3 ms·

I'm curious as to why this didn't fall under inevitable discovery? I imagine that a dead 6 year old, having received blows to the stomach, would warrant an act

I'm curious as to why this didn't fall under inevitable discovery? I imagine that a dead 6 year old, having received blows to the stomach, would warrant an actual investigation and (most likely) the phone records of everyone at the scene could have been subpoenaed.

vacri 14y ago
What would be the link between suspecting a child died of abuse and applying for a warrant to read text messages?
- hannibalhorn 14y ago
  1) Generally speaking, a dead kid gives the police a LOT of leeway. 2) If they suspected somebody at the scene of having knowledge as to the culprit, I think most judges would have allowed them access to phone records for everyone at the scene during the time period in question. Basically, this wasn't a stoner crossing the border that might have had photos of himself smoking something illegal, this is a dead kid, and I'm pretty sure the cops would have asked for those records in due course. And I'm pretty sure a judge would have said yes.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    The kid wasn't dead when the phone was searched, and there was, as the court itself noted, no evidence of wrongdoing apparent the the officer who conducted the illegal search. But that's besides the point. "Inevitable discovery" does not simply mean what it sounds like on a message board thread. It is not an invitation for the police to sieze everything they can and then come up with a compelling story for how they would have found it anyways. In particular: when the evidence in question is the direct result of an illegal search, its inevitability probably doesn't matter. If the officer had a grave suspicion of wrongdoing, he had available to him a mechanism to search the phone: he could have arrested its owner or any other occupant of the house. What he can't do, at least without a warrant, is walk around someone's private home without permission and search their belongings. Had the message been flashing on the front of the phone, it would have been in plain sight and probably have been allowed. The message was not in plain sight.
tptacek 14y ago
Inevitable discovery doesn't generally apply to primary evidence, which this clearly was: the officer saw the phone, picked it up, and searched it without even an incident arrest, let alone a warrant.
philip1209 14y ago
I am curious about how HIPAA plays into this - specifically, if the doctors did not contact the police stating that the injuries required further investigation, was there any further basis for investigating wrongdoing by the parents?

vacri 14y ago

What would be the link between suspecting a child died of abuse and applying for a warrant to read text messages?

hannibalhorn 14y ago
1) Generally speaking, a dead kid gives the police a LOT of leeway. 2) If they suspected somebody at the scene of having knowledge as to the culprit, I think most judges would have allowed them access to phone records for everyone at the scene during the time period in question. Basically, this wasn't a stoner crossing the border that might have had photos of himself smoking something illegal, this is a dead kid, and I'm pretty sure the cops would have asked for those records in due course. And I'm pretty sure a judge would have said yes.
- tptacek 14y ago
  The kid wasn't dead when the phone was searched, and there was, as the court itself noted, no evidence of wrongdoing apparent the the officer who conducted the illegal search. But that's besides the point. "Inevitable discovery" does not simply mean what it sounds like on a message board thread. It is not an invitation for the police to sieze everything they can and then come up with a compelling story for how they would have found it anyways. In particular: when the evidence in question is the direct result of an illegal search, its inevitability probably doesn't matter. If the officer had a grave suspicion of wrongdoing, he had available to him a mechanism to search the phone: he could have arrested its owner or any other occupant of the house. What he can't do, at least without a warrant, is walk around someone's private home without permission and search their belongings. Had the message been flashing on the front of the phone, it would have been in plain sight and probably have been allowed. The message was not in plain sight.

tptacek 14y ago

Inevitable discovery doesn't generally apply to primary evidence, which this clearly was: the officer saw the phone, picked it up, and searched it without even an incident arrest, let alone a warrant.

philip1209 14y ago

I am curious about how HIPAA plays into this - specifically, if the doctors did not contact the police stating that the injuries required further investigation, was there any further basis for investigating wrongdoing by the parents?