Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I think that many of us are curious about what other information the police had, especially considering that it doesn't seem that the specific circumstance related to the call can be substantiated. What did the phone call add to the mix that was missing before? If everyone locally knew/suspected what was going on, why did it take such a lame standard of proof to tip the scales?

I know that the police have to get a search warrants, but I think the standards for the warrants are shockingly low sometimes. Think about some of the no-knock raid-gone wrong stories that have come out this year (there was an especially bad one in Atlanta last year). Sometimes the standards to get the warrants deeply flawed, and it's really creepy from a civil liberties perspective, even when you are glad about the outcome, like in this case.

Okay so if you know there's a FLDS "compound" or "ranch" or what-have-you, you already have some idea exactly what is happening there, but you have no evidence. You get a call with specific information, names and locations and ages. "Yes" you think, "a chance to at LEAST check this place out and at MOST shut them down." You show up and there are over 400 children there. You can't find "Sarah" or at least, no one admits to being her. You do find 12-16 year olds with children and older teens with multiple children.

According to Texas' law, where you cannot marry under the age of 16/consent to sex even WITH parental permission, this means something illegal is happening. Add in the knowledge you have about the FLDS church and you know exactly what is happening.

At this point you have to take the children. And you can't leave some behind, there's a chance they'll disappear. There's a pattern of repeated abuse and exploitation, and it's crazy to leave children in a habitually abusive home. These policies were put in place before they ever thought they'd need to remove 400 children at once, but they make sense.

And generally, the last thing that DCFS/CPS wants is to take children away. Usually the family is the best place for the child, even if it isn't perfect. (Or from a heartless perspective it's all about the $$$).

[jon1856]

^^^^^^^Very well presented and said.

And add the following to it:
More teenage mothers emerge in Texas polygamy probe
SAN ANGELO, Texas (Reuters) - Texas authorities said on Thursday they identified 25 more mothers below age 18 among those removed from a polygamist compound, raising to about 460 the number of minors at the heart of a huge abuse probe.
An apparent phone tip earlier this month led to a raid on the ranch in a remote part of west Texas and the removal of the children. The compound is linked to a breakaway Mormon sect and is run by followers of jailed polygamist leader Warren Jeffs.
Texas welfare and law enforcement officials say they have uncovered evidence of widespread child abuse on the grounds, with adolescent girls being forced into unions with much older men.
http://www.reuters.com/article/domes...e=domesticNews
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24294759/

And then you find this:
Sect challenges legality of search warrant, raid
CNN) -- Authorities knew that reports of alleged abuse at a polygamist sect's Texas ranch were questionable before they raided the compound, attorneys for the ranch's families said in court documents
The attorneys are arguing that search warrants were wrongly issued in the case.
A state official responded that the initial reports don't matter at this point, because "we found children being abused."
More than 400 children were taken during the raid at the YFZ (Yearning for Zion) Ranch on April 3.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/24/...aid/index.html

Polygamist Sect Mothers Separated From Children After Legal Efforts to Stay Fail

SAN ANGELO, Texas — Dozens of mothers from a polygamist retreat were bused away from their children Thursday, their legal efforts to stay united rejected as Texas officials sort out their massive custody case.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352530,00.html

How DNA tests reveal polygamist sex practices

Cheek swabs of 437 children can uncover family ties and criminal behaviors

Officials in Texas just finished collecting cheek-swab samples from the 437 children and alleged parents in order to determine who is related to whom.
The children were removed from a polygamous commune in Eldorado earlier this month during a raid sparked by reports of sexual abuse of underage girls. According to news accounts of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Eldorado, pubescent girls were forced into "spiritual marriages" to older men.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24297292/
"Sexual consent
Results could have legal implications, including any evidence for possible statutory rape, which includes individuals below a certain age deemed legally incapable of consenting to sexual activity. In Texas, 17 is the minimum age, making it illegal for anyone under the age of 17 to engage in sexual activity with another who is at least three years their elder. (An individual must be at least 16 years old to enter into a legal marriage in Texas.) "
"Incestual relations?
The DNA testing could also provide incest clues.
Though no evidence of incest has been reported in the current case, the Texas Department of Public Safety is conducting the criminal investigation of possible sexual abuse at the Eldorado compound, also called the Yearning for Zion ranch.
"We assisted Child Protective Services in serving a search warrant at the YFZ ranch. While we were there, we observed activity that led us to believe that there may be some crimes that were occurring," said Tela Mange, a spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Public Safety. "We obtained a second search warrant. And we are in the process of conducting a criminal investigation."
The investigation does include looking into possible "sexual abuse," Mange told LiveScience. "We haven't been more specific than that at this point."

