Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille
Again, how is this phone call anonymous? And how are the police to know that it is fraudulent at the time? The woman who allegedly made this call is good at it, she sounds like a scared teenager when she does it. She's also mentally ill.
In general, your method is a very poor one and there's a reason why DCFS does not operate that way. It would have a much greater potential for leading to a seriously injured or dead child. Teachers/daycare staff and doctors are already mandated reporters. If they see something they have to tell someone. If they're not seeing something interviewing them is a waste of their time.
I'm not arguing outcome with you, I know we agree on that, I'm talking about how this process is a necessary one and one that does not tramp on civil rights. Usually the police are not as involved in a DCFS investigation, at least not initially, but there was a threat of harm and everything was on a large scale.
|
How do you understand what would normally happen if such a call came into the police station? I don't think the default response is that the police have a right to search the house of the accused, but maybe I'm wrong.
I wasn't saying that the appropriate response to a suspicion of child abuse by a person willing to be identified to the police in real life is a big retro-active investigation with the usual reporters.
I think the response to a call that says, "I'm Ugaalum and my next door neighbor is abusing his child" is for the police to immediately go to my next door neighbor's door and talk to him to determine if there's exigent circumstances or signs of imminent threat. But my phone call alone shouldn't be enough to establish that there are, particularly if the police don't know who I am or if I really am who I claim to be. And it shouldn't be the case that judges would typically give warrants based on anonymous calls alone, even in claims of abuse.
If a kid is interacting with many mandatory reporters and no one has made a report, there's all the more reason for the police to exercise caution if a call comes in, and there are many avenues of investigation other than the search warrant if when the police go to the door they can't establish exigent circumstances.
In this YFZ case, all the usual and additional methods of establishing probable cause are limited and there are no mandatory reporters, so figuring out how to proceed is really hard. If "everybody" suspects polygamy and child abuse, why would it rightly come down to the phone call to prompt the raid? And, if it is as I hope, that there is additional evidence, I'd rather see that evidence as the basis for the warrant rather than the problematic phone call.
Similar action based only on similar phone calls would create civil rights issues.
Threaded Mode
