later turned out to be fraudulent is a bad thing, and it's not a strawman argument to speculate about how basing future warrants on a similar standard of proof could be even more troublesome. Anonymous calls shouldn't be enough to allow a search of a house. If the other evidence used in the warrant is solid, an unsubstantiated phone call really shouldn't even be needed.
ETA: I saw where you asked me what standard would have been ok in this case. The honest answer is that I don't know because I don't know what other evidence they had on which to base the suspicion. This case is especially complicated like I mentioned earlier by the limited contact the kids and women had with the outside world. (In our theoretical other cases, I think we could often conduct interviews with school, daycare, church personnel or doctors to determine if there was any merit to the call or if it was a case that suggested immediate harm, the police could actually go to the door and request to speak with the named person from the call to see if the situation did support the idea that someone was at imminent risk or exigent circumstance actually existed.) But with this compound, I just don't know. The fact remains that a fraudulent/anonymous phone call shouldn't be the thing that tipped the scales. It's a really troublesome standard.
Last edited by UGAalum94; 04-26-2008 at 02:32 PM.
|
Threaded Mode