"Incest is a statutory crime, and is defined as sexual intercourse between close blood-relatives. The prohibited degrees of incest vary from state to state and can include brothers and sisters, parents and children, aunts or uncles with nephews or nieces, and grandparents and grandchildren.
In Texas, it is illegal for a person to have sexual relations with: a current or former stepchild or stepparent, an uncle or aunt (or half uncle or half aunt), or a brother or sister (or half brother or half sister), according to the Texas Attorney General's office."

I just had this rather unpleasant thought: Given the every other Fundamentalist/polygamous group has to be watching this, why do I fear a large up-sale of cool-aid? And I am not trying to be funny here.
If you have read any of the books, their leaders/Prophets can say just about anything is the word of G*D and must be followed.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Okay so if you know there's a FLDS "compound" or "ranch" or what-have-you, you already have some idea exactly what is happening there, but you have no evidence. You get a call with specific information, names and locations and ages. "Yes" you think, "a chance to at LEAST check this place out and at MOST shut them down." You show up and there are over 400 children there. You can't find "Sarah" or at least, no one admits to being her. You do find 12-16 year olds with children and older teens with multiple children.

According to Texas' law, where you cannot marry under the age of 16/consent to sex even WITH parental permission, this means something illegal is happening. Add in the knowledge you have about the FLDS church and you know exactly what is happening.

At this point you have to take the children. And you can't leave some behind, there's a chance they'll disappear. There's a pattern of repeated abuse and exploitation, and it's crazy to leave children in a habitually abusive home. These policies were put in place before they ever thought they'd need to remove 400 children at once, but they make sense.

And generally, the last thing that DCFS/CPS wants is to take children away. Usually the family is the best place for the child, even if it isn't perfect. (Or from a heartless perspective it's all about the $$$).

I was really just thinking about the standard to get the warrant for the first raid. Once they were there, no doubt the actions they took were the correct ones.

Here's the thing: if all it takes to get a warrant when we suspect what's going on and yet can't work up enough evidence to get a warrant based on what we think is up, is an anonymous phone call, then we basically create a situation where there's an incentive for suspicious folks to fake phone calls, and some of the raids based on fake phone calls will turn out to be without merit.

I'd rather we used a better standard to establish the cause for the original warrant. Consider a different circumstance in which people suspected abuse, maybe WASPs in the the suburbs who grow suspicious of their Muslim neighbor's treatment of his daughters. Would you be cool with a warrant based on an anonymous phone call in that case?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I was really just thinking about the standard to get the warrant for the first raid. Once they were there, no doubt the actions they took were the correct ones.

Here's the thing: if all it takes to get a warrant when we suspect what's going on and yet can't work up enough evidence to get a warrant based on what we think is up, is an anonymous phone call, then we basically create a situation where there's an incentive for suspicious folks to fake phone calls, and some of the raids based on fake phone calls will turn out to be without merit.

I'd rather we used a better standard to establish the cause for the original warrant. Consider a different circumstance in which people suspected abuse, maybe WASPs in the the suburbs who grow suspicious of their Muslim neighbor's treatment of his daughters. Would you be cool with a warrant based on an anonymous phone call in that case?

Again, how is this an anonymous phone call? "Hi, my name is Sarah and I'm married to ____ Barlow. I'm his 7th wife. I'm 16. I'm pregnant. I live on FLDS Ranch. They're going to hurt me if they find out I called you"

The woman who they suspect of making this call, who apparently has Dissociative Identity Disorder and a history of doing this, will still get in trouble. She doesn't get a pass. Although apparently she does an impressive scared teenager impression, the person who received the call was shocked.

If you got a phone call that included the following information: "My name is Jane and my daddy touches me at night. I'm going to have a baby. My address is 123 Main Street." WTF are you going to do but go to that house and find out if JANE is being abused or not!

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Again, how is this an anonymous phone call? "Hi, my name is Sarah and I'm married to ____ Barlow. I'm his 7th wife. I'm 16. I'm pregnant. I live on FLDS Ranch. They're going to hurt me if they find out I called you"

The woman who they suspect of making this call, who apparently has Dissociative Identity Disorder and a history of doing this, will still get in trouble. She doesn't get a pass. Although apparently she does an impressive scared teenager impression, the person who received the call was shocked.

If you got a phone call that included the following information: "My name is Jane and my daddy touches me at night. I'm going to have a baby. My address is 123 Main Street." WTF are you going to do but go to that house and find out if JANE is being abused or not!

^^^Agree. It is NOT as if an officer went out side of the PH and called it in off of a pay phone or something.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Again, how is this an anonymous phone call? "Hi, my name is Sarah and I'm married to ____ Barlow. I'm his 7th wife. I'm 16. I'm pregnant. I live on FLDS Ranch. They're going to hurt me if they find out I called you"

The woman who they suspect of making this call, who apparently has Dissociative Identity Disorder and a history of doing this, will still get in trouble. She doesn't get a pass. Although apparently she does an impressive scared teenager impression, the person who received the call was shocked.

If you got a phone call that included the following information: "My name is Jane and my daddy touches me at night. I'm going to have a baby. My address is 123 Main Street." WTF are you going to do but go to that house and find out if JANE is being abused or not!

Originally Posted by jon1856

^^^Agree. It is NOT as if an officer went out side of the PH and called it in off of a pay phone or something.

But I think you invite the level of officers or private individuals making such calls when they have suspicions, even if they aren't grounded in actual evidence.

If I got such a phone call, I'd call the cops. If the cops got such a phone call, I'd expect them to investigate the claim, but I wouldn't expect a judge to give them a search warrant to conduct a raid unless we could establish first that even such a person existed, which can't actually be done in this case.

I'm happy about the outcome here, but I'm not interested having the standard be something like "forget long established civil liberties*, as long as the outcome pays off."

*like: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It's not just a problem with the person who placed the phone call; it's a problem with allowing the use of a faulty standard of proof that eventually is likely to affect not just the guilty as in this case, but all of us. Look at the other thread about the cops shooting the innocent guy more than 50 times. It's really hard to make the general case that the big problem is that our standards for police action are too high.

ETA: the fact that the call wasn't placed by the person named in the call makes it worst than an anonymous call. It's actually a fraudulent call.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

But I think you invite the level of officers or private individuals making such calls when they have suspicions, even if they aren't grounded in actual evidence.

If I got such a phone call, I'd call the cops. If the cops got such a phone call, I'd expect them to investigate the claim, but I wouldn't expect a judge to give them a search warrant to conduct a raid unless we could establish first that even such a person existed, which can't actually be done in this case.

Fraudulent calls are illegal. If an officer made them the case would be thrown out and if a citizen made them they'd be arrested. That's how this policy works.

Ok so if you as a child services worker or police received such a call, they should "investigate" but not go to the house? This was only a "raid" because it was on such a large scale. It was only on such a large scale because we're talking compound not private residence.

What's the burden of proof here, you want them to go find Jane's birth certificate first so you know she exists? Talk to teachers? Talk to everyone except for Jane, the 15 year old pregnant girl being molested by her father?
The one who might be in serious danger if her father finds out she called?

I'm happy about the outcome here, but I'm not interested having the standard be something like "forget long established civil liberties*, as long as the outcome pays off."

*like: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Probable cause is an allegation of child abuse where there needs to be an in person investigation (warrant) to determine the veracity of the complaint. What is the burden of proof you want for a child abuse situation?

It's not just a problem with the person who placed the phone call; it's a problem with allowing the use of a faulty standard of proof that eventually is likely to affect not just the guilty as in this case, but all of us. Look at the other thread about the cops shooting the innocent guy more than 50 times. It's really hard to make the general case that the big problem is that our standards for police action are too high.

Strawman.

What burden of proof would you have found acceptable in this case?

ETA: the fact that the call wasn't placed by the person named in the call makes it worst than an anonymous call. It's actually a fraudulent call.

Yes, and (as far as we know to this date) the police/DCFS operated in good faith on that phone call. They went to find the abused child, they found what they have called widespread abuse of children and they acted as they would have if they'd found abuse during a domestic violence call, a traffic stop, a drug bust, etc.

[UGAalum94]

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.